|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:56 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Quote: By what authority are my claims valid? The South was a completely different nation than the North. Ft. Sumter was known as Southern territory regardless in your belief in the CSA or not.
But justified by who's belief in the Confederacy? Not the Union's. They felt the fort was theirs. Not Britain or France's, neither officially recognized the CSA. Only by the claims of South Carolina did someone proclaim it southern, and while they were briefly able to take the fort by force of arms, within four years General Sherman's troops were there to reestablish Union military control. Again, your position is simply that what is accomplished under force of arms is the sole source of legitimacy, in which case I remind you the south lost that fight in the end. So, appearantly, Sumter wasn't known as southern territory, at least not in as far as it was ever recognized outside the south and southern control could not be maintained in perpetuity.
Quote: Who were you waiting for? God to come swooping down to say who supernaturally runs what?
I guess that's it huh? George Washington was just throwing stones at the ocean from 1781 to 1783 till God came down and proclaimed an independant US. The treaty of Paris and British and French recognition of the US had nothing to do with it. I guess it's God who told us how the partition of the Palestinian Mandate was to be organized into Israel and an Arab state, and UN resolutions had nothing to do with it. Again, I already stated the mechanisms by which states are legitimately sovereign. Your position that legitimacy follows de facto control also countenances the legitimacy of the Union re-establishing control over the south. I mean, after all, what were you all waiting for, God to come in and tell you your Confederacy would be independant in spite of the Union victory?
Quote: Now under your arguement, the only sovereign leaders are the ones to originally control the territory.
Nice straw man. That's not my argument at all. My argument is that bilateral and multilateral mechanisms legitimize the sovereignty of a state. Sometimes people do get a raw deal in that, mostly on the end where multilateral legitimacy stems in spite of a refusal to grant bilateral recognition. You don't have to go as far back as the natives to find a great example of that, it's happening today in Kosovo. Yugoslavia refuses to recognize Kosovar independence, but the US does. It bears mention that Kosovo never fought a war for independence, US forces moved in to prevent a genocide and expelled Yugoslav forces. Then, under a UN mandate, the territory existed free of Yugoslav control and declared its independence. Yugoslavia can't do much about this. The Kosovars could not, in a conflict, defend their own independence against Yugoslav forces. However, the US recognizes the legitimacy of Kosovo, and should Yugoslavia invade, we will fight to defend this recognition.
So did the natives get a raw deal? Yes, absolutely. Those were much less civil times governed much more by the might makes right mindset. However this does not preclude US claims to independence over the territory. Most of the native dispossessions of the 13 colonies occured under the auspices of the British empire. When the US was recognized as independant, it was over territory that had previously been recognized as British and not native. The British government, indeed, was starting to get into the business of providing legal protections for the natives and agreements that presaged a more formal and general recognition of native sovereignty under certain definitions. The American Revolution changed that and the Northwest Territories were recognized as American territory multilaterally. So, while the subsequent expansions into that territory and expulsions of the natives are a deep sin of this nation, the US did have a legitimate claim to be in the territory under the Treaty of Paris. The further westward expansion, also a deep stain on this nation, were under internationally recognized territorial grants among which include: The Louisiana Purchase Treaty, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the Oregon Treaty.
So no, American legitimacy resides in the numerous treaties of recognition and territorial expansion which it engaged in with other nations. It also bears mention that the sovereign native governments on the reservation also exist by treaty with the United States in which the US grants sovereignty to these areas.
Quote: Germany did hold sovreign control over Europe. Japan did hold sovereign control over the Phillipines. Sovereignity is just the matter of controlling an area. Does it mean that that territory was rightfully theirs? No.
And that is the problem of the reductive dictionary definition you provided for sovereignty. Sovereignty is an advanced concept. Consider, for example, the wikipedia article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
The article even prefaces:
Quote: Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself.
Emphasis added. Sovereignty is not merely a status of control, but it is a right to that control. Rights are not clouds of breath drawn in from the ether at our whim, they are recognized fundmanetal principle excercises. You concede that the territory was not rightfully theirs, but sovereignty requires the right to rule an area. It is not a matter of simple de facto control. Otherwise we would have no such principle as legitimate sovereign control. We would just have land that a power controls and land it doesn't. There would be no France for Allied troops to have liberated, because France ceased to control territory. The only thing that maintained a France to be liberated was the notion that a legitimate sovereign authority called France existed whether German troops controlled its territory or not.
