Currently, 30 States have put forth petitions to secede from the United States.

[gaggedLouise]

Isn't putting such a petition together technically treason?

A friend of mine who studied political science and history in college told me that under US law, there is no right of secession.

*nods vigorously, excepting Texas*

Like Lunar, I had the impression that the petitions had some sort of state or state senate backing...

[Vekseid]

Actually till Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclaimation it had very little to do with Slacery. States Rights were a primary issue.

"States rights" to own slaves. "Equal representation" For slave owners.  California was forced to send one pro-slavery senator to the Senate, even though its citizens rejected such. When Minnesota and Oregon were admitted without such bullshit (despite attempts at making Kansas a slave state by murdering the anti-slavery population), the balance of power shifted, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

And even then, slave owners forced Tennessee to secede. They could not get the state to join the Confederacy in an honest election.

So yeah.

It was all about slavery.

Revisionists have worked damned hard to 'whitewash' what the Civil War was about. And it just continues.

The Civil War was basically this: Slaves wreck the land they work on. Thus there was a constant, continual push for acquiring new territory as slaveowners wrecked what they had. This was not lost on the North. If the states were permitted to secede, then any aversion of war would be temporary at best before the slavers decided they wanted more slave territory - either through war with the North, or with Mexico.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Slaves were also wreaking havoc on the economy of the North.  An industrial economy does not function well with slavery because obviously slaves work cheaper than paid workers to do menial tasks such as those in a factory.  Also slave owners don’t have to worry about inhuman working conditions because a slave has to work there.  On a plantation economy there has to be slavery because the harvest wouldn’t be done, the cost would be too high for the products.  With industry, the wages are too low and the the cities supporting those factories would stagnate from lack of spending. 

The North could not survive an industrial expansion with slavery being an option.

[Callie Del Noire]

Revisionists have worked damned hard to 'whitewash' what the Civil War was about. And it just continues.

The Civil War was basically this: Slaves wreck the land they work on. Thus there was a constant, continual push for acquiring new territory as slaveowners wrecked what they had. This was not lost on the North. If the states were permitted to secede, then any aversion of war would be temporary at best before the slavers decided they wanted more slave territory - either through war with the North, or with Mexico.

I think that the whole Civil War was a pile of events.. States Rights.. the impact of population growth throwing the representative curve off. the lack of right to expand for the slave states.. a growing divide between a massive industrialized society and a slower advancing agrian society in the south.

There was a MASSIVE divide in outlook and approaches. Without any common ground these piled up and compiled. Was slavery part of it? Yes.. was it the MAIN point. ... meehh.. the North Carolina kid in me says.. .. it was part of the foundation of a LOT of issues.

It was NOT a central point till Lincoln made it officially so. I think had there been far less partisanship on either side of the divide we could have rolled back slavery like the British did. Partisanship and radical partisanship at that, made it hard..no.. IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen.

Even after the Civil War was ended and with Lincoln's assassination that partisan divide remained, which is why some parts of the south barely noticed the Great Depression decades later due to the fact that they were still economically ruined from the Reconstruction.

I find it ironic in a way.. the last time the Republicans were in control of the North Carolina government like they are now was during reconstruction. Back then they were the party of equality.. now.. they aren't.. weird.

[Vekseid]

Slaves were also wreaking havoc on the economy of the North.  An industrial economy does not function well with slavery because obviously slaves work cheaper than paid workers to do menial tasks such as those in a factory.  Also slave owners don’t have to worry about inhuman working conditions because a slave has to work there.  On a plantation economy there has to be slavery because the harvest wouldn’t be done, the cost would be too high for the products.  With industry, the wages are too low and the the cities supporting those factories would stagnate from lack of spending. 

The North could not survive an industrial expansion with slavery being an option.

Hardly. The situation could just as well have been reversed. It's not like they gave a damn about worker's rights before unionization - the slavers' epithet was calling them wage slaves.

Which, in many cases, they were. Company towns come to mind.

Plantations continued after the Civil War - there's a reason that ex-slave states worked hard to lock down the mobility of people of color.

Politically, it was about plantation owners getting 3 votes for every 5 slaves they owned (which did not always win them elections). Morally, it was about the purpose and place of 'the negro'. At least, those were the sorts of arguments being made in public., for print

There was a MASSIVE divide in outlook and approaches. Without any common ground these piled up and compiled. Was slavery part of it? Yes.. was it the MAIN point. ... meehh.. the North Carolina kid in me says.. .. it was part of the foundation of a LOT of issues.

Find me a pre-Civil War document discussing secession that does not discuss the role of black people.

[TheGlyphstone]

Here's the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, the document that actually kicked off the whole shebang:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Starting on Paragraph 15, it talks almost exclusively about how the issue is oppression of slaveholding states by non-slave states. It was about 'State's Rights'...specifically, the singular 'States' right' to have and keep slaves.

