The soldiers fighting for the South were by and large fighting to uphold their sovereignty. Everything can’t be explained as good vs. evil. This isn’t a superman comic.
But what says that the states get the right to secede, versus the people?
It’s true, not everything can be explained as good vs evil. Some things can, though. Fighting the Nazis was one such thing. So was fighting over slavery.
The states did at their various conventions.
Too bad Lincoln and the rest of the United States government never saw it as that. Neither did the union soldiers. Neither did impartial observers such as Detocqueville or the Cherokee nation.
All the states said that? That’s news to me. I’m not even aware of any state’s constitution currently containing the right to secede. If I understand your reasoning about the tenth amendment properly, if the power is not claimed by the Federal govt, and not claimed by the states, than it resides in the people. Where am I wrong on this?
Too late to edit: just curious. What side did William Sherman fall on? Good or Evil?
Which was created and existed for the sole purpose of preserving slavery.
True. This however can be. Perhaps the North wasn’t “good”; certainly not Superman level good. But the Old South was monstrously evil; if anything much more evil than most comic book villains.
By having a convention on the issue they effectively amended their constitutions. They claimed the right to do it at that moment.
I suppose he was on the good side, but he did some evil stuff. Just like I imagine that there were southern soldiers who were good men fighting for an evil cause.
Which states? I thought we were talking about the right for an individual to secede from Indiana?
They claimed it… from who? Did they just magic that right up out of thin air? How about governments deriving their power from the consent of the governed? If the states didn’t have the right to secede in, say, 1840, and the people have never had it (according to you), where does the right come from?
Detocqueville? The man’s name was de Tocqueville.
Considering that the whole foundation of your argument here appears to be you claiming that you know more about political theory than anyone else, you might try to show some evidence that you’ve at least learned the basics.
No doubt you’ll be citing Lock and Russo next to show off your expertise.
Exactly what statement by de Tocqueville did you have in mind here? Is there something he said to indicate that…well, what, exactly? That slavery was not evil, or that the Union was not fighting against slavery? (The latter observation, though true enough at the start of the war, would have been a remarkably prescient thing for a man who died in 1859 to have said.)
As to the Cherokee, they–or at any rate, the faction which aligned itself with the C.S.A.–proclaimed that the “war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government”. So they seem to have thought the North was fighting against slavery, it’s just that they thought that fighting to end slavery was a wicked and “fanatical” thing to do. Of course the pro-Confederate tribes of the Indian Territory were hardly impartial, being themselves owners of black slaves.
The federal government didn’t have the power to stop them from seceding because it wasn’t in the Constitution.
The right comes from the tenth amendment.
A typo was worth a post of its own? Lol
Secession is not a power; it is an abrogation of a contract. You are attempting to make a silly claim based on a misuse of words.
No, you won’t. You’ll just find a different way to redefine the language to find some way to support your odd claims.
And the ability to do that is a power.
Hm. Which one of us is mincing words now?
Refute either 1 or 2 and I will change my mind. I am growing weary from the redundancy of arguments in this thread. I have been forced to repeat the same shit over and over.
When someone refutes either 1 or 2 we can have our kumbaya moment, until then I will be unconvinced.
That’s a common deflection from conservative ideologists that still support the right of a State to discriminate against anyone they want.
None. It was well understood and acknowledged by all parties at that time that they were fighting about the “god given” right of the Southern States to own slaves.
You are. I would love to see a citation to a serious philosopher of law or jurist that enumerates abrogation of a compact as a “power” of government.
Unlikely.
Well, if you are growing weary, you can always knock it off. And no one is compelling you to repeat the same nonsense over and over; you are doing it because you enjoy it.
True Believers are rarely convinced regardless of facts.