Llama on 11/2/2011 at 15:17
Quote Posted by Queue
Why when the slave were already well hung themselves?
SEE... GOOD-NATURED RACISM, FOLKS!
u trollin...
Queue on 11/2/2011 at 15:20
Well one of us is.
the_grip on 11/2/2011 at 19:24
Quote Posted by Tocky
Forrest wasn't just a SOB he was one hell of a SOB. His victory over superior numbers at Brices crossroads is still studied at West Point. Of all southern Generals he was most brilliant in the heat of battle. After Shiloh he captured half of General Shermans troops on one side of a deadfall then, unsatisfied, rode across and into the other half hacking and slashing before he realized none of his troops followed. Sherman shouted "kill that bastard" whereupon a musket shot Forrest through the side, the ball lodging against his backbone. He responded by grabbing the soldier by the collar and pulling him onto the saddle as shield for his retreat.
I believe supposedly he subsequently rode back to his troops, beat some of them with the flat side of his sword, and then charged with them back into the fight totally routing the union troops.
He was one tough fucker and awesome as hell as a soldier and commander. That doesn't change the fact that he sucked everywhere else in life with the KKK etc., but, as a war figure, he is certainly the stuff of legend.
Sg3 on 12/2/2011 at 06:32
Quote Posted by Llama
Considering that the majority of southerners are conservative and conservatives pride themselves on being patriotic god fearing men... why would anyone honor someone or a group of people who mutinied, and are traitors to the United States government, our government, our nation. They tried to overthrow the government. That is very far from being patriotic. Anyone trying to overthrow the government is usually put in jail or killed. They should have hung every single one of those traitors.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I've long been under the impression that the South was in the right, going by the Constitution at the time. I don't think that one can fairly say that they were rebelling against their lawful government; and they certainly weren't trying to overthrow it. You see, originally, the Constitution was set up for the power to be with the state, not a Federal thingy. And that's what the war was about, to the Southerners. It was about states rights as much as it was about retaining their slaves.
Of course, they made themselves forever wankers because of the slavery. But what if slavery hadn't been the issue? Suppose that it'd been, um, taxation? Well, let's see; the U.S.A. was founded as a result of ... um, citizens rebelling against their government because of ... you see where I'm going here? Basically, the South were the bad guys only because of the slavery issue. If it weren't for that, most of us would probably be looking back on the War of Northern Aggression (as they call it in the South) as an example of the U.S. government being unjust, just as we do with the Federal war on American "Indians."
If I were King of the U.S.A. in 1860ish, I would have allowed the Southern states to legally succeed, as it was their Constitutional right ... and then I would have promptly declared war on this new foreign power to end the foul practice of slavery. The way I see it, the North was right to make war to end slavery. But they were wrong to make war to elevate the Federal over the State, at least from a Constitutional point of view. I have no idea whether or not it was the right thing to do from an economic point of view.
In short, the South should have been allowed to secede, but should not have been allowed to retain slavery. (How complicated!)
june gloom on 12/2/2011 at 06:48
Quote Posted by Llama
u trollin...
says the newly-registered guy with "llama" for a name
Ziusudra on 12/2/2011 at 07:51
Quote Posted by Sg3
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I've long been under the impression that the South was in the right, going by the Constitution at the time. I don't think that one can fairly say that they were rebelling against their lawful government; and they certainly weren't trying to overthrow it. You see, originally, the Constitution was set up for the power to be with the state, not a Federal thingy. And that's what the war was about, to the Southerners. It was about states rights as much as it was about retaining their slaves.
Of course, they made themselves forever wankers because of the slavery. But what if slavery hadn't been the issue? Suppose that it'd been, um, taxation? Well, let's see; the U.S.A. was founded as a result of ... um, citizens rebelling against their government because of ... you see where I'm going here? Basically, the South were the bad guys only because of the slavery issue. If it weren't for that, most of us would probably be looking back on the War of Northern Aggression (as they call it in the South) as an example of the U.S. government being unjust, just as we do with the Federal war on American "Indians."
If I were King of the U.S.A. in 1860ish, I would have allowed the Southern states to legally succeed, as it was their Constitutional right ... and then I would have promptly declared war on this new foreign power to end the foul practice of slavery. The way I see it, the North was right to make war to end slavery. But they were wrong to make war to elevate the Federal over the State, at least from a Constitutional point of view. I have no idea whether or not it was the right thing to do from an economic point of view.
In short, the South should have been allowed to secede, but should not have been allowed to retain slavery. (How complicated!)
