"The South Will Rise Again!"
Immediately you get people who will start labeling you as racist if you say this anywhere in public nowadays. But is it? What are the key issues behind it?
People automatically assume that since you mention the South rising again that you're lobbying for slavery and racism. Not everyone, but a lot of people think this. Well... think again! Sure there are tons of racist people in America and in the South that want the Confederate States to come back into existance for less than honorable reasons, but when I say that, I'm just using it as an example. An example of democracy.
No matter what your views on slavery, Abraham Lincoln, or the Civil War, you have to be confronted with the fact that the citizens of these states voted for independence and fought and paid for it with their lives. Sound like the American Revolution? Well consider it a second one that wasn't succesful. Ok so their reasons behind it might not have been "good" but the fact is that it was a democratic descision. The people decided that they don't want to be ruled by another government by other people, so they created their own government. I think that's fair.
I'm not going to argue about slavery or any of those issues because, frankly, that's off topic. We're talking about a bunch of people deciding that they don't want to be ruled by another bunch of people. I think they're entitled to that right.
It reminds me somewhat of what's going on right at this moment in Kosovo. Those people declared independence from Russia and I commend them for it. I may not agree with their views(they're largely muslim that's why) but I'm not going to let my disapproval turn into some strange idea that now they're not allowed to be free. That they don't have the right to their own government. So as the events unfold, I want you to think about this topic. We'll probably see Russia try to take back Kosovo by force, much like in the civil war, and who knows. they might succeed. I just want everyone to think about this freedom that everyone should have. Who knows? The South might rise again, for different reasons than it did before, and then what side will you find yourself on?
-cheez out-
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
A big thing with the civil war was we were using their tax money, and using it for improvements in the North. So the south decided that they should not need to follow our rules, since they were not asked when making them. They considered the civil war another revolutionary war, which, in a way, they were similar. And now, living very close to the south, I'm not sure if the North has learned their lesson. Only now, it is more likely to happen on a state level. In many states, the tax money goes to the part of the state with more people and larger cities. However, the rest of the state, which could use the money for improvements and to contribute more to the state, is ignored.
Proving your assertion about the Federal Government giving more money to the North then to the South. If you can prove it, I'll leave you be. But methinks thou doth protest in lieu of statistics. Especially when it comes to urban/rural distribution.
Also, the South's complaints about the North weren't exactly founded. They benefitted from the Mexican War, the war with the Seminole Indians (hint: those were Federal troops, not just state militiamen), the war of 1812 (which, incidentally, spawned the Hartford Convention), and a slew of other policies. So I'm not very sympathetic to that position. If they thought that they were fighting another revolutionary war then they were chasing at wind-mills.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
To the question of whether or not you agree with Webster's position or Haynes' position in the famous Webster-Haynes debate. Said debate spawned a letter from John C. Calhoun to Governor Hamilton (Jr.) of South Carolina positing the theory of nullification while claiming Madison and Jefferson as his intellectual forebearers. A position which, frankly, is incorrect. After he died, Jefferson put Madison in charge of his legacy, and Madison -- prior to his death -- released a letter which explicitly argued against State Sovereignty.
As for the Haynes-Webster debate, I suggest part 3 of Webster's second reply to Haynes, specifically the section regarding State Sovereignty. Here's an excerpt:
So basically, the founders who all of the secessionists claimed as supporters, weren't exactly in favor of leaving.
Now, you claim that slavery is off topic because "we're a bunch of people who don't want to be ruled by another bunch of people." It's funny that you bring that up, because it completely ignores the motivation for the argument. Political theory cannot be divorced from the reality in which it exists. Just out of curiosity, how much antebellum history have you studied?
Once you join the Union, you're in it for good -- or at least until it deprives you of your rights. So lets ask a question: is it your right to own another human being and to deprive them of their rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If you answer yes, then you do not acknowledge self-determination. If you answer no, then you invalidate the South's position.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
"Once you join the Union, you're in it for good -- or at least until it deprives you of your rights"
I would disagree. I would suggest that it is more like a marriage. It takes two to agree to the marriage, but it only takes one to make the divorce happen. I know (not through experience thankfully) that both members have to agree to the divorce, but in all practical matters, if one person wants out of the union, it will be dissolved.