Quote: Yes, but are there supernatural forces dictating that non-original governments are de facto? Or course not!
A statement like that demonstrates a tenuous grasp of abstact principles, akin to shouting "witchcraft" at the intangible. But once again, the intangible you seek to burn at the stake should burn well, for it is made of straw. I never advanced the argument that original governments are eternal. I advanced the argument that bilateral and multilateral mechanisms legitimize the sovereignty of a state. While treaties and the rule of law might be some wacky form of hoo-doo to you, understand that most principles and concepts society operates on are drawn from the same intangible ectoplasm. You might recognize some of these as that old ghost called "stare decisis" upon which our form of common law is dependant, or that mystical little elf called "rights not enumerated in the Constitution" upon which most of our day to day freedoms are protected while not being codified, or how about those whirling dervishes known as laws themselves, since treaties are simply another form of law that functions between nations as opposed to between men. Yup, supernatural forces all of them. We're not much on that fancy abstact thinkin' round here.
"Foreign Recognition has absolutely nothing to with a nation's existance. Where do you get this crap?"
Probably things like the Peace of Westphalia (established Switzerland), the Treaty of Paris (formal recognition of US independence), The Treaty of London (formally established the independence and Nuetrality of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), The Treaties of Velasco (established the Lone Star Republic), The Treaty of Frankfurt (formal French recognition of unified Germany), The Treaty of Versailles (created a laundry list of states that bounced in and out of existence/independence over the next 100 years, but notable among them are Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), The Treaty of Lausanne (recognized modern Turkey), various UN proclaimations establishing a variety of recognized countries including North and South Korea, various acts of the US Congress that have recognized the independence of numerous states.
There's also stunning examples of places like Chechnya, which, despite the ability to fight off Russian troops for many years was never able to obtain international recognition of its independence. Chechnya today is a semi-autonomous region under the control of Russia. The Kurds have been clamoring for a state of their own for some time, but devoid of international support continue to remain a diaspora. Taiwan has full de facto control over formosa, and they have the military capacity to defend the island for some time if push comes to shove. The US refuses to recognize Taiwan as independant, and so Taiwan remains a "rebel province" of China. The Palestinian Authority is the Palestinian Authority. It is not the State of Palestine. This is because no other organ in the world recognizes it as a sovereign state.
So, to answer your question, I get this "crap" from 500 years of history and international diplomacy functioning from the dawn of the modern era up to even today.
Quote: And I know that's a load of crap about the North not supporting the end of Slavery.
You're welcome to site any policy proposed from 1840 on to the dawn of the Civil War that would have ended slavery. Name just one. Yes, there was a northern abolition movement. There was also significant opposition in the north to ending slavery. Particularly northern labor feared a large influx of freed blacks from the south who would undercut wage advances they'd made. These classes were among those who routinely sided with the Democratic party for years and helped it attain the dominance it enjoyed for decades before the war. Again, site actual abolition policies brought before the government. You can't. Northern abolitionists just didn't enjoy that sort of power until a slew of intrusive pro-slavery policies impacted the north.
Quote: and any Northern Senator would have jumped at the opportunity to end it.
Appearantly you've never heard of Stephen A. Douglas. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:59 pm
|
|
|
|
Garrett31212 Even so, I never saw convincing the majority as a point of America. In regards to the Civil War, I see two different nations of people with two different economies. I also see the smaller one wanting to break away peacefully, so that they will not be subject to the bigger nation who would destroy their economy. Tell me, if a one world government was suddenly formed, and every single person in the world was given representation, and every single person outside of America voted to ruin the American economy, would America not be justified in secession because they failed to convince every one else otherwise? Outlawing Slavery would have decimated the Southern economy.
If a world sovereign would be made, and we were represented person for person, and everyone decided to ruin us that would be highly unthoughtful, but the South really wasn't as reliant on slaves as you think. They had to pay for 'housing,' food, just not labor, and all the slaves wanted was freedom and equal treatment, and if they happened to be able to be free before, then they would pay a little over what they 'payed' them at the time with the housing and food. And many northern farmers at the time had people that worked on their farms live in a seperate house-like property on the land, just as the slaves, and some even in the house. So all they would have done was not fed them, and payed them... and they could pay there own food, and other accessories.