[Callie Del Noire]

Would you at least agree that from some southern states points of view the growing militant abolitionist movements in the north looked to outright destroy their economic safety? The difference between abolition of slavery in European nations like England and elsewhere were gradual and organized..whereas NO ONE up north seemed to be willing to build up a new infrastructure to replace the one they wanted to pulled down IMMEDIATELY?

The impact was tangible and very real. And in many ways left scars on the states in question that lasted DECADES.. economic scars that were never really tended.

Was the 'peculiar institution' wrong. Definitely. I know of only one branch of my family that ever owned slaves and they emancipated their slaves in the 1780s. Most of my family were yeoman farmers in the Carolinas

[Shjade]

Deviating from the actual thread topic to think more about the Civil War triggers, I find myself confused by the hypocrisy of counting slave population for voting purposes at all.

I mean, if I consider them as property, as they were at the time, I don't see why owning any number of slaves should imbue a person with extra votes. Would you get more votes for having X number of horses as well, or Y dogs? Did the trees in their orchards count toward their voting power? If yes, I could see an argument for counting slaves toward votes, but if not, I don't see why they'd expect to get what amounts to extra political clout for owning more farming tools.

[Callie Del Noire]

Deviating from the actual thread topic to think more about the Civil War triggers, I find myself confused by the hypocrisy of counting slave population for voting purposes at all.

I mean, if I consider them as property, as they were at the time, I don't see why owning any number of slaves should imbue a person with extra votes. Would you get more votes for having X number of horses as well, or Y dogs? Did the trees in their orchards count toward their voting power? If yes, I could see an argument for counting slaves toward votes, but if not, I don't see why they'd expect to get what amounts to extra political clout for owning more farming tools.

The thing, if I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the population of the northern states was rapidly growing and outpacing the less industrial south. As a result a LOT more of the House of Representatives was going to the North..with the exculusion of future states from the slave owning states it took no one at all to realize that sooner or later the gridlock upstairs in the senate WOULD break..and then the rich land owners who relied on slavery would get it in the shorts.

I don't recall if to vote you had to be a land owner.. but I THINK that the number of reps was determined by population. (Voting or not) I am NOT sure about the population to seats bit.

[Stattick]

I wrote a long post, but decided only to post the first few lines. For the rest, it's sufficient to say that I don't really have anything positive to say about the South.

Actually till Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclaimation it had very little to do with Slacery. States Rights were a primary issue.

States Rights to keep slaves is more like it.



"The War of Northern Aggression" was a name invented in the 1950's for the Civil War. It's a revisionist term coined by the same people responsible for Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Klan, and lynchmobs. It's indelibly tarnished by racism.

I'm fine with calling it the Civil War, or the War Between the States or whatnot. But I deeply dislike the term "War of Northern Aggression" and the inferences that the South was just an undeserving victim instead of a slaving monster.

The South started the war by seceding. It fired the first shots by marching north and attacking...




And that's really all I can say while trying to remain polite.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wrote a long post, but decided only to post the first few lines. For the rest, it's sufficient to say that I don't really have anything positive to say about the South.

States Rights to keep slaves is more like it.



"The War of Northern Aggression" was a name invented in the 1950's for the Civil War. It's a revisionist term coined by the same people responsible for Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Klan, and lynchmobs. It's indelibly tarnished by racism.

I'm fine with calling it the Civil War, or the War Between the States or whatnot. But I deeply dislike the term "War of Northern Aggression" and the inferences that the South was just an undeserving victim instead of a slaving monster.

The South started the war by seceding. It fired the first shots by marching north and attacking...




And that's really all I can say while trying to remain polite.

As a southerner.. I never liked the term. It was a civil war.. so I'm okay calling it the American Civil War..

The folks in South Carolina started it. Plain and simple.

It was a southern rep who beat a fellow rep senseless on the floor of congress.. so I never bought into it.. but most of my ancestors who fought were North Carolina yeomen who woke up one morning in the middle of the confederacy.

Yeah.. slavery was in the foundation of a lot of the issues that led to the seccession movements of the time. Of course it was only part of losing power, facing impending economic ruin with little or no recourse in the way to prevent it. As radical as the southern contingent of congress and the senate was.. their peers in the northern faction was equally determined to do 'everything NOW'. It takes two sides to tango..and like today.. neither faction was looking for a way to peacably settle things. So we wound up with 600,00 American dead and decades of distrust and hate that still fester in some areas.

I wonder what Lincoln would have been able to do had he lived. Could he have dulled the faction who wanted a 'pound of flesh'. 

