# My Boss and Coworker just LOVE the South **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250 "2007-10-10T18:50:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/121 "2007-10-13T15:03:49Z")
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki] In a similar vein, it might be amusing to ask what would they suggest what a proper punishment for [John Walker Lindh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh) might be? Then ask why that punishment shouldn’t have been applied to those who wore rebel grey. [/QUOTE] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be "How about those who wore Continental Army blue? If your answer is “no”, then why not? They were by their own admission in rebellion against their formerly sworn sovereign and empire. If you answer yes, then are you saying that no new nation should ever be allowed to be formed- that the founders of Israel and Pakistan should have been executed? Or that the victorious army should _always_ have the right to punish the vanquished? If yes, activate Godwin torpedo. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/122 "2007-10-13T15:13:21Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be “Then why didn’t they bring Davis to trial? Many southerners as well as northerners would have loved to see him hang and according to you it was an open-shut case.” [/QUOTE] Well, they did, or at least they started to, but there was some question as to whether it was allowed after the passage of the 14th amendmebnt, and eventually the government figured it wasn’t worth the bother. It’s a shame, really. The man should have been “shot trying to escape”. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/123 "2007-10-13T16:16:10Z")
I’m only a Limey but I was under the impression that the South seceded because with its relatively small VOTING population as compared with the industrialised North it had a lot less influence in forming policy . The slavery issue made for a good rallying point but the fact is that when the Civil war started there were slave states fighting for the North. It seems to be one of those historical things that everyone assumes that they know about but are often in error ,like the Europeans starting African slavery and that the Russian Revolution was the communists fighting against the Czar’s rule instead of the reality of the revolt being against an elected assembly called the Dumas as I recall,the Czar having abdicated previously. If you’re going to argue your case make sure that you’re in the right argument. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/124 "2007-10-13T16:49:05Z")
THe American Constitution counted each slave (and “Indian not taxed”) as 2/3 of a person for the purposes of representation. Oddly the slaves and Indians did not get to do 2/3 of the voting. The South was over-represented in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/125 "2007-10-13T16:51:02Z")
Well, **Lust4Life** , the first thing is that “the South” didn’t secede. A bunch of individual states seceded, and each had its own reasons for doing so. Now while Northern states, most northern soldiers, and northern politicians did not go to war to free the slaves, the evidence suggests that one of the primary motivations for secession was the preservation of slavery. And also there were two Russian Revolutions in 1917, February and October. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/126 "2007-10-13T16:56:54Z")
The CSA is a wonderful lesson in how to and how not to use diplomacy. I think what ultimately damned them was not racism or any issue of morality or even military/population inferiority (militarily they were actually pretty impressive; it’s amazing how long they kept armies in the field with no money and increasingly destroyed infrastructure). I think their doom was sealed by the selection of Jefferson Davis as president: arrogant, classist, _incapable_ of admitting error, ridiculously unrealistic in his expectations (surprising from a man who had actually kicked ass as Secretary of War) and with a refusal to consent to any compromise on the issue of slavery. Had the South had a more pragmatic leader they would have pressed the North for peace talks in 1862, when they had several impressive victories under their belt and both sides were beginning to think “this is going to be one helluva bloody war”- the south seeing that the North wasn’t going to let them leave peacefully and the north seeing that the Southerners were a force to be reckoned with who even if defeated would cause billions in national debt and lives/livelihoods to northern men by the tens of thousands. They should have agreed to end slavery in a tiered process (its moral evil had been written of for well over 200 years before the War, practically all of the slaveowning Founders acknowledged its unjustness, and even Robert E. Lee and [millionaire slavetrader] Nathan Forrest, neither of them liberal in their racial views even by the standards of their day, admitted it’s moral wrong, but it was also damned near impossible to end without destroying an economy. A compromise whereby children born to enslaved mothers on or after the 1st day of X of 186\_ were to be considered free, with all slavery to end on or before January 1st of 18\_\_\_ (say, 1885), with the meantime spent preparing socially and economically for the change, BUT IN EXCHANGE FOR WHICH the tariff situation on imported goods would be changed to be more favorable to the South- the North would almost certainly have gone for it. There is evidence that such talks were offered but Davis refused to consider anything where abolition, even remote, was on the table. Davis was the quintessential patricial asshole plutocrat and should have been hanged, not for Constitutional reasons so much as he was the quintessential asshole patrician plutocrat. