The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War, 2nd Edition

[cmdrjones]

Meanwhile, the Confederates were fighting to protect their right to an intensely, brutally evil practice.

Slavery wasn't even threatened where it existed, Lincoln promised to keep it intact there. What was threatened was the spread of it to the newly claimed territories which Lincoln had campaigned against. So yeah, as I said, it's just so fucking pathetic.

Agreed.

[cmdrjones]

Thing is, to commit treason because your people are abused or oppressed is a different thing than to commit treason because you fear your people may be forced to stop practicing slavery.

The colonists of the American Revolution were fighting to protect their right to some practices that were questionable- chief among them being smuggling. But they had some legitimate grievances- violence by British garrisons, the fact that they had no actual legal representation in a Parliament that was now starting to assume more of its legal control over the colonies' economy, and so on.

Meanwhile, the Confederates were fighting to protect their right to an intensely, brutally evil practice. And aside from the defense of that practice, they had no real motive for rebelling. The federal government had done a great deal of good for the South, had in past decades gone well out of its way to protect slavery (i.e. from inhabitants of free states who might otherwise help escaped slaves). There was no history of abuses, no routine bullying of a minority by a majority, none of the normal things that would normally justify kicking off a civil war.*

So it is a foolish joke for the Confederates to say violence had "been made inevitable." Especially to say that just because the federal government did not just quietly acquiesce in the seizure of federal property and the violation of federal laws, when previously said federal government had been very kind and supportive of the states that were now doing the seizing and the violating.

A mugger cannot claim that violence was "made inevitable" by your refusal to hand over your wallet without a fight.
___________________________

Or rather, there was, but the only justified secession would have been the black slaves seceding collectively from the southern states, stealing all the weapons in the state armories, and forming their own private enclaves. Which would have been a delightful taste of the Confederacy's own medicine if you ask me. I wonder if any southern state would have been as calm about that as the Buchanan administration was about the Confederate states' seceding, or whether they would have taken more of a Lincoln-esque response of 'saving the unity' of their own states...

As for the mugger thing, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it more as a cop on your porch with a warrant written in crayon refusing to go away and daring you to shoot him.... oh and the cop is Canadian.

As to the second point, obviousl the blacks couldn't do that because they didn't have the power to do so. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for all concerned if they had.

[cmdrjones]

Missed the editing window, bleh.

Forgot to add that secession wasn't even an unanimous decision, they did have to resort to stuffing the ballots, supressing dissenters and in Texas' case even staged an outright coup to gain control.
That's why West Virginia almost immediately seceded right back to the US. I would also like to point out here that Lincoln won the presidency despite not even being on the ballot in many southern states. So, the South was in fact sabotaging and disregarding democracy wherever it could. They were also all too happy to violate the sovereignty of other states if it suited them like with the Fugitive Slave Act. So hypocrisy can be piled on top of it all.

So, confederate admirers, what exactly is there to be proud of in the CSA? Lee's and the Army of Northern Virginia's performance? Gotta' point out that Lee drawing out the war that he couldn't win led to the devastations that was wrought on Virginia and on the states Sherman marched through. Gotta' also point out that during the war the individual states kept their childish bickering and jealous hoarding of resources up.

Really, the CSA was an abysmal failure from the beginning to the end.

It wasn't so much Lee's performance, it was mainly the performance of the average confederate soldier, AND Lees conduct during and after the war, less so his performance on the battlefield. For those who DO admire the Confederate Army, the loyalty is largely tribal. I am sure there are lots of tribal peoples around the world whose loyalty is to their tribe first, no matter its history or their conduct.

Take for instance the Maori. Do we get all over them for being cannibals in the past? for wiping out the Moriori?

How about the Zulu and their abuse of other tribes in the area?

If I wanted to make you mad, this is where I would insinuate you were racist for only holding white people to your exalted standards... it couldn't be that you've internalized the whitey version/narrative of history and race relations have you?

[Sgt_Artyom]

We Canadians phases out the crayon warrants last year. Now they're done with water colours.

[Tribble]

We Canadians phases out the crayon warrants last year. Now they're done with water colours.

Actually, we went even further than that - now we'll just appear without the warrant and claim that you are a "threat to Canada".

[Sgt_Artyom]

Actually, we went even further than that - now we'll just appear without the warrant and claim that you are a "threat to Canada".