But the reason they suceeded was due to the voted president being against slavery, doesn't mean anything would have been done... and Lincoln wasn't planning to run into office and just instantly disclose slavery, I'm sure time to prepare would have been made. The south didn't think about other things such as human rights, and the fact that financial issues could have been done. Most southern farms were prosperous due to the cotton that was used very much in the north, and yes the price might be raised a little, but that would only allow a small recession, but eventually the economy would have been fixed anyway, look at it now, no slaves, but we are living just fine.
If slavery was the only reason the south was to suceede maybe I could understand a little more, but this doesn't account for the fact of the harsh racism, the horrible, and gruesome treatment of slaves both during, before, and just over a century after, the Civil War. Yes, the North had it's share of problems too, but the South was known to be worse until about 30-40years ago! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:58 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: I could really care less what other nations think about ours. American legitimacy lies in the fact that we're here, we have our own government and the fact that we enforce that with our military.
That's an interesting position since even the Confederacy vigorously sought recognition from the international community. It also falls flat once a nation can't militarily back its claims, vis a vie Kuwaite and Iraq. If the only legitimacy we look at is the military power to enforce ones existence, then we were essentially in Iraq in 1991 under flase pretenses, since Kuwaite enjoyed no right to its territory save its military ability to defend it. Under similar pretexts, the Confederacy enjoyed no right to its territory save its ability to defend it, and ultimately was unable to. In as much, by your own argument, the Confederacy lacked legitimacy through the ex post facto outcome that it could not defend it against Union forces.
Quote: Britain and France do not decide which nations are real, and which nations are fake.
You should add the US to that, except that we have been in that very business since World War II, and don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. We decided that Israel, South Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwaite, the Baltics, and Kosovo were all real nations. We continue to deny that Taiwan, Kurdistan, Chechnya, and Palestine are all real nations. So, contrary to your assertions, major powers DO determine which nations are real and which aren't.
Quote: You keep sounding more and more like a globalist.
Not particularly. I'm simply being more realistic about how a nation legitimizes itself. There is no supreme global authority. Within the context of a nation, where there is a supreme national authority, disputes such as borders between the lower polities can be settled by the higher authority. The global stage, lacking such an authority, is anarchic. There is no one to issue a proclaimation settling disputes over territories and regions. Thus, only two real reliable ones exist. There's the more hopeful one, the bilateral agreement, in which the two parties just settle on agreeable terms themselves. Then there is assent of the whole, multilateral proclaimation that states that the world as a whole recognizes the claim. Unilateral decree has a fundamental drawback, that's when the other party doesn't think your decree is legitimate and spends the next four years stomping you into the ground to emphasize this point.
Quote: All these treaties you keep citing are nothing more than that declaration.
Actually, no, treaties have the force of law within ratifying nations. So, no, they're not just declarations unless you are willing to say laws themselves are nothing more than declarations. And if laws themselves are nothing more than declarations, then they are either a. toothless and useless, or b. just a trumped up pretext for rulers to arbitrarily exert power over you. Since the whole point of the American Revolution was to reject concept b., and the point of the Constitution was to do away with a., I dare say the common view of the United States is that laws are more than mere declarations. Therefore treaties are not just declarations, they are laws between agreeing states.
Quote: I also liked how you claimed the Merriam-Webster dictionary isn't a legitimate source, and you cited Wikipedia, which is universally recognized as unreliable. It's not even allowed on High School or College papers.
An expedient. Your definition was weak and reductive, and I countered with the first one I found that demonstrated this. You were more than welcome to provide a source stipulating that a right to rule is not needed, but you went the lazy route as well. So, now you get a source from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford good enough for you):
Quote: Each component of this definition highlights an important aspect of the concept. First, a holder of sovereignty possesses authority. That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A’s ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed.”[1] What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority from some mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy -- natural law, a divine mandate, hereditary law, a constitution, even international law. In the contemporary era, some body of law is ubiquitously the source of sovereignty.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/
Quote: Sovereignty is simply the act of controlling.
