War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[LazarusLong42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I do.

---

Actually, Geo, I have to (generally) agree with Exculcator on this one. There were several struggles involved in the Civil War, only one of which was slavery vs. liberation of Blacks.

Exculcator has another: the age-old problem of Union vs. Liberty, as expressed in a set of quotes from a gathering involving several prominent political figures of the late 1820's:

"The Federal Union, it must be preserved." -- Andrew Jackson

"The Union, next to our Liberty, the most dear." -- John C. Calhoun

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." -- Daniel Webster

Jackson and Calhoun were both from the South (and Webster from Vermont or something like that), but while Webster's idea may be felt by a majority of us now, Jackson and Calhoun's ideologies previaled, Jackson's taking hold more in the North, Calhoun's in the South.

But that's not all of it. There was also the matter of commerce. Let's face it, the North may have condemned slavery, but they sure didn't mind the money that flowed their way. They had all the manufacturing, and therefore the money from raw goods--cotton, tobacco, and other plantation materials--that flowed into the South (partially from the North, partially from Europe) eventually made it to the North, where finished goods were made.

The South kept Blacks as slaves; the North kept the South, commercially, as slaves. The South knew that without slaves to do the work, they would be destitute, but the North could get their raw materials elsewhere. When Lincoln, who did run with an anti-slavery plank in his platform, was elected, the South was horrified and knew that if they remained in the Union they would certainly become completely dependent on the North.

So they seceded. Which could have been an amicable situation, actually: the South would have abolished slavery, at a guess, near 1890-1900, finding the Last strains of the Industrial Revolution more useful for production of raw materials. But, they weren't initially friendly to the North, and the North's partial dependence on the South for raw materials made the North angry when they simply couldn't get them.

So the North blockaded Charleston and other major ports to stop trade between the new Confederacy and Britain/Europe, in an attempt to force them to trade with the Union. Frankly, even now that'd be considered an act of war. Follow Harper's Ferry, Fort Sumter, Civil War.

OK. I paid too much attention in history class... and probably still have stuff wrong. Feel free to discuss.

Eric

[LazarusLong42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
We stopped being a federation of States when the constitution was signed.

---

I have to disagree with that one, strongly. We stopped being a federation of States in a slow, leak process, as the Federal government slowly took over more and more powers from the States and the people--powers that are supposedly reserved to the States and the People in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said Constitution.

These are the two Amendments that most courts seem to ignore.

While I'll agree the leak process began at the signing of the Constitution, it's taken quite a while, and there have been major bursts of activity driving us toward a single Union: the Depression and the New Deal which was implemented for the express purpose of getting us out of said Depression (and subsequently didn't work); before that certain policies instituted under Wilson, and before that Reconstruction. By the time we got to the Lyndon Johnson administration, the leak process was mostly finished and even Republicans pretty much accepted that there were no longer such things as "States" except in a few areas such as education.

The LBJ administration eliminated "States" as far as education goes. And so forth.

(OK, why is rambling about silly political ideologies of the past soothing to me? )

Eric

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
...But that's not all of it. There was also the matter of commerce. Let's face it, the North may have condemned slavery, but they sure didn't mind the money that flowed their way. They had all the manufacturing, and therefore the money from raw goods--cotton, tobacco, and other plantation materials--that flowed into the South (partially from the North, partially from Europe) eventually made it to the North, where finished goods were made.

---

All very true. For the first hundred years of our country there was a dirty little aggrement where everybody got paid and everybody stayed happy. I am not by any means saying the North was innocent. But by the 1860's attitudes in the North had shifted away from this and towards abbolishing slavery. This fact is what caused the rift between the two. All the pretty words about liberty and unity were just a way for "educated" men of the time to discuss the issue of the day without having to face the glaring truth.

The argument boiled down to it's core was simply, "Do I have the right to own another human being as property." The majority in South felt YES strongly enough to quit the country. The majority of the North felt strongly NO storngly enough to go to war to stop them.

Of course there are many other reasons why one individual or group or another picked one side or the other. Not everybody in the North cared a whit about the slaves. And not everybody in the South depended on slavery. Many would have been perfectly happy to allow it to be abolished at the time. And I don't doubt you are correct it would have been within a few more decades at any rate.

But my point is if you are looking for a single, defining cause for the American Civil War, it has to be the abolishion of slavery. It is the only one of the numerous issues of the day that if removed from the table, could have prevented the conflict from ever starting. It is the point about which all the other disagreements revolved.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
I have to disagree with that one, strongly. We stopped being a federation of States in a slow, leak process, as the Federal government slowly took over more and more powers from the States and the people--powers that are supposedly reserved to the States and the People in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said Constitution.

---

Of course a lot of this is a purely acedemic argument about semantics and definitions. But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations.

"Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union.

To be sure over time there has been a "leak" of the balance of power from the decentralized states towards a more massive federal burocracy. And that's not alway's been a good thing by any stretch.

quote:

---

(OK, why is rambling about silly political ideologies of the past soothing to me? )

---

I don't know. But I feel it too. This has been very theraputic. Almost like making my mind "think" for a while has allowed my emotions to take a break.

Geoschmo

[LazarusLong42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations.
Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union.

---

Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex.

Eric

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex.

Eric

---

Yes, I would say it is very close to the NATO charter. Although if a NATO member wants to go to war with another country we won't really stop them, unless it's another NATO member. But they probably would get kicked out eventually if they were the aggressor.

I wonder how different things would be today if we had kept the AoC?

I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

[Alpha Kodiak]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

---

I don't know, I think it is more interesting than the incessant droning of the talking heads on TV and radio. While this is truly the cataclysmic news story, there really isn't much new to say right at the moment, but that doesn't stop the news from saying the same thing over and o v e r aga...zzzzz

Uh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, maybe I'm just insensitive, but it seems like we should at least start to get back to some sense of normalcy. They can always interrupt with real news. Of course, there is little that is worthwhile on TV normally anyway, so maybe this is an improvement.

Oh well, time to go back to sle... I mean work.

[geoschmo]

Oh man are you right about that.

The only thing worse than hearing the same thing over and over is hearing all these really specific, detailed reports, that turn out to be absolute bunk. That has been happening TOO much the past 48 hours.

I guess the new press rule is if you don't have anything new to say, make something up.

Geoschmo

[Lisif Deoral]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.

---

Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?