I'll believe that when I actually see or hear of an occurrence happening exactly how you describe it. If you get arrested and they pull that excuse on you, I for the most part believe that you're doing something wrong. Canada isn't the DDR, there aren't STASI like informers everywhere and you'll not be arrested without good reason for the most part.

[Metahive]

Meanwhile, the Confederates were fighting to protect their right to an intensely, brutally evil practice.

Slavery wasn't even threatened where it existed, Lincoln promised to keep it intact there. What was threatened was the spread of it to the newly claimed territories which Lincoln had campaigned against. So yeah, as I said, it's just so fucking pathetic.

Agreed.

Agreed, huh? So, the self-proclaimed patriot of the long gone slavocracy admits that everything about it was pathetic (and un-korean)? So why do you pledge allegiance to such a blatant example of human depredation? Why feign that they had a point in starting the civil war?

Eh, admit it, it's all lies. You're a /b/-tard trolling hardcore. Fuck off.

[Metahive]

...there goes the editing window.

As for those saying that the Confederates weren't traitors, well, d'uh, yes, of course they were. Their "justification" to secede was horseshit and basically came down to not abiding by democracy if it didn't go in their favor (when that had been their fault alone), they used illegal methods to push the secession through in the state assemblies and, as already said, staged a coup in Texas to take control there. Where's the legitimacy in that? They were never recognized by any other nation as a state, so that counts against them too. And finally there's no mechanism in the US constitution to handle the dissolution of the union*, so it was illegal in any case.

If the slavocrats wanted to leave the Union the legal way, they should have tried to amend the constitution first to include such a passage. That would have been the peaceful way. As is they were traitors who seized control illegaly and started a violent uprising against the legitimate government. No two ways about that.






*such a passage would be necessary since the states had been entangled for a while, regulating stuff like property, citizenship and diplomatic relations between the US and the newly independant former states for example.

[Captain Seafort]

As for those saying that the Confederates weren't traitors, well, d'uh, yes, of course they were. Their "justification" to secede was horseshit and basically came down to not abiding by democracy if it didn't go in their favor (when that had been their fault alone), they used illegal methods to push the secession through in the state assemblies and, as already said, staged a coup in Texas to take control there. Where's the legitimacy in that? They were never recognized by any other nation as a state, so that counts against them too. And finally there's no mechanism in the US constitution to handle the dissolution of the union*, so it was illegal in any case.

If the slavocrats wanted to leave the Union the legal way, they should have tried to amend the constitution first to include such a passage. That would have been the peaceful way. As is they were traitors who seized control illegaly and started a violent uprising against the legitimate government. No two ways about that.

Go back and read everything I've written - the US was founded on the principle that all the above is entirely justified. Accusing them of treason for following the founding principle of their (former) country is ridiculous.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I have no desire to delve deep into the minutiae of the Civil War and the politics surrounding it, but didn't the South still have the right to vote? The right to representation? They lost one goddamn election. Tell me, how much representation did the colonies have while under British rule? They wanted to do some not nice things, yes. But did they have representation over in Britain? Because the South certainly had Congressmen. The South still could vote in general elections. They still had a say in how the Union was governed. They were just mad that they couldn't tell everyone else what to do.

If the South had representation, while the colonies did not while under British rule, the sedition of the two aren't tremendously comparable.

[Metahive]

Go back and read everything I've written - the US was founded on the principle that all the above is entirely justified. Accusing them of treason for following the founding principle of their (former) country is ridiculous.

You wrote ignorance. Under the Articles of Confederation each member state was considered a sovereign entitiy but not any longer under the US constitution which replaced them. There is nothing in it that allows any individual member to unilaterally dissolve the union. So the Southerners were in clear breach of it when they did so which makes their secession illegal and them traitors and rebels.
Also, once again, their reason for secession was invalid, if any member could just leave if an election didn't go in its interest's favor, how functional a country could the US hope to be?
When they attacked Fort Sumter they weren't any more a sovereign nation than ISIS is today, so it was never a war between nations, but indeed just a rebellion and the US government consistently treated it as such and no other nation did otherwise.

[Captain Seafort]

You wrote ignorance. Under the Articles of Confederation each member state was considered a sovereign entitiy but not any longer under the US constitution which replaced them. There is nothing in it that allows any individual member to unilaterally dissolve the union. So the Southerners were in clear breach of it when they did so which makes their secession illegal and them traitors and rebels.