Oh, than quite simply southern sovereignty was overturned by the Union Army. Simple, neat, and by every argument you've provided, no less legitimate than the actual secessions that started the war.
Quote: As for my proof of the North exerting it's will over the South? Try the Emancipation Proclamation. By simply issuing such a proclamation, the President Lincoln was implying that he still controlled the South, so your arguements of "hurting the Southern war effort" are irrevelent.
Now you're officially placing the chicken before the egg. The issue was the south breaking away BECAUSE the north was trying to impose its will, not actions taken after the attempted separation. But the mere fact that you've had to delve into something that happened during the war rather than in the runup to it proves my point. The south was at no risk in the decades leading up to the war that the north was going to abolish its slave system. Objection to the system was only really galvanized by constant southern agitation over the matter. As for Lincoln implying he still controlled the south, he directly said the south was in rebellion, necessary to such claim is that the Union still had the right to control the territory. Nice attempt to move the goalpost, but not so fast. The debate on that was over southern motivations to separate, not arguments of what happened after the fact with regards to the slave issue. As for the hurting the war effort argument, it's perfectly relevant. Prior to Antietam the Union was already entering Confederate territory in the west and was freeing slaves as a means of damaging the agricultural basis of the south. This was before the Emancipation Proclaimation. So, yeah, the argument is completely relevant. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:31 pm
|
|
|
|
The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 Even so, I never saw convincing the majority as a point of America. In regards to the Civil War, I see two different nations of people with two different economies. I also see the smaller one wanting to break away peacefully, so that they will not be subject to the bigger nation who would destroy their economy. Tell me, if a one world government was suddenly formed, and every single person in the world was given representation, and every single person outside of America voted to ruin the American economy, would America not be justified in secession because they failed to convince every one else otherwise? Outlawing Slavery would have decimated the Southern economy. If a world sovereign would be made, and we were represented person for person, and everyone decided to ruin us that would be highly unthoughtful, but the South really wasn't as reliant on slaves as you think. They had to pay for 'housing,' food, just not labor, and all the slaves wanted was freedom and equal treatment, and if they happened to be able to be free before, then they would pay a little over what they 'payed' them at the time with the housing and food. And many northern farmers at the time had people that worked on their farms live in a seperate house-like property on the land, just as the slaves, and some even in the house. So all they would have done was not fed them, and payed them... and they could pay there own food, and other accessories. But the reason they suceeded was due to the voted president being against slavery, doesn't mean anything would have been done... and Lincoln wasn't planning to run into office and just instantly disclose slavery, I'm sure time to prepare would have been made. The south didn't think about other things such as human rights, and the fact that financial issues could have been done. Most southern farms were prosperous due to the cotton that was used very much in the north, and yes the price might be raised a little, but that would only allow a small recession, but eventually the economy would have been fixed anyway, look at it now, no slaves, but we are living just fine. If slavery was the only reason the south was to suceede maybe I could understand a little more, but this doesn't account for the fact of the harsh racism, the horrible, and gruesome treatment of slaves both during, before, and just over a century after, the Civil War. Yes, the North had it's share of problems too, but the South was known to be worse until about 30-40years ago!
Okay you do realize the concept of human rights didn't exist back then right? Even today it's just an idea that the UN likes to push as a fact. Also, the only reason you think of rascism as a bad thing is because you were raised to think of it as a bad thing. Back then, Rascism was just normal. Racism and human rights, like most other political things are just ideas.
And yes, the South was dependant on Slavery. The South's economy was centered around cotton plantations. Without workers, the economy would have fallen apart.
As for Lord Bitememan: Way to twist my words. We entered Kuwait in 1991 to wrestle the oil fields of the nation out of Saddam's fists. Saddam controlled Kuwait from the beginning to the end of the war. Kuwait could defend itself if it chose to, but never the less Saddam controlled it until we stepped it. The Confederacy's legitimacy relied in the fact that it was a working government over the Southern territory and the fact that the North no longer controlled the area. You've pointed out that the Confederacy was defeated by the North, and I'm not going to deny that the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore. Taiwan is in fact a real nation. It has it's own government and the Chinese do not currently control the island. They just claim too. Kurdistan is not a nation because it does not have a working government, and the Kurds themselves are nomads. They claim a homeland, but they do not control it. Palestine is not a real nation, because it as well lacks a working government. Chechnya is not a real nation, because when it declared it's independance after the break-up of the Soviet Union the Russians invaded and took control of the territory again. Israel, South Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwait, the Baltics, and Kosovo all have working governments. A military or its equivalent (Costa Rica's police forces) simply can help a government maintain control over the territory. Foreign recognition plays no role in the existance of a nation.
