Scourge of War Boards

Maybe it was because those abolitionists were stirring stuff up that SOUTH CAROLINA seceded. But I still say that because Lincoln wanted to invade those states that had seceded, the rest did.

Armchair General wrote:

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

I don't understand

"A House divided against itself cannot stand." I still have yet to see any other legitimate reasons that the South had as breaches of their states' rights besides slavery. Even then though, you have to look in the mirror and say, "The South was getting mad because Northern abolitionists were trying to tell them they shouldn't have other human beings in bondage over such a mundane and helpless matter as the color of their skin. People in your country of England realized that long before the US, Hampton, ending with Wilberforce's drive to end slavery in England.

And I don't think that is too much of a thrashing, no dead meat here.

Interesting observation, AG!

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate...when two or more folks enter into a relationship of any type and then elect to dissolve that relationship, does there have to be any "legitimate" reason? Is it not enough to simply say, "I do not care for the direction this relationship is moving and, therefore, I prefer to sever our agreement." Would this not be a reasonable choice whatever the reason? As John Locke wrote, to paraphrase, whenever the government does not meet the needs or desires of the people, the people have the right to change the government...and must do so! Whereas Hobbs believe government was a permanent institution established by the people, Locke believed it could be changed or replaced.

:ohmy:

J

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

I don't understand

"A House divided against itself cannot stand." I still have yet to see any other legitimate reasons that the South had as breaches of their states' rights besides slavery. Even then though, you have to look in the mirror and say, "The South was getting mad because Northern abolitionists were trying to tell them they shouldn't have other human beings in bondage over such a mundane and helpless matter as the color of their skin. People in your country of England realized that long before the US, Hampton, ending with Wilberforce's drive to end slavery in England.

And I don't think that is too much of a thrashing, no dead meat here.

Interesting observation, AG!

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate...when two or more folks enter into a relationship of any type and then elect to dissolve that relationship, does there have to be any "legitimate" reason? Is it not enough to simply say, "I do not care for the direction this relationship is moving and, therefore, I prefer to sever our agreement." Would this not be a reasonable choice whatever the reason? As John Locke wrote, to paraphrase, whenever the government does not meet the needs or desires of the people, the people have the right to change the government...and must do so! Whereas Hobbs believe government was a permanent institution established by the people, Locke believed it could be changed or replaced.

:ohmy:

J

John Locke was the philosopher who said, "Life, liberty, and property," correct? If the South followed Locke's believes so closely, then they should have realized they were breaking all three of his fundamentals. Many slaves preferred death over life in bondage, as proven during Sherman's March to the Sea. I don't remember the exact name of the incident, but Federal troops destroyed a bridge spanning a river, and many escaped slaves knew that Confederate cavalry was close behind. Instead of returning to slavery, many slaves who were not able to swim jumped into the river, preferring to die free. They certainly didn't have liberty, and most definitely not property.

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:
"A House divided against itself cannot stand." I still have yet to see any other legitimate reasons that the South had as breaches of their states' rights besides slavery. Even then though, you have to look in the mirror and say, "The South was getting mad because Northern abolitionists were trying to tell them they shouldn't have other human beings in bondage over such a mundane and helpless matter as the color of their skin. People in your country of England realized that long before the US, Hampton, ending with Wilberforce's drive to end slavery in England.

And I don't think that is too much of a thrashing, no dead meat here.

Interesting observation, AG!

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate...when two or more folks enter into a relationship of any type and then elect to dissolve that relationship, does there have to be any "legitimate" reason? Is it not enough to simply say, "I do not care for the direction this relationship is moving and, therefore, I prefer to sever our agreement." Would this not be a reasonable choice whatever the reason? As John Locke wrote, to paraphrase, whenever the government does not meet the needs or desires of the people, the people have the right to change the government...and must do so! Whereas Hobbs believe government was a permanent institution established by the people, Locke believed it could be changed or replaced.

:ohmy:

J

John Locke was the philosopher who said, "Life, liberty, and property," correct? If the South followed Locke's believes so closely, then they should have realized they were breaking all three of his fundamentals. Many slaves preferred death over life in bondage, as proven during Sherman's March to the Sea. I don't remember the exact name of the incident, but Federal troops destroyed a bridge spanning a river, and many escaped slaves knew that Confederate cavalry was close behind. Instead of returning to slavery, many slaves who were not able to swim jumped into the river, preferring to die free. They certainly didn't have liberty, and most definitely not property.

...and how does this address the question of secession?

J :unsure:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote: Interesting observation, AG!

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate...when two or more folks enter into a relationship of any type and then elect to dissolve that relationship, does there have to be any "legitimate" reason? Is it not enough to simply say, "I do not care for the direction this relationship is moving and, therefore, I prefer to sever our agreement." Would this not be a reasonable choice whatever the reason? As John Locke wrote, to paraphrase, whenever the government does not meet the needs or desires of the people, the people have the right to change the government...and must do so! Whereas Hobbs believe government was a permanent institution established by the people, Locke believed it could be changed or replaced.

:ohmy:

J

John Locke was the philosopher who said, "Life, liberty, and property," correct? If the South followed Locke's believes so closely, then they should have realized they were breaking all three of his fundamentals. Many slaves preferred death over life in bondage, as proven during Sherman's March to the Sea. I don't remember the exact name of the incident, but Federal troops destroyed a bridge spanning a river, and many escaped slaves knew that Confederate cavalry was close behind. Instead of returning to slavery, many slaves who were not able to swim jumped into the river, preferring to die free. They certainly didn't have liberty, and most definitely not property.

...and how does this address the question of secession?

J :unsure:

It addresses the validity of their claim that their rights to 'Life, liberty, and property' were being trampled on, while at the exact same time on the other side of the coin they were doing the same thing to millions of other people.

If this Government is truly a repesentative democracy, as it is perported to be,then the experiment of being governed by ourselves rests with our being able to live with the decisions we make. Compromise means neither party is happy with the decision but both will live by what is decided upon. If the Constitution is founded on correct principles ,which I believe it is. Then we should be governed by the laws we make. If one of us, States, is unhappy about any one decision that is made, we must not rebel against the whole and influence others to do like wise. What is that called? Mutiney? For give my spelling and sentence structure please. You have a right, but is it right?
Chaos, confusion, terrorists ,tin horn dictators, meglamaniacs all can govern people. Fear, ignorance, predudice are great tools for nut burgers to get control. But eventually they always loose out. If half our country wants to form a government based on good principles except one, SLAVERY , how can that be justified as good and a right. A right for who? Those that are not in bondage? What about the men and woman in bondage? Oh that's right, they are subhumans not real human beings like you and me right? So yes ,secession is ok. This great experiment is just not right for me.

Well, what about the constitution article about right of secession?

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

Well, what about the constitution article about right of secession?

What article do you mean? There is no article in the Constitution giving the right of secession.

Shirkon wrote:

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

Well, what about the constitution article about right of secession?

What article do you mean? There is no article in the Constitution giving the right of secession.

He means Article 9, any Federal authority not stated is given to the states. That somehow got translated as "We can secede."

Shirkon wrote:

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

Well, what about the constitution article about right of secession?

What article do you mean? There is no article in the Constitution giving the right of secession.

...nor prohibiting it!

J