its amazing what a difference... 14 minutes... can make...

the thing is they didn't Rebel just to preserve slavery, they were actively in favor of expanding it. They were in favor of ridiculous positions like conquering Cuba and Mexico and turning them into slave colonies, as well az to western states.

And they were also in favor of forcing Northern states to arrest and return fugitive slaves. So they were just as much into actively forcing their way on the rest of the country

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 10 2020 06:49pm

Another century? I highly doubt that. There's no way slavery would be allowed after WW2...hell, it probably would be abolished when Brazil abolished it.

You're right that slavery was widely practiced at the time of ratification. Women voting wasn't though. The same applies to non-property owners. I'm sure the balance of power shifted tremendously as the voting base expanded. In a democratic society, you have to accept that things change over time, including power dynamics.

I think the world would be much more chaotic if we allowed areas to secede every time the wind blows. Do Catalonians deserve their own country? What about Tibet? What about Quebec? IMO, in order for a new country to be formed, there needs to be a mutual agreement.

Sure, and if the South had been the side succeeding at forcing its will on the other side, I would defend the North's decision to secede just as much. In fact, in this scenario, most of the present-day historians and scholars would defend the decision by the North to secede since they did it for the right reasons.

As long as we both acknowledge that they succeeded for a dying, not economically viable, immoral cause lol.

And acknowledge They were traitors to the union, and the aggressors, and... What's there to defend again? Just that they wanted it?

Who says that WW2 would have gone the way it did in a world where the U.S. are divided? Perhaps the Confederation would have supported the Nazis instead of the Allies...
These little games of counterfactual are getting pretty dark though...




Neither women's suffrage nor voting rights for non-properrty owners threatened the country's economic model or its social hierarchy.



And it's still problematic if a narrow majority forces its will onto a large minority with regards to an issue where opinions are diametrically opposed. That's the reason why most countries' constitutions include provisions which seek to prevent this exact thing from happening. These democratic safeguards just fail when the polarization falls perfectly along geographic lines like it did with slavery/the civil war.




Generally speaking, expanded state or regional sovereignty is the answer to this issue. (And yes, I'm aware that the American Civil War is an exception in this regard since it was a rare case where the concept of 'state rights' was weaponized to argue in favor of a morally indefensible position (upholding slavery)).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 10 2020 07:07pm

even vs despite

1- let's see if these rallies will be done outdoor with a good part of the public wearing a mask
2- it's worldwide accepted that US "racial inequality" is a bigger deal than shitclown-in-chief rallies

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jun 10 2020 07:37pm

These things are true.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor in his time. His family's graves were essentially all defaced in his home town.

Robert E. Lee lived an exemplary life. He chose loyalty to one group of countrymen over loyalty to another. By all accounts he was conflicted, as I'm sure we'd all be in a civil war broke out tomorrow. There's a difference between betraying your countrymen and having to choose between one group and another. Because our views on slavery have evolved, we see the conflict differently now. Lincoln himself wasn't so concerned that he wouldn't have delayed the abolition of it would prevent war, but the rift between the two was too great.

The Civil War was complicated. Reducing it to a story about evil slaver traitors and loyal unionists is a bastardization of history.

I grew up in the North-East, so I have a Northern slant to the entire thing. I can't imagine what people in the South must feel. The Southern states have never truly recovered.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 10 2020 07:54pm

I don't fault Robert E. Lee and the like as human beings. My position is that LEAVING the Union is a traitorous act and these people shouldn't be lionized on US military bases or federal property. If a state wants to have a statue of him or have a statehouse named after him, I'm not opposed to that.

The Civil War IS complicated. However, there's been too much revisionist history IMO and the South is more sympathetic than they should be.