Also, you have failed to explain to me what gives a ruler or a nation the authority to be independant. I've said in the past that one nation may see something as rightful and another may not. You've said yourself that there is no supreme world authority. So what gives the world's major powers the right to decide what is rightful?
Another thing your arguement conflicts with one of the Union's founding principles. The idea that the colonists used to justify their secession from the British Empire. The idea that all government operates on the consent of the governed, and that the governed could remove their consent at any time. It's apparently clear that in cases such as the Civil War that Southerners removed their consent to be governed from the United States of America and gave it to the Confederate States of America. The Southerners did not want a a union with the North because they did not want the influence of the North bothering in their politics. What justifies the Union is going and forcing them to return their consent? Isn't that hypocritical against the very reason that the Union existed in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Garrett31212 The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 Even so, I never saw convincing the majority as a point of America. In regards to the Civil War, I see two different nations of people with two different economies. I also see the smaller one wanting to break away peacefully, so that they will not be subject to the bigger nation who would destroy their economy. Tell me, if a one world government was suddenly formed, and every single person in the world was given representation, and every single person outside of America voted to ruin the American economy, would America not be justified in secession because they failed to convince every one else otherwise? Outlawing Slavery would have decimated the Southern economy. If a world sovereign would be made, and we were represented person for person, and everyone decided to ruin us that would be highly unthoughtful, but the South really wasn't as reliant on slaves as you think. They had to pay for 'housing,' food, just not labor, and all the slaves wanted was freedom and equal treatment, and if they happened to be able to be free before, then they would pay a little over what they 'payed' them at the time with the housing and food. And many northern farmers at the time had people that worked on their farms live in a seperate house-like property on the land, just as the slaves, and some even in the house. So all they would have done was not fed them, and payed them... and they could pay there own food, and other accessories. But the reason they suceeded was due to the voted president being against slavery, doesn't mean anything would have been done... and Lincoln wasn't planning to run into office and just instantly disclose slavery, I'm sure time to prepare would have been made. The south didn't think about other things such as human rights, and the fact that financial issues could have been done. Most southern farms were prosperous due to the cotton that was used very much in the north, and yes the price might be raised a little, but that would only allow a small recession, but eventually the economy would have been fixed anyway, look at it now, no slaves, but we are living just fine. If slavery was the only reason the south was to suceede maybe I could understand a little more, but this doesn't account for the fact of the harsh racism, the horrible, and gruesome treatment of slaves both during, before, and just over a century after, the Civil War. Yes, the North had it's share of problems too, but the South was known to be worse until about 30-40years ago! Okay you do realize the concept of human rights didn't exist back then right? Even today it's just an idea that the UN likes to push as a fact. Also, the only reason you think of rascism as a bad thing is because you were raised to think of it as a bad thing. Back then, Rascism was just normal. Racism and human rights, like most other political things are just ideas. And yes, the South was dependant on Slavery. The South's economy was centered around cotton plantations. Without workers, the economy would have fallen apart.
Like I just explained, it wasn't as dependent as you're making it!