None of which is in any way relevant, because the genie was already out of the bottle, and had been since 4 July 1776. The fact that it was subsequently realised, with dismay, that the fundamental principle behind the declaration of independence could just as easily be applied against the US doesn't change that fact.

if any member could just leave if an election didn't go in its interest's favor, how functional a country could the US hope to be?

It can't - it's a flaw inherent in the circumstances of its birth.

[cmdrjones]

Agreed, huh? So, the self-proclaimed patriot of the long gone slavocracy admits that everything about it was pathetic (and un-korean)? So why do you pledge allegiance to such a blatant example of human depredation? Why feign that they had a point in starting the civil war?

Eh, admit it, it's all lies. You're a /b/-tard trolling hardcore. Fuck off.

Again, that doesn't follow. As I've siad before and will say again: When it comes to group (or tribal if you will) loyalty, the greatness or lack thereof, of the group is IRRELEVANT.
When I baited you about comparing the Confederates and Pre-20th Century Koreans, did you get upset or not? Did your tribal loyalty to Korea increase or not?
If so, why should it? You admit that they held slaves (albeit in a much less brutal system, and not of foreigners) we all recognize that they LOST to Japan, then if they were not great (or "fucking pathetic" if you will) then why do they deserve your reverence and allegiance?

Short Answer: They DON'T but, to quote the great William Munny: Deserve ain't go nuthin' to do with it.

[Ahriman238]

Should I take this as a tacit admission that the Confederacy doesn't deserve the loyalty it's shown by you and others a century and a half after it was destroyed?

When you can acknowledge that your group doesn't deserve special consideration and isn't that awesome, you've largely moved past the stage of unthinking tribalism.

[Simon_Jester]

You wrote ignorance. Under the Articles of Confederation each member state was considered a sovereign entitiy but not any longer under the US constitution which replaced them. There is nothing in it that allows any individual member to unilaterally dissolve the union. So the Southerners were in clear breach of it when they did so which makes their secession illegal and them traitors and rebels.

None of which is in any way relevant, because the genie was already out of the bottle, and had been since 4 July 1776. The fact that it was subsequently realised, with dismay, that the fundamental principle behind the declaration of independence could just as easily be applied against the US doesn't change that fact.

if any member could just leave if an election didn't go in its interest's favor, how functional a country could the US hope to be?

It can't - it's a flaw inherent in the circumstances of its birth.

For this argument to be sound, we must concede many things, all of which I would argue should not be conceded.

One of them is that we would have to concede that not being represented in an election and losing an election are morally equivalent and present equally good grounds for secession.

At the core of it, the American colonists rebelled because they had no direct legal representation in the government that held power over them, while the Confederates rebelled because they had such representation but had just lost a presidential election.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, you (and the Confederates) appear(ed) to be having trouble because you are (were) confusing 'tyranny' and 'losing.'

If you regard 'losing the election' as a form of tyranny which justifies secession from the government, then obviously there is no difference to you between the American Revolution and the American Civil War except which side won the war.

But if we take this to its logical conclusion then all democracy will end in literal anarchy, because every time there is a disagreement the losing side has the right to take its marbles and go home. There would be no such thing as a loyal opposition, because it would nearly always be to the advantage of the losing side in each election to:

1) Create a new country in which the minority of losers are once again the majority. As the Confederates tried to do.
2) Censor and expel any members of the 'old' majority who still disagree, if need be by force of arms. As the South did its best to censor and expel abolitionists in the antebellum era, and during the war.
3) Claim to be 'free' of the 'tyranny of the majority' by virtue of now being the biggest fish in their (smaller, possibly ethnically-cleansed) pond. Again, as the Confederates tried to do.

In other words, the people who thought democracy doesn't work because it is anarchy would be right, and the only functional forms of government that could even exist without disintegrating would be dictatorships and monarchies.

So I have to ask, why do you hate democracy so much, Seafort? Because as far as I can tell, you seriously contend that...

...The US, despite having a constitution that explicitly DOES provide representation to the citizens, somehow DOES NOT provide such representation, and is thus no better than it would be if the legislature simply did not allow citizens from the southern states to vote at all. Also that...

...The US, which explicitly DOES have a constitution that compels states to obey the federal government and its laws, somehow DOES NOT have the ability to compel states to do those things.

I honestly can't understand how you can want this, and seriously allege that it is correct and proper that things work the way you claim. At least, not unless you want all democratic governments to dissolve into localized tyrannies.