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/127 "2007-10-13T17:04:27Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] I’m only a Limey but I was under the impression that the South seceded because with its relatively small VOTING population as compared with the industrialised North it had a lot less influence in forming policy. [/quote] As noted earlier, there was no pre-war governmental initiative to ban slavery (or for that matter to pass any legislation significantly influencing the South’s “traditions” or economy). Major frictions involved Northern resistance to allowing slavery to become established in territories as well as resentment over private moves against slavery (like John Brown’s raid). The first and foremost reason for secession was the protection of slavery. The foremost reason for the North going to war after the attack on Fort Sumter was preservation of the Union. > [@](#): > > It seems to be one of those historical things that everyone assumes that they know about but are often in error Historical revisionism can be a problem, but it’s gotten a lot less prevalent on the Dope since I started posting here. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/128 "2007-10-13T17:06:23Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] I’m only a Limey [/QUOTE] And now thanks to you, I’ve got “Just A Gigolo” going through my head. You must hang. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/129 "2007-10-13T18:06:27Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] I’m only a Limey but I was under the impression that the South seceded because with its relatively small VOTING population as compared with the industrialised North it had a lot less influence in forming policy . [/QUOTE] More information: Voting population is irrelevant. Represenatation was 2 men per state in Senate and based on population in the House. The population figure normally included _everyone_. (This is the default, and includes nonvoters, which at the time meant women, many poor whites, and slaves). The anti-slavery Founding Fathers managed to bargain them down so that only a fraction of the slaves were counted in the House of Reps. This was a major victory. However, The South was still large and influential and dominated American politics in the early years of the republic. In fact, it was not until the South managed to piss of the entire rest of the country so much that it basically said “fuck you” and elected Lincoln almost unaminously (barring one or two tiny states which went with Douglas, IIRC). Then the SOuth said basically adopted the whiner’s position and declared that if they could rule the country they’d leave. State’s Rights and all. Of course, they had no problem with using the Federal Government to screw other people over. And in a much worse fashion, frankly, than the Republican party had any intention of messing with the South. So it was a game of “if I can’t win I won’t play! Nyah nyah nyah!” ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/130 "2007-10-13T20:09:10Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] I’m only a Limey but I was under the impression that the South seceded because with its relatively small VOTING population as compared with the industrialised North it had a lot less influence in forming policy. [/quote] Um, yeah, and what types of “policy” were they especially interested in? Well, judging by the blow-ups over admitting California as a free state, and bleeding Kansas, and the agitation for a slave code in the territories, they had an _unusual_ degree of interest in policies concerning _slavery_. > [@Lust4Life](#): > > It seems to be one of those historical things that everyone assumes that they know about but are often in error ,like the Europeans starting African slavery and that the Russian Revolution was the communists fighting against the Czar’s rule instead of the reality of the revolt being against an elected assembly called the Dumas as I recall,the Czar having abdicated previously. No, the idea that contoversy over slavery brought about the American Civil War is one of the things that everybody assumes they know about that are correct. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/131 "2007-10-13T20:16:19Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] Um, yeah, and what types of “policy” were they especially interested in? Well, judging by the blow-ups over admitting California as a free state, and bleeding Kansas, and the agitation for a slave code in the territories, they had an _unusual_ degree of interest in policies concerning _slavery_. [/QUOTE] This is very true. One of the most common things heard down here (and really, the Civil War is **NOT** a common topic of conversation- it mainly comes up when the flag is in the news or whatever once every couple of years) is “The Civil War was not about _slavery_, it was about _state’s rights_”. This is true in a way, but it was over state’s rights _to condone slavery_- not a very subtle distinction. Most people who say this have never read the [Cornerstone Speech](http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76) or the [Confederate Constitution](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm) (which is basically the Bill of Rights + line-item veto + slavery in every other sentence) or any other primary documents and they’re parroting what their dads or coaches or even in some cases (including mine) schoolteachers taught. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/132 "2007-10-13T20:54:35Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be "How about those who wore Continental Army blue? If your answer is “no”, then why not? They were by their own admission in rebellion against their formerly sworn sovereign and empire. If you answer yes, then are you saying that no new nation should ever be allowed to be formed- that the founders of Israel and Pakistan should have been executed? Or that the victorious army should _always_ have the right to punish the vanquished? If yes, activate Godwin torpedo. [/QUOTE] Well, frankly, without meaning to diss those in the Continental Army, I’d like to point out that I expect that large numbers of the officer corps, at least, would have been hanged, had the British succeeded in putting down the rebellion. By the lights of the British, they were subjects of the crown in armed rebellion against the lawful authorities. That they did win the struggle meant they got to define their actions as patriotism, instead of treason. Which is just as true for the ‘freedom fighters’ in Israel and Pakistan, had they lost. The old joke about ‘an it prosper, none dare call it treason,’ does have a hard core of truth to it. Honestly, as much badwill as had been engendered by the actions of Reconstruction, things would have been infinately worse had the sort of Spartacus-like reprisals we’re talking about been taken. So, I am quite comfortable with how things worked out, vis-a-vis the nominal treason of the soldiers of the CSA, and Navy. But that recognition of moral and social consequences doesn’t change that taking up arms against one’s country, whether one _likes_ that country, or not, is usually _prima facie_ evidence of treason. Once the fighting is over, at least. I know I’m coming close to saying, in my usual long-winded manner, that might makes right, and that I’m certainly saying that victors write the histories. But both those cliches are based on certain hard facts - with sufficient might one can define, at least in courts, what right might be; and especially in the wake of a hard fought war, the victors **will** define the terms of the history. What else was the 1918 Treaty of Versailles, but a cold-blooded attempt to do just that? The history we know after that disasterous treaty goes a long way to showing the potential costs of stretching definitions too far, but it remains a vivid example of how victors do define things in the wake of victory. For that matter, so do the Nuremburg, and other WWII war crimes trials. I believe that the Nuremburg trials are justified, but they were imposed upon those called before them willy-nilly, with many of the terms used in the trials defined at them, not before the actions which they were convened to judge. A victorious army, and it’s civil authority, have the ability to punish anything they like. This does not make that action moral, but it is not unheard of for such to define things as legal, and do it anyways. In the real world, things complicate the issue of treason for “every man in rebel grey” anyways. At which point would the individual be required, legally, to rebell against the duly, and legally, appointed authorities above him. I’m not an expert but my impression had been that there were Confederate troops who were just as conscripted as some Union troops. So, I guess I’m stepping on your Godwin torpedo. Do I live? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/133 "2007-10-13T21:14:02Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be “Then why didn’t they bring Davis to trial? Many southerners as well as northerners would have loved to see him hang and according to you it was an open-shut case.” [/QUOTE] The Union could easily have done so, but it was useful not to. The threat that the Union **could** have tried and hanged for treason half the men in the South and virtually all it’s ruling class was pretty much the impetus for the south accepting the Union’s terms, including Reconstruction and the post-war constitutional amendments. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/134 "2007-10-14T03:17:25Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] The threat that the Union **could** have tried and hanged for treason half the men in the South and virtually all it’s ruling class was pretty much the impetus for the south accepting the Union’s terms. [/QUOTE] Except Ulysses Grant took the steam out of much of that implied threat by granting generous terms to Lee’s defeated soldiers at Appomattox. Threats weren’t needed, not when Sherman could march his troops through the South with no viable army to stop them. And the sooner the South agreed to terms, the sooner Federal troops would leave and allow good times to resume. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/135 "2007-10-14T05:20:50Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be "How about those who wore Continental Army blue? If your answer is “no”, then why not? They were by their own admission in rebellion against their formerly sworn sovereign and empire. If you answer yes, then are you saying that no new nation should ever be allowed to be formed- that the founders of Israel and Pakistan should have been executed? Or that the victorious army should _always_ have the right to punish the vanquished? If yes, activate Godwin torpedo. [/QUOTE] We had a GD thread not too long ago, [Robert E. Lee- Brilliant tactician or traitor?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434737), in which we chewed over some of those issues. A point several of us made is that “treason” is a very loaded term that people often give a lot of emotional weight to, when objectively traitors have been all over the map, ethically speaking. George Washington would have been a traitor to the crown of Virginia, by any reasonable standard, except he won. Benedict Arnold was a traitor against the traitors; if the British had won, he could have been lauded as a patriot who helped defend King and Country against the rebel scum. [QUOTE=Lust4Life] I’m only a Limey but I was under the impression that the South seceded because with its relatively small VOTING population as compared with the industrialised North it had a lot less influence in forming policy . The slavery issue made for a good rallying point but the fact is that when the Civil war started there were slave states fighting for the North. It seems to be one of those historical things that everyone assumes that they know about but are often in error ,like the Europeans starting African slavery and that the Russian Revolution was the communists fighting against the Czar’s rule instead of the reality of the revolt being against an elected assembly called the Dumas as I recall,the Czar having abdicated previously. If you’re going to argue your case make sure that you’re in the right argument. [/QUOTE] From [South Carolina’s declaration of