I don't believe any of the states would have joined the union if they didn't think they could get out. Many of those that settled here (like the Scots/Irish) had a well founded fear of empires.
I'm in total agreement. To say that you cannot get out of the union would be like telling our citizens that they can't leave the U.S. That's tyranny, not democracy...
-Cheez Out-
But you wouldn't have an adaquete legal ground upon which to stand. But go ahead, maintain a baseless position if it makes you feel better.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
Yeah I would dissagree. I don't base my opinions on what laws are out there. What if our founding fathers did that? They were totally breaking the law when they declared independence. Ok so you try to shove twisted laws in my face while I will continue to support democracy...
-Cheez Out-
Actually, I've been through a divorce before. Both parties have to agree only if the reason is incompatibility. If there is abuse, adultery, abandonment, or neglect the divorce can be awarded by the judge as he or she sees fit.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I think we can all agree that the North won the Civil War but that the South won the war of ideals, can we not? Racism is rampant nationwide especially outside of the supposed racist south. Other factors show that the war of ideals is much more important than the winning of the Civil War.
But I'm going to have to say to the comment above that it is more complex than that. All moral foundings say that encroaching on another person or their property is is wrong. The answer to your question is that it is no, and it does invalidate the Souths position and it invalidate's the Bible's position in its morals, since most Southerners relyed on the Bible for moral foundings. The morals in the Bible aren't wrong, but the sheer amount of differing opinions about certain topics shows the Bible to be contradictory to itself. It leaves us with the natural laws that the British Common Law is based on and it shows that the United States has moved away from a moral law system thus weakening the country as a whole and letting the government gain size which in turn slowly constricts our liberties.
Wasn't the Confederate Gov very poor? They didn't tax people. The South should try it again and this time, the Union shouldn't bail them out. I would love to see it.
Not until its supplies were cut off. Before that the South was very strong both in money and in troops and supplies.
The South try it again? No. I mean, if I was alive back then and was able to travel to know, I would find that the South's ideals have spread across the entire country. I would love to see the Union not act like the South, but they can't and that is what is comical.
"...but I'm not going to let my disapproval turn into some strange idea that now they're not allowed to be free. "
If the freedom of one people means the enslavement of another, should we stand by and let it happen in our own country?
You make a very good point. Ok, but my premise is that if the south wanted to secede again, would we let them, or would there be another bloody war? Let's just say that they wanted to secede for any reason. And in answer to you question, ummmm... in my opinion, which isn't always right(I leave room for that), change of that nature has to come from within. It can't be forced upon by the conquerors. The fact is that the citizens of that part voted for independence. I know that they were enslaving people but I don't think that you should force people to change ideals. It has to come from their own understanding. Hey, also, did you know that slaves who fought for the south were granted their freedom? Just my opinions on the subject. I in no way agree with slavery... just so we have that clear...
-Cheez Out-
I work with a guy from Serbia, this is my best account of how he describes the situation:
Imagine if a bunch of people crossed the border into your country illegally, then became the political power in the region because they were so corrupt that all of the legal citizens left and because they have a lot of kids/family.
After becoming the political power they then decided that the state language for the region is their language. Then they decide that they should really be their own country and probably have designs on be annexed by the country they illegally came from initially.
A similar situation happened there before, and when Serbia tried to clean it up, the UN called it "ethnic cleansing" and the U.S. gov't under Bill Clinton bombed them.
If we weren't talking about Albania and Serbia, you might think this is futuristic story about Mexico recovering California from the U.S. And when the U.S. Fights back, the UN comes and bombs the U.S. and the world convinces us to not war with our own people.
"I may not agree with their views(they're largely muslim that's why) but I'm not going to let my disapproval turn into some strange idea that now they're not allowed to be free."
Clarity time. You don't agree with their religious views or is it something else? Can you expand on that? The first time I read it I was a bit offended. Now it seems that was just a knee-jerk reaction and there's nothing, nothing really at all weird about that statement.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?