It was precisely that process (a localized tyranny seceding from a democracy that threatened to undermine its local tyranny) which led to the Confederate revolt in the first place.

[Captain Seafort]

You're talking about the details of each situation - I'm talking about the overarching principle being applied. In 1776, the colonists didn't like the way Great Britain was doing things, so they quit. In 1860/61, the southern states didn't like the way the US was doing things, so they quit. I don't consider the differences between the details of "the way X was doing things" to override the fact that the basic principle being applied was the same. Personally, I don't consider that principle to be valid under any circumstances, but the Confederacy wasn't seceding from the Grand Empire of Seafortistan or somesuch - it was seceding from the United States, which was founded on said principle, and in doing so validated it.

[Simon_Jester]

As for the mugger thing, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it more as a cop on your porch with a warrant written in crayon refusing to go away and daring you to shoot him.... oh and the cop is Canadian.

A warrant for what, exactly? The US government didn't DO anything to the Confederate states- they seceded in response to the mere fact of having lost an election! There was no tyranny, no abuse, no threat!

And then they immediately started taking federal government property (like cannons from federal arsenals), and ignoring federal laws the Constitution says states have to follow.

Which is where my analogy to muggings shows up- because here you have people who just randomly decide to break the law and take things that do not belong to them. For literally no other reason than that they decided they don't have to follow laws.

As to the second point, obviousl the blacks couldn't do that because they didn't have the power to do so. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for all concerned if they had.

Thing is, while clearly the blacks had the right to do so, there is literally no way that the Confederates would have tolerated even a hint of such a thing. Because their desire to own other humans as property was far, far stronger than their alleged commitment to this 'ideal.' This ideal of breaking up every government that looks like it might maybe pass a law that inconveniences some of its citizens.

Which makes the whole claim that the South was seceding over anything recognizable as 'rights,' 'liberties,' or 'freedoms' into a stupid, ridiculous joke. You cannot proclaim yourself above the law and start ignoring election results, in the name of your essential rights, if you are not prepared to allow other people the essential right to ignore your laws and election results.

If the South had representation, while the colonies did not while under British rule, the sedition of the two aren't tremendously comparable.

Oh, but you don't understand, friend! When you are a SOUTHERN PATRIOT, there is no difference between "losing" and "tyranny!" Any government other than one of your fellow SOUTHERN PATRIOTS is simply intolerable, and automatically an evil tyranny, even before it hasn't taken office yet!

I swear, it's like watching an unusually immature kindergardener throw a temper tantrum because they don't want to share the toys, it's mean and the other kid is a bully for asking for a turn!

You're talking about the details of each situation - I'm talking about the overarching principle being applied.

Yes, because details matter. You have to do things for reasons, believe it or not.

The proto-United States and its leaders of the 1770s actually spent a lot of time and energy explaining exactly what had been done to them as provocation, and what the fundamental basis for their desire to revolt against the British crown was.

It's insulting to their memory to have some yammerhead say "oh, well THEY revolted because THEY disagreed with a policy, so it's ALWAYS okay to revolt because you disagree with ANY policy!"

That is not in fact a principle that was supported or upheld by the Founders, it is not a principle logically consistent with their words and actions.

It is the 'principle' of an utterly unprincipled, selfish, and spoiled mind- as I said above, the kindergardener who thinks he's being bullied because somebody else asked for a turn sharing the toys.

In 1776, the colonists didn't like the way Great Britain was doing things, so they quit. In 1860/61, the southern states didn't like the way the US was doing things, so they quit. I don't consider the differences between the details of "the way X was doing things" to override the fact that the basic principle being applied was the same.

This is like saying "the FBI shot a drug dealer named Smith last week, and sure, I murdered a guy named Smith to take his wallet, but it's okay! The basic principle is that it's okay to kill guys named Smith! It's the same principle!"

Personally, I don't consider that principle to be valid under any circumstances, but the Confederacy wasn't seceding from the Grand Empire of Seafortistan or somesuch - it was seceding from the United States, which was founded on said principle, and in doing so validated it.

The US did not validate the idea of unconditional, unprovoked secession under all circumstances.

[Metahive]

Fuck, is that the best you've got, Seafort? "The US seceded from Britain and got away with it and therefore the CSA could secede from the US too"? What kind of playground logic is that? Of course you don't want to talk about the details because they reveal the glaring differences between the two uprisings. The US declared independency because their concerns were not represented in the british parliament. The CSA seceded because they could no longer easily impose their pet policies on the rest of the country. They rebelled because they faced the prospect of actually having to maybe make compromises on their policy proposals. Good Lord, the indignity, the hardship!
In short, the Southern elites were being childish, solipsistic assholes who didn't ever learn the first lesson of adulthood: "IT'S NOT FUCKING ALL ABOUT YOU!"

