Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 You are entitled to your opinion and my opinion is that your view if that is your view that the Civil War did more harm than good is much closer to being a fairy tale. And you're entitled to your opinion as well, though you've done little to support or even explain it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) 1. The South did not enter into war over slavery. An argument can be made that they seceeded over slavery (a poor one), but they entered into war because they were attacked by the North, who were attempting to deny them their sovereignty. A sovereignty they had always enjoyed, until the time of the Civil War, as the United States was a voluntary union. Let me know when you claim your Pulitzer. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Q. What caused the Civil War? While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries." Edited June 25, 2015 by joesixpack
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Let me know when you claim your Pulitzer. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Q. What caused the Civil War? While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries." You idiot, your source states that Lincoln attacked because he refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy. You just thwarted your own argument.
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 And you're entitled to your opinion as well, though you've done little to support or even explain it. What? That the civil war wasn't something that benefited many people in this country and was a force for good? Sorry, when someone asks me something that is a given, I don't feel the need to have to explain why that is the case. I am more than happy to get in discussions about many different topics and go into detail about them, as I have proven on this board for years, this is not one of them, because I can't !@#$ing believe that anyone is making the case that the Civil War wasn't a good thing.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 You idiot, your source states that Lincoln attacked because he refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy. You just thwarted your own argument. And you're entitled to your opinion as well, though you've done little to support or even explain it. That's because he uses his feelings as his only definitive source of information.
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 What? That the civil war wasn't something that benefited many people in this country and was a force for good? Sorry, when someone asks me something that is a given, I don't feel the need to have to explain why that is the case. I am more than happy to get in discussions about many different topics and go into detail about them, as I have proven on this board for years, this is not one of them, because I can't !@#$ing believe that anyone is making the case that the Civil War wasn't a good thing. Then maybe you shouldn'comment on it. Maybe it's a topic you aren't terribly informed about. It sounds like you have unquestioningly accepted conventional wisdom as fact, and the questioning of that conventional wisdom makes you uncomfortable. If you want to share your insight it helps to have some. TGreg has taken a similar position to yours but has actually added something of value to the conversation.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 You idiot, your source states that Lincoln attacked because he refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy. You just thwarted your own argument. My argument was they had NO sovreignty. Which, based on later supreme court decisions WAS the proper interpretation of the law. Learn to read troll.
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Let me know when you claim your Pulitzer. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Q. What caused the Civil War? While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries." The substance of your argument aside, claiming someone who won an award said this so it must be true is about as weak as it gets. Deference to authority arguments are inherently weak, but this is extremely weak even among those.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) The substance of your argument aside, claiming someone who won an award said this so it must be true is about as weak as it gets. Deference to authority arguments are inherently weak, but this is extremely weak even among those. Translation: "Someone who's more educated than I am on the topic disagrees with me. I don't care. They're wrong, I'm right." Also, there's the small matter of the firing on Fort Sumter. Edited June 25, 2015 by joesixpack
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 My argument was they had NO sovreignty. Which, based on later supreme court decisions WAS the proper interpretation of the law. Learn to read troll. So the court of the conquerors said the conquerors were in the right. Well I guess that settles it. Translation: "Someone who's more educated than I am on the topic disagrees with me. I don't care. They're wrong, I'm right." That's pathetic.
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 My argument was they had NO sovreignty. Which, based on later supreme court decisions WAS the proper interpretation of the law. Learn to read troll. It was? 1. The South did not enter into war over slavery. An argument can be made that they seceeded over slavery (a poor one), but they entered into war because they were attacked by the North, who were attempting to deny them their sovereignty. A sovereignty they had always enjoyed, until the time of the Civil War, as the United States was a voluntary union. Let me know when you claim your Pulitzer. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Q. What caused the Civil War? While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries." Sounds like you were arguing the cause of the War. Especially because your quoted excerpt says nothing about the sovereignty of the South, other than Lincoln didn't like it. Do less.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) It was? Sounds like you were arguing the cause of the War. Especially because your quoted excerpt says nothing about the sovereignty of the South, other than Lincoln didn't like it. Do less. Funny that you, of all people, are telling me to "do less" further exploring: Q. Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law." Edited June 25, 2015 by joesixpack
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 further exploring: Q. Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law." So we have, at the very best, a war of aggression that wouldn't be legally justified until it was over. You know who else legalized invasions when they were over?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 So we have, at the very best, a war of aggression that wouldn't be legally justified until it was over. You know who else legalized invasions when they were over? Wait for it...WAIT FOR IT....
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Then maybe you shouldn'comment on it. Maybe it's a topic you aren't terribly informed about. It sounds like you have unquestioningly accepted conventional wisdom as fact, and the questioning of that conventional wisdom makes you uncomfortable. If you want to share your insight it helps to have some. TGreg has taken a similar position to yours but has actually added something of value to the conversation. I'll comment on what I damn please... If TGreg has the patience to go into detail on something that I believe to be a given, good for him. I will spend my time going into detail about things that I find interesting and I certainly don't go into detail vs fringe positions.
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Wait for it...WAIT FOR IT.... I'm actually wondering if you do. What are your thoughts on Lincoln?
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 My argument was they had NO sovreignty. Which, based on later supreme court decisions WAS the proper interpretation of the law. Learn to read troll. Then your argument is one completely vacant of any historical understanding. The several states, when they entered into the union voluntarily, all agreed that they had the right to exit. Many state Constitutions, pre-dating the US Constitution, expressly state that they have that right. The US Constitution was constructed as a cage for the Federal government, listing every item that the Federal government enjoyed authority over. Any issue not specifically outlined as the within the authority of the Federal government was expressly granted to the states themselves, or to the individual citizens. The fact that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to deny individual states their sovereignty and right to seceed places that right in the hands of the several states. Further, the fact that our government was founded based on disolving of ties to it's prior government, as outlined in it's origional founding declaration alone destroys your position. Finally, the absurdity of the backwards attribution of future laws as final proof that the right to seceed never existed prior to the Civil War might be the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I'm actually wondering if you do. What are your thoughts on Lincoln? Lincoln was a man dealt a ****ty hand.
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Lincoln was a man dealt a ****ty hand. Lincoln was a tyrant.
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I'll comment on what I damn please... If TGreg has the patience to go into detail on something that I believe to be a given, good for him. I will spend my time going into detail about things that I find interesting and I certainly don't go into detail vs fringe positions. Go for it dude. Some may think it absurd to comment on things you're uneducated about and disinterested in, but it's really your choice.
Recommended Posts