What was the "American Civil War" really about?

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Are you trying to tell me that all the anti-social, blatant criminal historical lies/acts, and the slaughter of the Indians, slaves, poisoned people/water, unequal educational systems, and unfair housing and lending practices, America is not "exceptional"? America has spewed her vile bile of hatred and division for centuries under the cover of her so-called Constitution. Wolfgang, you don't see this as "exceptional"? Leave the Jews and Israel alone! CM

Well, let's see .... thus far I have only heard "exceptional" in reference to the USA in the sense of "extraordinary good", "better than other countries", "having almost a God-given superior place above other nations, etc"
No one here in the forums has described the USA as "exceptional" in regards to those points you mention here .... I am surprised no others have jumped on you as "anti-USA" and "USA hater".

As far as the modern day state of Israel and its regime is concerned, they appear to be just as "exceptional" or worse

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
well, now there has been a lot of stuff about electoral college and slavery, but really none of it seems to really relate to being a reason for or being the main purpose, aim or goal for the so-called "American Civil War" ... I say "so-called" because even the little info thus far mentioned about what actually happened as cause of that war seems to indicate that this war was a war forced by the Union because they did not want to lose power over those states that had decided to secede and leave the Union and formed their own country.

This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?

Your comments here prompted me to revisit the issue of secession, Wolfgang - specifically, the issue of the legality of secession.

On the subject, I strongly recommend THIS EXCELLENT WIKIPEDIA summary, which to my reading concludes that our founders made a clear distinction between secession (never allowed) and revolution (permitted under the necessary circumstances). Further, court rulings (including from our Supreme Court) and most legal scholars have found that secession is unconstitutional in our system.

You may/will disagree with the conclusions of our courts and scholars, but the Wikipedia summary makes pretty clear that states did/do not have the right to secede even "if they desire to do so."

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

Well, let's see .... thus far I have only heard "exceptional" in reference to the USA in the sense of "extraordinary good", "better than other countries", "having almost a God-given superior place above other nations, etc"
No one here in the forums has described the USA as "exceptional" in regards to those points you mention here .... I am surprised no others have jumped on you as "anti-USA" and "USA hater".

Are you trying to send a "dog whistle" signal to fellow CD Users to pounce on me over something unjustly? You're better than this, Wolfgang. Facts you ask, facts let's keep it at that; especially, when it comes to America.

There is no need for anyone to jump on me as '"anti-USA" and "USA hater"'. They don't, Wolfgang, because I am right. History has my back. What I said about America can be independently verified. What you're trying to say about Israel is questionable at best. CM

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Coley said:
On the subject, I strongly recommend THIS EXCELLENT WIKIPEDIA summary, which to my reading concludes that our founders made a clear distinction between secession (never allowed) and revolution (permitted under the necessary circumstances). Further, court rulings (including from our Supreme Court) and most legal scholars have found that secession is unconstitutional in our system.

I am too simple a fellow and recognize immediately upon reading the introductory paragraph of that article that the whole thing is dubious in the definition of terms "resolution" and "secession".

Some seem to always want "revolutionary war" and thus allow the more violent idea of "revolution", but reject a "peaceful revolution" executed by means of "secession" ??

You may/will disagree with the conclusions of our courts and scholars, but the Wikipedia summary makes pretty clear that states did/do not have the right to secede even "if they desire to do so."

Information available from both sides shows that they did not "just have a desire to do so", but obviously had reason to revolt against the Union's Washington regime as it was to them overstepping certain limits, and their "revolution" apparently did not want to instigate and have a military conflict and revolutionary war ...

Furthermore, any revolution or secession is always in conflict with some constitution or government / regime not adhering to constitution, violating citizens' rights, etc ... and of course the one side will claim their constitutional right to make war on the "rebels", while the rebels rather settle the conflict peacefully and separate and let each side do their thing and bear the consequences of their own doings.

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
I am too simple a fellow and recognize immediately upon reading the introductory paragraph of that article that the whole thing is dubious in the definition of terms "resolution" and "secession".

Some seem to always want "revolutionary war" and thus allow the more violent idea of "revolution", but reject a "peaceful revolution" executed by means of "secession" ??

As you know from the article to which I linked, Wolfgang, your argument is not with me or your own purported simplicity. It's with our founders. Here, from the article, is James Madison, the very real distinction between secession (not permitted) and revolution (permitted under the necessary circumstances)... (emphasis added)

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.[30]

"Revolution" in this context is not of necessity more violent (though it is likely to be, for sure) It's rather a response to "intolerable oppression," in distinction from secession, which Madison clearly views as in keeping with your original language: when states wish to leave the Union because "they desire to do so." Now who decides what's "intolerable oppression"? I don't have enough time to analyze that one at the moment!

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Coley said:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.[30]

Ah ha ... so this makes a distinction between "claim to secede at will" and "the right of seceding from intolerable oppression". Well, my various comments in the context of the so-called "American Civil War" were ONLY in regards to "the right of seceding from intolerable oppression" !!! It should be rather plain and clear that those States who decided on seceding from the Union did so because of "intolerable oppression (or theat thereof)" and not just because someone had drunk the wrong tea and had the idea of "let's secede from the Union because we want to" ...

"Revolution" in this context is not of necessity more violent (though it is likely to be, for sure) It's rather a response to "intolerable oppression," in distinction from secession, which Madison clearly views as in keeping with your original language: when states wish to leave the Union because "they desire to do so."

Sorry, my original language throughout has been in the context of States seceding from the Union in response to intolerable oppression or the threats thereof by the Union government. Thus, my description of "secession" as a kind of "peaceful revolution" in my last response to your post.

Now who decides what's "intolerable oppression"?

Only those who will be on the receiving end ... the ones exercising and dealing out oppression will never admit to it and always insist on the oppressed to have to remain under their thumbs.

GaoLu

@C_M_ I think you got exposed elsewhere, right? Think carefully.

C Mc

What was the "American Civil War" really about? _______________________________ CM

GaoLu

You know.

C Mc

A surrender to truth? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

A surrender to truth? CM

You finally are surrendering to truth? This is a great step forward!

GaoLu

Good idea.

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
Good idea.

Now that you're willing to accept a neglected truth, teach America's whole history and use your influence to get rid of the "Electoral College". CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
Good idea.

Now that you're willing to accept a neglected truth, teach America's whole history and use your influence to get rid of the "Electoral College". CM

The electoral college is an important protection that was not about slavery.

C Mc

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
Good idea.

Now that you're willing to accept a neglected truth, teach America's whole history and use your influence to get rid of the "Electoral College". CM

The electoral college is an important protection that was not about slavery.

Protecting whom, from what? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
Good idea.

Now that you're willing to accept a neglected truth, teach America's whole history and use your influence to get rid of the "Electoral College". CM

The electoral college is an important protection that was not about slavery.

Protecting whom, from what? CM

Protecting smaller areas from being ruled by the large cities. It provides balance.

Here's the thing. We have the electoral college and (apologies @Wolfgang I know this is off topic but it needs to be said) liberals need to quit whining about it. Learn to play the game and cater to the whole country, not just areas that are comfortable to you. The rules haven't changed you just don't have a winning platform.