And again, the US constitution doesn't confer the right to any individual member state to unilaterally dissolve the union. It's not a state issue since such a step would affect all the other members deeply as well, so the secession was illegal from start to finish and the US government in the right to stomp down on it.

ETA:
BTW, the actual policy the Southerners disagreed with? "People we don't like can be elected president", they seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Yeah, totally valid.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes, because details matter. You have to do things for reasons, believe it or not.

I'm not disputing that the reasoning was different - I'm pointing out that the actions were exactly the same.

The proto-United States and its leaders of the 1770s actually spent a lot of time and energy explaining exactly what had been done to them as provocation, and what the fundamental basis for their desire to revolt against the British crown was.

The southern states spouted a lot of woe-is-me bullshit as well.

It's insulting to their memory to have some yammerhead say "oh, well THEY revolted because THEY disagreed with a policy, so it's ALWAYS okay to revolt because you disagree with ANY policy!"

That is not in fact a principle that was supported or upheld by the Founders, it is not a principle logically consistent with their words and actions.

They may not have intended to do so, but that's what they did.

This is like saying "the FBI shot a drug dealer named Smith last week, and sure, I murdered a guy named Smith to take his wallet, but it's okay! The basic principle is that it's okay to kill guys named Smith! It's the same principle!"

It's more like "Bob stole PC Plod's wallet because he doesn't like the cops, and Tim then stole Bob's wallet because he wanted the money." Bob is in no position to complain about Tim being a thief.

The US did not validate the idea of unconditional, unprovoked secession under all circumstances.

Yes it did. Probably not intentionally, but it did.

[Simon_Jester]

In short, the Southern elites were being childish, solipsistic assholes who didn't ever learn the first lesson of adulthood: "IT'S NOT FUCKING ALL ABOUT YOU!"

Now now, Metahive, how were those poor plantation owners to learn such a hard lesson when most of the other humans living within a half mile radius of their home were slaves whose toil was devoted to their personal enrichment, forced into a state of abject submission by fear of the whip?

Think of the affluenza!

[loses his deadpan delivery, breaks down laughing]

Although seriously I wonder if that might be a partial cause of it- aristocrats being more likely to develop this bizarre playground-logic refusal to accept compromise because they spend so much of their time lording it over other humans that they either never learn, or un-learn, basic lessons every adult normally has to absorb.

Yes, because details matter. You have to do things for reasons, believe it or not.

I'm not disputing that the reasoning was different - I'm pointing out that the actions were exactly the same.

Since the action can be rendered right or wrong depending on the motive, this is irrelevant. The fact that the FBI legitimately killed a man named Smith in a raid on his crackhouse does not entitle me to kill a man named Smith in an attempt to commit armed robbery against him.

The proto-United States and its leaders of the 1770s actually spent a lot of time and energy explaining exactly what had been done to them as provocation, and what the fundamental basis for their desire to revolt against the British crown was.

The southern states spouted a lot of woe-is-me bullshit as well.

In which case it would behoove us to examine these various claims on their merits, rather than simply saying "both groups did X, therefore both were equally right/wrong to do X."

It's insulting to their memory to have some yammerhead say "oh, well THEY revolted because THEY disagreed with a policy, so it's ALWAYS okay to revolt because you disagree with ANY policy!"

That is not in fact a principle that was supported or upheld by the Founders, it is not a principle logically consistent with their words and actions.

They may not have intended to do so, but that's what they did.

No, they did not.

Delusional idiots thought they did, but they were delusional idiots.

I am not to blame for any delusional idiots who misunderstand my actions as a license to feed their own entitlement complex.

This is like saying "the FBI shot a drug dealer named Smith last week, and sure, I murdered a guy named Smith to take his wallet, but it's okay! The basic principle is that it's okay to kill guys named Smith! It's the same principle!"

It's more like "Bob stole PC Plod's wallet because he doesn't like the cops, and Tim then stole Bob's wallet because he wanted the money." Bob is in no position to complain about Tim being a thief.

IF you are correct, THEN it would be because of a detailed examination of the motives of the colonial rebels of 1776, versus the Confederate rebels of 1861.