Anyways, yes I understand the fact that many of todays concepts are taught to us since children, and it was natural back then. But even if you take out the racism plenty of people had already realized that it was getting out of hand, the beatings... or there would have been no conflict whatsoever
(I hope you're not getting agitated because it kinda seems like it's 2 to 1 right now... so sorry... hope you stay in the guild wink ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:37 am
|
|
|
|
The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 Even so, I never saw convincing the majority as a point of America. In regards to the Civil War, I see two different nations of people with two different economies. I also see the smaller one wanting to break away peacefully, so that they will not be subject to the bigger nation who would destroy their economy. Tell me, if a one world government was suddenly formed, and every single person in the world was given representation, and every single person outside of America voted to ruin the American economy, would America not be justified in secession because they failed to convince every one else otherwise? Outlawing Slavery would have decimated the Southern economy. If a world sovereign would be made, and we were represented person for person, and everyone decided to ruin us that would be highly unthoughtful, but the South really wasn't as reliant on slaves as you think. They had to pay for 'housing,' food, just not labor, and all the slaves wanted was freedom and equal treatment, and if they happened to be able to be free before, then they would pay a little over what they 'payed' them at the time with the housing and food. And many northern farmers at the time had people that worked on their farms live in a seperate house-like property on the land, just as the slaves, and some even in the house. So all they would have done was not fed them, and payed them... and they could pay there own food, and other accessories. But the reason they suceeded was due to the voted president being against slavery, doesn't mean anything would have been done... and Lincoln wasn't planning to run into office and just instantly disclose slavery, I'm sure time to prepare would have been made. The south didn't think about other things such as human rights, and the fact that financial issues could have been done. Most southern farms were prosperous due to the cotton that was used very much in the north, and yes the price might be raised a little, but that would only allow a small recession, but eventually the economy would have been fixed anyway, look at it now, no slaves, but we are living just fine. If slavery was the only reason the south was to suceede maybe I could understand a little more, but this doesn't account for the fact of the harsh racism, the horrible, and gruesome treatment of slaves both during, before, and just over a century after, the Civil War. Yes, the North had it's share of problems too, but the South was known to be worse until about 30-40years ago! Okay you do realize the concept of human rights didn't exist back then right? Even today it's just an idea that the UN likes to push as a fact. Also, the only reason you think of rascism as a bad thing is because you were raised to think of it as a bad thing. Back then, Rascism was just normal. Racism and human rights, like most other political things are just ideas. And yes, the South was dependant on Slavery. The South's economy was centered around cotton plantations. Without workers, the economy would have fallen apart. Like I just explained, it wasn't as dependent as you're making it! Anyways, yes I understand the fact that many of todays concepts are taught to us since children, and it was natural back then. But even if you take out the racism plenty of people had already realized that it was getting out of hand, the beatings... or there would have been no conflict whatsoever (I hope you're not getting agitated because it kinda seems like it's 2 to 1 right now... so sorry... hope you stay in the guild wink )
Like Lord Bitememan said, we've broken down down the arguements past all the facts to our bare viewpoints. Neither of us are going to change our opinions. I will say that beatings were not as much of a situation as you may have been taught. Northern Abolitionists influenced Northern culture through books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin to make Slavery seem more brutal than it actually was. I'm going to assume that you're talking about flogging as a beating? Flogging was considered a common punishment for both slaves and members of the military. It had nothing to do with rascism or hate, but it was just the punishment of today, the same way a person now might be arrested or court marshalled against. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Garrett31212 The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 Even so, I never saw convincing the majority as a point of America. In regards to the Civil War, I see two different nations of people with two different economies. I also see the smaller one wanting to break away peacefully, so that they will not be subject to the bigger nation who would destroy their economy. Tell me, if a one world government was suddenly formed, and every single person in the world was given representation, and every single person outside of America voted to ruin the American economy, would America not be justified in secession because they failed to convince every one else otherwise? Outlawing Slavery would have decimated the Southern economy. If a world sovereign would be made, and we were represented person for person, and everyone decided to ruin us that would be highly unthoughtful, but the South really wasn't as reliant on slaves as you think. They had to pay for 'housing,' food, just not labor, and all the slaves wanted was freedom and equal treatment, and if they happened to be able to be free before, then they would pay a little over what they 'payed' them at the time with the housing and food. And many northern farmers at the time had people that worked on their farms live in a seperate house-like property on the land, just as the slaves, and some even in the house. So all they would have done was not