Support NeoGAF

[AaronB]

@Toxi and Leondexter

The US federal government allowed slavery for hundreds of years, and was still allowing it at the time of secession. Was the US federal government illegitimate until it ended slavery? Bear in mind, that was after the Civil War, as even the Emancipation Proclamation only claimed to free the slaves in the territories the union didn't control anyway.

All the example of Northern secession movements is intended to prove is that protecting slavery is not the only reason part of a country may want to secede. There are two separate issues here - slavery, and the right of secession. People taking your position generally attempt to duck the latter question by lumping it in with the former. Do you have any principled view regarding whether people should be able to throw off the government that is ruling them at the time? Then how does that view apply to the American revolution in the first place?

 

[Toxi]

@Toxi and Leondexter

The US federal government allowed slavery for hundreds of years, and was still allowing it at the time of secession. Was the US federal government illegitimate until it ended slavery? Bear in mind, that was after the Civil War, as even the Emancipation Proclamation only claimed to free the slaves in the territories the union didn't control anyway.

All the example of Northern secession movements is intended to prove is that protecting slavery is not the only reason part of a country may want to secede. There are two separate issues here - slavery, and the right of secession. People taking your position generally attempt to duck the latter question by lumping it in with the former. Do you have any principled view regarding whether people should be able to throw off the government that is ruling them at the time? Then how does that view apply to the American revolution in the first place?

We are not talking about the right to secede in a vacuum. We are talking about the Civil War, where prolonging slavery was the reason the states seceded.

Specifically, we are talking about this poll that you considered not too worrying.

Tell me, considering the result of the North winning the Civil War was the end of slavery in the United States, how the fuck can you answer anything else but "Glad the North won" in good conscious without being in favor of slavery? Answer this question.

 

[Version 3.0]

@Toxi and Leondexter

The US federal government allowed slavery for hundreds of years, and was still allowing it at the time of secession. Was the US federal government illegitimate until it ended slavery? Bear in mind, that was after the Civil War, as even the Emancipation Proclamation only claimed to free the slaves in the territories the union didn't control anyway.

All the example of Northern secession movements is intended to prove is that protecting slavery is not the only reason part of a country may want to secede. There are two separate issues here - slavery, and the right of secession. People taking your position generally attempt to duck the latter question by lumping it in with the former. Do you have any principled view regarding whether people should be able to throw off the government that is ruling them at the time? Then how does that view apply to the American revolution in the first place?

Please note that I already addressed this in my post: had the reason for secession been tobacco, then the war would have been over tobacco primarily, and secession secondarily.

In reality, the war was over slavery primarily, and secession secondarily. You can deride this as "lumping them together", but that's dishonest. Of course they're "lumped together", since the controversial and contentious issue of slavery is what prompted the action of secession, and ultimately war.

As to your second, and better question of whether people should be able to throw off a government, my answer is "maybe". But in absence of specific circumstances, it would be "yes". But, as with any issue, reality is not as simple as "yes" or "no". Circumstances matter.

First of all, in the specific instance of the Civil War, keep in mind that the people living in the areas wanting to secede included an entire population of slaves who were not given a voice in that decision. If the reason for wanting to leave an "oppressive" government is that said government is trying to limit your oppression of others, I feel I would need to change my answer.

Secondly, there is a major difference between an elected government and a dictatorship. In a democracy, the population is routinely given the chance to change their own government. Also, our constitution does provide a built-in means of potentially replacing our entire government structure.

Still, even in a democracy, specific demographics or geographical areas may feel improperly represented. Take, for example, current US territories, or even Washington DC. They could make a good case for that. Should they be allowed to secede? Maybe so. And had the Civil War been sparked by tobacco, as in my example, then I could perhaps be convinced that the secession should have stood. I would also argue that it's unlikely that my tobacco example would have sparked secession, much less war. Would you agree? Because that would again point to slavery as the root cause of the war, not states' rights.

I would certainly say that the Constitution should have addressed secession when it was written. Now it's a moot point, as precedent has been set.

By the way, your little tidbit about slavery lasting longer in the north is a tired old argument. Read up on it. Technicalities aside, slavery was illegal under state law in most northern states and virtually non-existant before the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Northern_abolition

 

[K.Sabot]

I'd only ever be against it to retain the relevancy of rap lyrics in the future.

Not surprising to see republicans like old money.

Underrated.

 

[AaronB]

So Lincoln said the war was about preserving the union, and he would do that whether it meant freeing the slaves or not. There was never any consideration of simply ending slavery but allowing the South to secede; to the contrary, there was every reason to believe they would be allowed to keep slaves as long as they stayed in the union (e.g. the Corwin Amendment). Yet you still somehow try to take that as "slavery was the primary reason for the war."


Besides that, even if the Civil War were primarily about slavery, many people do not view it that way, so that poll still wouldn't mean that that many people are ok with slavery. Again, show me a poll of how many people want to return to slavery. That's a simple, direct answer to a direct question, rather than trying to read the minds of people who think differently than you. There's a tendency on bo

 

[Matt]

So Lincoln said the war was about preserving the union, and he would do that whether it meant freeing the slaves or not. There was never any consideration of simply ending slavery but allowing the South to secede; to the contrary, there was every reason to believe they would be allowed to keep slaves as long as they stayed in the union (e.g. the Corwin Amendment). Yet you still somehow try to take that as "slavery was the primary reason for the war."


Besides that, even if the Civil War were primarily about slavery, many people do not view it that way, so that poll still wouldn't mean that that many people are ok with slavery. Again, show me a poll of how many people want to return to slavery. That's a simple, direct answer to a direct question, rather than trying to read the minds of people who think differently than you. There's a tendency on bo

...the south wanted to secceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.