Which is precisely the subject you already refused to discuss.

Therefore, your argument now hinges entirely on a specific point. A point you previously declined to discuss on its merits.

So as far as I'm concerned you have two options.
1) Open discussion of the relative merits of the 1776 and 1861 secessions, or
2) Concede that you are unprepared to prove your own thesis.

I look forward to either outcome. Please inform me as to which you are taking.

The US did not validate the idea of unconditional, unprovoked secession under all circumstances.

Yes it did. Probably not intentionally, but it did.

Only in the minds of delusional idiots.

[Captain Seafort]

IF you are correct, THEN it would be because of a detailed examination of the motives of the colonial rebels of 1776, versus the Confederate rebels of 1861.

Not at all - said detailed examination would be the equivalent of going into the detail of why Bob dislikes the plod, and why Tim wanted the money. You are welcome to pontificate along those lines as much as you like, but they're not part of my argument. My argument is that Bob stole from from an individual with authority (the plod - i.e. a country that was not formed by unauthorised secession). Tim stole from a thief (Bob - i.e. a country that was formed by unauthorised secession). Bob is in no position to complain about Tim's thievery because he is himself a thief.

Now, it may be that Bob dislikes the cops because they routinely beat him up for no reason, or it may be because he's a career criminal who keeps getting caught. Conversely, Tim might want the money because he's unemployed, homeless, and has a family to feed, or he may be a millionaire who just wants yet more money and who routinely goes round kicking puppies. These factors may impact our relative sympathy for the two individuals, but they do not change the fact of whether or not the crime of theft has occurred, and they do not grant Bob any moral high ground when discussing the specific crime of theft.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you believe that if an federal agent named Smith shoots a drug dealer named Smith in a raid on a crackhouse, they have no right to complain if they are later shot by an armed robber because they "set the precedent that killing Smiths is acceptable?"

If you believe that this is NOT true, then your position collapses, because you are admitting the role of justifications in deciding whether or not an action is legitimate- that an act may be made acceptable or unacceptable depending on who did it and why.

If you believe that this IS true, then you're so wildly at odds with normal thinking about crime, punishment, mens rea, and ethics in general that I question whether you can even have a meaningful conversation on these subjects.

[Captain Seafort]

If you believe that this is NOT true, then your position collapses, because you are admitting the role of justifications in deciding whether or not an action is legitimate- that an act may be made acceptable or unacceptable depending on who did it and why.

Not at all - in your example, Smith the agent shoots Smith the druggie while performing his duty. It is therefore a justifiable homicide (not a crime) rather than murder (a crime). In my example, Bob and Tim are both thieves and therefore both criminals from the perspective of a third party observer. It is, however, the height of hypocrisy for Bob to complain about Tim for committing the exact same crime he himself is guilty of. Now, if Tim was a murderer as well, while the worst Bob had ever done was give someone a black eye, and Bob was complaining about Tim being a murderer, then fair enough. It's on the subject of theft that he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

[Esquire]

The American revolution of 1776 was a reaction to a long history of grievances and provocations eloquently laid out in multiple documents and enjoyed the support of a large majority of the national population. The colonists had precisely no representation at Parliamentary levels in the British government, and went to great lengths to attempt peaceful resolutions to their differences with the motherland.

The Confederate revolution, however, was undertaken to perpetuate chattel slavery. It violated the same Constitution the Southern states had freely ratified and undermined the the principles of republican discourse and compromise that are the ideological foundations of the United States government. No attempt at peaceful resolution was made, and the secession referendum was subject to ballot-stuffing and voter intimidation on a massive scale, even ignoring the vast slave population who obviously were not allowed to vote.

There is no realistic ethical framework that would equate these two actions.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The good Captain just refuses to concede the argument, even though it's been shown repeatedly that there's a big fucking difference between the colonies seceding from the Crown and the Southern states seceding from the Union.


Here's one for ya, Cap. If a mugger named Smith is fatally wounded by the person he is mugging and it is decided the use of force was justified, does that mean any killings of men named Smith are justified? Two civilians in the first encounter. One named Smith is pointing a knife, sharpened screw driver, gun, whatever, at the other guy. The other guy manages to kill Smith in self-defense. Now, we both know that killing another person is illegal by default. There can be exceptions made, and this ends up being one. Does that mean that all men named Smith can be killed legally if we want to remain consistent?

Context fucking matters you yutz.