121
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + +
Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War? (view source)
Revision as of 18:25, May 17, 2008
, 18:25, May 17, 2008no edit summary
Looking at this from the standpoint of [[geopolitics]], I think [[Harry Turtledove]] has it right when he posits in his [[American Empire series]] that had the USA and CSA continued into the mid-twentieth century as independent countries, they would have taken opposite positions on all unavoidable international issues -- possibly including the fight against [[Nazism]]. This is too bad, because I would really like to be able to say that people in, for example, [[South Carolina]] are not required to be in the same country with people from [[California]] whose beliefs are totally opposite. It seems to be a case of [[pragmatism]] overruling principle. On the other hand, reunification does mean I got to move to [[Texas]] from [[Pennsylvania]] in 1983 and meet all the nice [[conservatives]] who have subsequently shaped me. Incidentally, why is there no article here on [[Christian Exodus]]? -- [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]], 10:04, June 1, 2007 (EDT)
Looking at this from the standpoint of [[geopolitics]], I think [[Harry Turtledove]] has it right when he posits in his [[American Empire series]] that had the USA and CSA continued into the mid-twentieth century as independent countries, they would have taken opposite positions on all unavoidable international issues -- possibly including the fight against [[Nazism]]. This is too bad, because I would really like to be able to say that people in, for example, [[South Carolina]] are not required to be in the same country with people from [[California]] whose beliefs are totally opposite. It seems to be a case of [[pragmatism]] overruling principle. On the other hand, reunification does mean I got to move to [[Texas]] from [[Pennsylvania]] in 1983 and meet all the nice [[conservatives]] who have subsequently shaped me. Incidentally, why is there no article here on [[Christian Exodus]]? -- [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]], 10:04, June 1, 2007 (EDT)
Many people think of this the wrong way. The United States did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation (and for that matter neither did many other nations, including Britain), thus the government treated the Southern Army as a rebel army, not a foreign one. So, legally the U.S. government had a right to put down this rebellion, as it had in the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion (although that is technically pre-Constitutional).
Saying that putting a rebellion down is a governmental right is sticky as that implies that dictators can put down popular rebellions legally (which I am against). Also this goes against one of the major shapers of our Constitution (Locke, Hobbes, or Rosseau, can't remember which), who said that if the government does not serve the people as they desire, they have the right to rebel. This also brings up moral relativism, as slavery seemed alright to most Southerners and wrong to most Northerners, and who can say which side was right with any definitivness.
In the end though, it all turned out alright, so it must have been fine. To put it generally, history is the greatest judge. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:25, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
== Other Opinions ==
== Other Opinions ==