Ziusudra on 13/2/2011 at 08:19
Quote Posted by Sg3
Basically, I'm asking: if slavery hadn't been the issue, if slavery wasn't even a factor, would you still think that the North was right to fight the South for seceding?
No, I don't think secession in and of itself is reason enough for war.
Queue on 13/2/2011 at 15:59
Quote Posted by Sg3
I understand why slavery is morally worth going to war over, but I don't understand why secession is morally worth going to war over. Basically, I'm asking: if slavery hadn't been the issue, if slavery wasn't even a factor, would you still think that the North was right to fight the South for seceding?
Slavery wasn't the factor. Most northerners, in the time before the war began, were quite content with the South having slaves. The driving issue was, as it also is, commerce. If the South seceded vital agricultural industries (such as cotton, tobacco, and hog-bellies) would now be controlled by a wholly different country. Imagine the Northern States, who relied on the stability of these products, suddenly being subjected to the laws and regulations of another country.
And honestly, the slaves themselves became tools of war. You have to remember that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1st of 1863--it did not free any slave found inside the Union states. So, for a Confederate states, what would they gain by returning to the Union, other than the loss of their slaves? Nothing. Plus, the notion of having to deal with a flood of freed slaves suddenly flooding the north was not a settling thought for most northerners.
But what the Proclamation did do, as it was designed to do, was rouse confusion and thoughts of freedom for slaves in the south - who were a vital workforce behind the southern war effort - and encouraged the slaves to flee to the north. Thus, much like cutting off supply-lines, this deprived the south of wartime labor needed to repair railways, work in the factories and shipping yards, build fortifications, work the mines, and serve in hospitals.
Starrfall on 13/2/2011 at 16:16
Quote Posted by Muzman
(just to get things back on track)
Although the grounds for American independance were pretty thin and self serving by the time it came about (but produced the declaration itself and so on which is pretty major legal landmark, -goeswithoutsaying-), as Starfy points out, the revolutionaries have one thing in their corner that the South didn't. Namely that they were being taxed (in pretty minor ways by the end) without direct representation.
It wasn't just taxes though, it was things like forced quartering of soldiers in homes, unilateral alteration of the charters for the colonies, closing of ports, and so on - which probably had a more direct effect on more people than the taxes (which may be demonstrated by the fact that "no quartering soldiers" is the third thing in the bill of rights, while there's no specific reference to taxes). Now of course the extent to which that stuff was or was not justified or to what degree is a whole other conversation, given that by that time things had been bubbling for several years and many colonists weren't shy about stirring the pot.
Quote Posted by Sg3
Well, yes, a large number of differences; but the only significant relevant factor that I can think of that is the slavery. And I still don't see what that has to do with secession. I understand why slavery is morally worth going to war over, but I don't understand why secession is morally worth going to war over. Basically, I'm asking: if slavery hadn't been the issue, if slavery wasn't even a factor, would you still think that the North was right to fight the South for seceding?
You're trying to separate interdependent questions, I think. The south's reasons matter when looking at whether the north was right to fight and that's precisely why there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer for every hypothetical.
But even putting the slavery thing aside and assuming that the only thing the south was interested in was self-governance, they've got a poor case because as above, they had the same representation in the federal government as anyone else. Given that they also voluntarily signed up for the USA, the point someone made above about it being more like a contract is pertinent to the question of whether the north was right to try to force them to honor that. And of course, the fact that the south kicked things off by bombarding and then taking over a US fort adds to the case for a military response.
But you really can't ignore the slavery thing, because its damage to the south's argument goes beyond the mere fact that slavery is wrong and the south shouldn't have been doing it. Consider this: if the south had freed their slaves and treated them nicely after the fact (as opposed to being giant cunts to them like they actually were), they would have
increased their power in the federal government considerably. That's because under a little clause of the Constitution that still exists, only 3/5ths of the slave population counted for the purposes of representation. So 100 slaves only counted as 60 people. Guess what happens if you free them? They suddenly count as 100 people again, thus increasing your population for the purposes of representation.
(to clarify in light of Queue's comment: whether or not slavery was a driving factor for the north, it was undoubtedly a factor for the south - and so it becomes at least an implied factor for the north because in large part we're talking about the north's reaction to what the south was doing. oh dear that's probably just more confusing, but what I'm probably trying to say is that I'm not saying the north set out on a noble mission to free the slaves, but that slavery is still a factor that matters when engaging in an ex post facto discussion of whether the north was right to fight, because the north's rightness has to be put in the context of what the south did)
Vivian on 13/2/2011 at 19:06
Quote Posted by Llama
p.s. Llama is the name I used when playing games professionally.
You must have met my Dad then. He makes all the games at the game factory. He gave me a secret version of Mario where Mario is 3D and comes out from the telly and starts jumping around on your shelves to get the bonus mushroom. I can't let you play on it though. It's a secret.
PS If we in the western world start worrying about whether or not our famous historical figures were too racist to put their face on stuff, we're going to very rapidly run out of people to put on our money. Let's face it, pretty much everyone from back in the day was a racist.
Queue on 14/2/2011 at 00:16
Those secret mushrooms are the greatest thing.
And you're mostly right, Vivian.... Except, Jefferson really loved the darkies.
Llama on 14/2/2011 at 08:30
Quote Posted by Vivian
You must have met my Dad then. He makes all the games at the game factory. He gave me a secret version of Mario where Mario is 3D and comes out from the telly and starts jumping around on your shelves to get the bonus mushroom. I can't let you play on it though. It's a secret.
k