fed them, and payed them... and they could pay there own food, and other accessories. But the reason they suceeded was due to the voted president being against slavery, doesn't mean anything would have been done... and Lincoln wasn't planning to run into office and just instantly disclose slavery, I'm sure time to prepare would have been made. The south didn't think about other things such as human rights, and the fact that financial issues could have been done. Most southern farms were prosperous due to the cotton that was used very much in the north, and yes the price might be raised a little, but that would only allow a small recession, but eventually the economy would have been fixed anyway, look at it now, no slaves, but we are living just fine. If slavery was the only reason the south was to suceede maybe I could understand a little more, but this doesn't account for the fact of the harsh racism, the horrible, and gruesome treatment of slaves both during, before, and just over a century after, the Civil War. Yes, the North had it's share of problems too, but the South was known to be worse until about 30-40years ago! Okay you do realize the concept of human rights didn't exist back then right? Even today it's just an idea that the UN likes to push as a fact. Also, the only reason you think of rascism as a bad thing is because you were raised to think of it as a bad thing. Back then, Rascism was just normal. Racism and human rights, like most other political things are just ideas. And yes, the South was dependant on Slavery. The South's economy was centered around cotton plantations. Without workers, the economy would have fallen apart. Like I just explained, it wasn't as dependent as you're making it! Anyways, yes I understand the fact that many of todays concepts are taught to us since children, and it was natural back then. But even if you take out the racism plenty of people had already realized that it was getting out of hand, the beatings... or there would have been no conflict whatsoever (I hope you're not getting agitated because it kinda seems like it's 2 to 1 right now... so sorry... hope you stay in the guild wink ) Like Lord Bitememan said, we've broken down down the arguements past all the facts to our bare viewpoints. Neither of us are going to change our opinions. I will say that beatings were not as much of a situation as you may have been taught. Northern Abolitionists influenced Northern culture through books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin to make Slavery seem more brutal than it actually was. I'm going to assume that you're talking about flogging as a beating? Flogging was considered a common punishment for both slaves and members of the military. It had nothing to do with rascism or hate, but it was just the punishment of today, the same way a person now might be arrested or court marshalled against.
Yeah, that does seem a little more sense... but breaking it down to the concept that a person, because they're a slave, has no freedoms, let's put down for instance that slaves had the same rights as everyone else, just weren't paid, would that be so bad? I understand the financial problems you are discussing, but it's not like it was necessary that a person be lower, a slave, and have a master, when you could just give them freedom, and not pay them, but house and feed them! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:56 pm
|
|
|
|
The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 First off, it isn't the choice of the federal government on who can secede and who cannot. It says nowhere in the constitution, "It is illegal for a state to secede". My opinions on racism? It's over, and any attempt to bring controversy to it (a.k.a Affirmative Action) is a turn for the negative. I actually agreeing a little with the secede-thing. Why? Well, as liberal as it may sound, not all states should have to stay part of a country, like if Puerto Rico decided to become a state, then they see they don't like our system, they should be able to leave. But I disagree with the reasoning for the southern states to leave, keeping slavery is very wrong, and to leave the states for that is just plain retarded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Naruto81191 The Hallowed Mouse Garrett31212 First off, it isn't the choice of the federal government on who can secede and who cannot. It says nowhere in the constitution, "It is illegal for a state to secede". My opinions on racism? It's over, and any attempt to bring controversy to it (a.k.a Affirmative Action) is a turn for the negative. I actually agreeing a little with the secede-thing. Why? Well, as liberal as it may sound, not all states should have to stay part of a country, like if Puerto Rico decided to become a state, then they see they don't like our system, they should be able to leave. But I disagree with the reasoning for the southern states to leave, keeping slavery is very wrong, and to leave the states for that is just plain retarded first off, liberals are suppose to be politcally correct =P "retarded" isnt exactly a politcally correct way of putting something now is it? as for racism, so called minorities have made themselves the majorities, and the only racism that still exists is not against people from differnet countires, such as Chinese, or African, its against your White american. id also like to point out that people of african descent claim they get "hated on" and its "hard" to be black in a white society. thats complete bullshit. the system is set up to protect blacks in almost every respect. if our goverment truly cared about racism, it would not allow blacks to openly say "******" and then make it illegal for whites to say "******" its one of the most stupid things ever. Next to hate crimes that is. while its a simple assualt charge for a black man to strike a white man, when a white man strikes a black man, its considered a hate crime, and the penalty is harsher. if anything its the entire system thats racist.
Eh, political correctness is always changin' so I kinda don't care, but I try to be the best possible! That and the Musical "Avenue Q" really made me laugh at political correctness... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