I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but I can find no evidence that it has ever permitted (or forbidden) secession. Thus, secession has never been a "Constitutional right". The main argument to consider is that as only Congress has the right to admit states, only Congress has the right to allow secession. Which is what the Supreme Court ruled.
Allowing states to unilaterally secede for any reason, be it taxation, slavery or something else sets a dangerous precedent. Should red-states have been allowed to secede when Obama was elected? Should blue-states when Bush was?
Think of being granted statehood as entering a contract, one party to a contract cannot declare it null and void, that is something that must be agreed upon by all parties.
Sg3 on 12/2/2011 at 17:31
Quote Posted by Ziusudra
I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but I can find no evidence that it has ever permitted (or forbidden) secession. Thus, secession has never been a "Constitutional right". The main argument to consider is that as only Congress has the right to admit states, only Congress has the right to allow secession. Which is what the Supreme Court ruled.
Allowing states to unilaterally secede for any reason, be it taxation, slavery or something else sets a dangerous precedent. Should red-states have been allowed to secede when Obama was elected? Should blue-states when Bush was?
Think of being granted statehood as entering a contract, one party to a contract cannot declare it null and void, that is something that must be agreed upon by all parties.
Recall, however, that secession was exactly how the U.S.A. was formed some ninety years earlier. It's quite hypocritical to be all "Yay we're patriots" about rebelling in the American Revolution but "Traitors and rebels!" about rebelling in the American Civil War. Is it okay to break away from the government or not? If yes, then you must allow that it was as much the Southern states' right to secede as it was the American colonies' right to declare independence. Same thing. To secede is to declare independence. And if you say no, it isn't okay to break away from the government, then you must logically also condemn the "founding fathers" for declaring independence from the British crown.
So, again, while the slavery issue makes them obvious bad guys on that count, on the count of seceding, well, they're doing the same thing that the signers of the Declaration of Independence are praised for doing. It's okay when the "founding fathers" did it, but not when the southern yee-haws did it? This isn't a consistent viewpoint. Better to separate the issues, and acknowledge that slavery is evil, but declaring independence from the government is not. (Or, if you decide that seceding is evil, then you also have to condemn the founders of the U.S.A.)
Whether or not it is morally allowable to rebel against the government for whatever reason is an interesting discussion, but that isn't my point; my point is that one probably should attempt to have some sort of standard (either way), rather than only saying, "It's okay to rebel only with a good reason." "Good reasons" are crazily subjective. [sigh] I guess what it boils down to is power, as always. "Might makes right." Is it legal to declare independence/secede? Well, let's fight, and after we kill enough people, then the winner gets to decide whether it's legal or not. Boom.
: (
Llama on 12/2/2011 at 19:05
Quote Posted by dethtoll
says the newly-registered guy with "llama" for a name
I registered in 2001 and sometimes posted on the forums. I lost my email and user account to this forum so I had to create a new account. So I "aint" trollin.
p.s. Llama is the name I used when playing games professionally.
Starrfall on 12/2/2011 at 19:41
Quote Posted by Sg3
It's okay when the "founding fathers" did it, but not when the southern yee-haws did it? This isn't a consistent viewpoint.
You're making a pretty superficial comparison here. There are sufficient objective differences between the American Revolution and the American Civil War to allow for different treatment of the two.
But the broader debate over secession is an interesting one, and even more so if you put it against a practical modern context. And I just don't mean the pantshitters in the USA who yell about secession every once in a while when they feel like democracy isn't letting them have their way - we've got territories and commonwealths too.
Take Puerto Rico, which is a good example because its well-developed and also geographically close. What happens if they declare independence tomorrow? What happens if the US Virgin Islands want to go along?
Given that they are not states and thus lack the same level of representation in our federal government (which is something the southern states couldn't say at the time of the civil war - they had two senators and proportional representation in the house just like the northern states - and is also something no state can say today), should they have a greater right to do so than a state?
What if they want to become a state and we refuse? Should they be allowed to go then? What if they had become a state in 1959 when Hawaii did, and decide tomorrow that they want out?
I don't think the answers to these questions are necessarily the same.
june gloom on 12/2/2011 at 21:10
Quote Posted by Llama
I registered in 2001 and sometimes posted on the forums. I lost my email and user account to this forum so I had to create a new account. So I "aint" trollin.
p.s. Llama is the name I used when playing games professionally.
whatever you say trollski
what was your old username, as if you actually had one