independence](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm): > [@](#): > > …In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. > > The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” > > …A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction… (They did present a fairly lengthy defense of states’ rights and secession in the abstract before getting down to brass tacks about the fugitive slave clause and those anti-slavery Republicans.) From [Mississippi’s declaration of independence](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm): > [@](#): > > In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. > > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world… From [Georgia’s declaration of independence](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm): > [@](#): > > …\*\*y their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union… (That “$3,000,000,000 of our property” was not a reference to mutual funds.) From [Texas’ declaration of independence](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm): > [@](#): > > …We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. > > That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states… [QUOTE=Paul in Saudi] THe American Constitution counted each slave (and “Indian not taxed”) as 2/3 of a person for the purposes of representation. Oddly the slaves and Indians did not get to do 2/3 of the voting. The South was over-represented in Congress. [/QUOTE] [3/5, actually.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/136 "2007-10-14T14:24:42Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] Except Ulysses Grant took the steam out of much of that implied threat by granting generous terms to Lee’s defeated soldiers at Appomattox. Threats weren’t needed, not when Sherman could march his troops through the South with no viable army to stop them. And the sooner the South agreed to terms, the sooner Federal troops would leave and allow good times to resume. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] This just begs the question. It was ALREADY policy not to inflict damages, carry out executions, or otherwise further harm the defeated South. Grant was not making things up as he went but obeyed Lincoln’s policy. It certainly had some opponents, but even the Radical Republicans weren’t out for blood in the matter. And in any case, the _soldiers_ wouldn’t have been the targets. As irritating as the better Confederate generals were, they were not interesting compared to the political leaders (many of whom lived long, comfortable lives justifying their actions). ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/137 "2007-10-14T14:59:58Z")
Oddly not Jefferson Davis. He retired to Briarwood, his wife’s plantation and lived a long life. Although he never took the oath of allegiance to the US, by the end of his life, he called for all Southerners to be good Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/138 "2007-10-14T21:21:59Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Can’t speak for others, but my response would be "How about those who wore Continental Army blue? If your answer is “no”, then why not? They were by their own admission in rebellion against their formerly sworn sovereign and empire. If you answer yes, then are you saying that no new nation should ever be allowed to be formed- that the founders of Israel and Pakistan should have been executed? Or that the victorious army should _always_ have the right to punish the vanquished? If yes, activate Godwin torpedo. [/QUOTE] Because neither Israel, nor Pakistan, nor the Thirteen Colonies had representatives at Parliament. They were prevented from using democracy to adress their grievences, so they were forced to resort to war. The southern states, on the other hands, were fully represented - over-represented, in fact - in Congress, and yet they chose to ignore the legal means they had at their hands. Instead of playing by the rules, they decided to tip over the board. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/139 "2007-10-14T21:33:03Z")
[QUOTE=Alessan] Because neither Israel, nor Pakistan, nor the Thirteen Colonies had representatives at Parliament. They were prevented from using democracy to adress their grievences, so they were forced to resort to war. The southern states, on the other hands, were fully represented - over-represented, in fact - in Congress, and yet they chose to ignore the legal means they had at their hands. Instead of playing by the rules, they decided to tip over the board. [/QUOTE] **Alessan** , respectfully, even though the South was over-represented in Congress, they had run out of legal means to **force** their views on the rest of the country. They were locked into the idea that slavery, _and its expansion_, was a necessity for their way of life. With the election of 1860, someone had been elected to the Presidency without any support in the South. Whatever Lincoln would or wouldn’t have done was immaterial - he didn’t agree that slavery had to expand as the US borders expanded, and so they had no way to force a policy that they felt was absolutely necessary for their survival. I don’t believe that there was any way to play “within the rules” to achieve the objective that they believed was a necessity. That I believe that their goals were wrong-headed, stupid, and evil doesn’t change that part of the equation. Also, while you and I may agree that some kind of democratic government is the best available, it doesn’t change, to my mind, that there are other forms of legitimate governments out there. i.e. While the colonies, Palestine, and Pakistan were all barred from representation in Parliament doesn’t change that Parliament was recognized by many other nations as being the legitimate authority for those areas. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250/140 "2007-10-15T04:26:42Z")
As a rule, using violence when peaceful, democratic means have not been exhausted is wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-boss-and-coworker-just-love-the-south/422250.md?page=8)