Brunstgnagg wrote:

To those who think that it wasn't about slavery. read the inauguration speech of CSA VP Alexander Stephens. A large portion of his speech was about his views (which were by far those predominant in the CSA) on slavery and race. The war was about slavery. You read the literature at the time--especially the confederate literature--and you will see that is exactly what it is.

Motive: preserving slavery

Action: leaving the USA

The war was about the action not the motive. If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same.

Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA?

To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights.

BlueSpader wrote:

To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights.

The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA.

Not the motive for leaving.

hatten wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights. The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA. Not the motive for leaving.

Kind of a oversimplification don't you think?

BlueSpader wrote:

Kind of a oversimplification don't you think?

Not really when you look at the man's logic.

There is a difference between the motive for war and what caused the war.

BlueSpader wrote:

hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights. The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA. Not the motive for leaving. Kind of a oversimplification don't you think?

No

If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same.

Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA?

hatten wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights. The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA. Not the motive for leaving. Kind of a oversimplification don't you think? No If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same. Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA?

Ok. You have a point.

As for a state being able to leave is a interesting question. As far as I know there's nothing in the constitution saying a state can't. Is there any legal precedent on the issue?

BlueSpader wrote:

hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights. The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA. Not the motive for leaving. Kind of a oversimplification don't you think? No If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same. Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA? Ok. You have a point. As for a state being able to leave is a interesting question. As far as I know there's nothing in the constitution saying a state can't. Is there any legal precedent on the issue?

When I said "should" I was asking "in your opinion".

I think Lincoln was wrong. I think States should be able to leave.

hatten wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: hatten wrote: BlueSpader wrote: To say the sole cause of the civil war was slavery is just as bit a revisionist as saying it was all about states rights. South Carolina threatned to leave the union as early as 1832 over tariffs and Andrew Jacksons reversal on the the nullification acts. Lincon wasn't a aboliitionist, and only held the opinion that slavery shouldn't expand into the west, and be contained in the south where it would eventually wither away and die. I think the cause of the civil war was a mix of economics (tariffs protecting nothern industry/slavery) and the opinion that federal power was encroaching on state rights. The "sole cause" of the war was about the States leaving the USA. Not the motive for leaving. Kind of a oversimplification don't you think? No If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same. Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA? Ok. You have a point. As for a state being able to leave is a interesting question. As far as I know there's nothing in the constitution saying a state can't. Is there any legal precedent on the issue? When I said "should" I was asking "in your opinion". I think Lincoln was wrong. I think States should be able to leave.

I was kinda hinting my position thru the question.Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. If there isn't any legal precedent stating otherwise, I don't see why a state can't. But the odds of that happening are pretty much zero.

BlueSpader wrote:

Is there any legal precedent on the issue?

The civil war.

hatten wrote:

Brunstgnagg wrote: To those who think that it wasn't about slavery. read the inauguration speech of CSA VP Alexander Stephens. A large portion of his speech was about his views (which were by far those predominant in the CSA) on slavery and race. The war was about slavery. You read the literature at the time--especially the confederate literature--and you will see that is exactly what it is. Motive: preserving slavery Action: leaving the USA The war was about the action not the motive. If the motive was different and the action was the same, the results would have been the same.

Divorcing an action from its motivation is like divorcing "your mom" jokes from immaturity. Its cuts out an important part of the issue at hand and is, I would say, dehumanising.

Quote:

Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA?

I think so, but I also think people shouldn't own people.

Brunstgnagg wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: Is there any legal precedent on the issue? The civil war.

No, I don't really think the slaughter of 500,000 Americans is a legal precedent.

BlueSpader wrote:

Brunstgnagg wrote: BlueSpader wrote: Is there any legal precedent on the issue? The civil war. No, I don't really think the slaughter of 500,000 Americans is a legal precedent.

Some states seceded, the rest attacked and destroyed their confederation. That sounds like a legal precedent to me.

Brunstgnagg wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: Brunstgnagg wrote: BlueSpader wrote: Is there any legal precedent on the issue? The civil war. No, I don't really think the slaughter of 500,000 Americans is a legal precedent. Some states seceded, the rest attacked and destroyed their confederation. That sounds like a legal precedent to me.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how force of arms sets legal precedent. If there's no crime or constitutional violation in succession you really don't have much of an argument.

Brunstgnagg wrote:

Quote: Which brings the question. Should a State be able to leave the USA? I think so, but I also think people shouldn't own people.

I don't like chattel slavery or political slavery. I like freedom.

BlueSpader wrote:

If there isn't any legal precedent stating otherwise, I don't see why a state can't. But the odds of that happening are pretty much zero.

It was "illegal" for the 13 colonies to leave in the revolutionary war, but they did it.

Right now I doubt any State would want to leave. But the door needs to be wide open if a State wants to leave the USA in the future.

Do you think you should be able to secede without warrant or provocation? Many indicated prior to the war and post war that only under proper circumstances such as if the Constitution was overthrown or severely violated was secession a considered option, and that even then the Constitutional right to rebellion for the sake of all supercedes a more selfish move towards secession. They argued that the Constitution represented a compact by the people and such bonds were not easily dissolved, that extraordinary requirements had to be met.

I support secession at will, no reason needed.

The possibilities are endless.

hatten wrote:

BlueSpader wrote: If there isn't any legal precedent stating otherwise, I don't see why a state can't. But the odds of that happening are pretty much zero. It was "illegal" for the 13 colonies to leave in the revolutionary war, but they did it. Right now I doubt any State would want to leave. But the door needs to be wide open if a State wants to leave the USA in the future.

I understand what you're saying. Hell, I'm from a state where there's been a secessionist caniadate in every guernatorial race for as long as I remember. I just dont think leaving the union just for the sake of leaving is a wise policy or even feasible.

BlueSpader wrote:

I just dont think leaving the union just for the sake of leaving is a wise policy or even feasible.

I'm just saying if a State wants to leave, let it go. If a State wants to stay, let it stay. I support the freedom of association.

If you disagree, I support your freedom of speech also.