[Stattick]

I could be wrong, but I thought that the abolitionists had been trying to get rid of slavery since the mid 1700's. Granted, the North perhaps could have been more diplomatic about it in the 1850's, but they were facing staunch and unified opposition. The South wouldn't negotiate or compromise at all.

[Callie Del Noire]

I could be wrong, but I thought that the abolitionists had been trying to get rid of slavery since the mid 1700's. Granted, the North perhaps could have been more diplomatic about it in the 1850's, but they were facing staunch and unified opposition. The South wouldn't negotiate or compromise at all.

You're right.. the south WASN'T willing to cooperate.. but in the decade or so leading up to the Civil War..there was nearly NO talk of easing it out anymore. On either side. (Or if it was I haven't found any evidence of it). I do know that there were enough precedents to let things change.. such as the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 which removed the institution of Slavery from the United Kingdom and the British Empire while giving a 'wind down' period of indentured servitude that would end years later.

It could have done a LOT to set precedent.. the problem was, like today, we have two dogmatic sides with very little willingness to talk.

[Lux12]

I would hope that people would not be so inclined to fall back on violence these days. Though I did fear that the election could in fact lead to a civil war over the strict partisan divide that has so dominated politics for all these years.

[Callie Del Noire]

I would hope that people would not be so inclined to fall back on violence these days. Though I did fear that the election could in fact lead to a civil war over the strict partisan divide that has so dominated politics for all these years.

I don't know how to back the parties away from the brink. Short of a total change of control of the GOP I don't see it happening. If Senator McCain had kept his spine over the last four years, I could see him to step up to lead the moderates back into control. As for any other option I don't see who could do it. Huntsman would be a nice choice from my POV but he's not well known and is still ringing from a pretty heavy hits in his run up for president. Not to mention he's on the short list to replace Secretary Clinton.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

All I have to say on what is amounts to nothing more then sore losers crying for secession.   A petition should be started to 'exile'  the cry babies.   

[Lux12]

Indeed.The whining is the part of this I find the most detestable. Though as I had said, I won't be upset if Texas leaves the union. My apologies to any Texans present on this forum who do not fit the stereotype so many seem to be hell bent on living up to.

[Oniya]

All I have to say on what is amounts to nothing more then sore losers crying for secession.   A petition should be started to 'exile'  the cry babies.

Two already have.  Been started, I mean.  Check my earlier post in the thread.

[Callie Del Noire]

Indeed.The whining is the part of this I find the most detestable. Though as I had said, I won't be upset if Texas leaves the union. My apologies to any Texans present on this forum who do not fit the stereotype so many seem to be hell bent on living up to.

Care to bet in 10 to 15 years it WON'T be a solid red state? I'm willing to bet that with the GOP's stupid state by state policies of immigration that the Mexican and other spanish speaking groups won't be backing them. I know that it pisses me off that my niece might have to prove her citizen ship because she looks 'mexican'.

[Miss Lilly]

Every ten years or so, there are grumblings in my state about seceding.  However, it's just not practical for a state to secede from its country. States are too interlinked with the rest of the country. Seccession would require the state to:

• have its own government
• have its own power supply
• have its own currency
• have its own defence force
• control its borders
• instigate appropriate immigration laws and passports
• set up trade routes with other states/countries

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Seccession is NOT a viable option for any state.

[Oniya]

Texas actually has its own independent power grid (thank you History Channel).  That makes it the only state on the list that I give even a moment's consideration to, as far as going through with it.

[Vekseid]

I think instead of outright secession what we're going to see is a blurring of state-national lines - at least in democracies. It's thus going to get harder for centralized authority of any sort to pull various stunts, and, slowly, localized regions will have more autonomy. You'll still be "American" or "Canadian" or "Australian", but the social blocks that are developing are not governed by borders. Instead they're governed by ideology and philosophy.

So I see a future where Seattle and Vancouver have more influence over each other - not just socially and culturally but also over each others' treaties, legal systems, conduct and even citizenship - than D.C. or Ottawa do, with national capitals eventually becoming more symbolic. There might be a world government of sorts, but it would function more as a body to track externalities, prevent violence and arbitrate or enforce treaties.

[LunarSage]

UCAS, CAS and Independent City-State of Seattle here we come!

I for one welcome the rise of Dunklezhan.  He'll make a better president than anyone else before him.  *nods*

[Oniya]

UCAS, CAS and Independent City-State of Seattle here we come!

I for one welcome the rise of Dunklezhan.  He'll make a better president than anyone else before him.  *nods*

*sporfle*

Well, as long as they keep thinking of corporations as people...

[TheGlyphstone]

UCAS, CAS and Independent City-State of Seattle here we come!

I for one welcome the rise of Dunklezhan.  He'll make a better president than anyone else before him.  *nods*

I'm not sure if I'll want to be a citizen of the Mafia or Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong...