France still bitter about Waterloo

[K. A. Pital]

I'm surprised you say this, honestly.

Why? For me, the history of mankind is the struggle of progress and reaction, so naturally something furthering progress is desirable, even if there is a human cost, because the human cost of reaction is usually manifested in the warping of whole societies with bullshit laws and barbaric customs. That itself later exerts enormous pressure on every single person living in such a society.

I mean, are you saying that you'd be all for the US to invade Saudi Arabia, depose the monarchy and install a democracy with better laws?

Actually, yes. Had the US succeeded in transforming the Middle East into a stable region with democratic or even semi-authoritarian secular countries, it would be a desireable influence. However, the record is hardly stellar: the influence produces a rise in radicalism and reactionary movements, either directly (invasion of Iraq - collapse of puppet regime - rise of Islamic State) or in roundabout ways (the act against Mossadegh - Shah regime - Islamic uprising, funding Qatar and Saudi Arabia - spillover funding for islamic fundamentalism in ME and Africa).

I'm honestly curious now.

I support the self-determination of nations as moral right, not as a goal in itself. If said self-determination follows obviously reactionary goals (CSA, Vendee, etc.), it is preferrable that such a movement loses. If the movement has had a republican and/or modernizing element, then this movement of self-determination I support.

[Channel72]

I mean, are you saying that you'd be all for the US to invade Saudi Arabia, depose the monarchy and install a democracy with better laws?

Actually, yes. Had the US succeeded in transforming the Middle East into a stable region with democratic or even semi-authoritarian secular countries, it would be a desireable influence. However, the record is hardly stellar: the influence produces a rise in radicalism and reactionary movements, either directly (invasion of Iraq - collapse of puppet regime - rise of Islamic State) or in roundabout ways (the act against Mossadegh - Shah regime - Islamic uprising, funding Qatar and Saudi Arabia - spillover funding for islamic fundamentalism in ME and Africa).

I'm sympathetic to that sentiment. Historically we have many examples of conquering nations improving the cultures and laws of the nations they've conquered. However, lately when we actually try this it doesn't pan out well, especially in the Mideast. Honestly, I can't even begin to think of a way to realistically depose the Saudi Monarchy without causing major chaos that will inevitably have many unpredictable side effects throughout the region.

Also, back in 2003 Bush was pretty much promising to do exactly what you're saying here. He was exaggerating and lying about the threat posed by Saddam, of course, to get everyone on board. But aside from that, it sounds like your philosophy here should have made you very supportive of the 2003 war, given that you wouldn't have known at the time how badly it was going to be bungled.

[cmdrjones]

I would say that premise is a factor to consider in the determination, but not of such weight it can decide the matter on its own. While it is understandable that people will fight to defend their homes no matter what system they're under, that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have the superior moral justification. As was seen in the American Civil War, among other conflicts.

the PERSIANS Were right!!! Fuck Leonidas!!!

[Steve]

I would say that premise is a factor to consider in the determination, but not of such weight it can decide the matter on its own. While it is understandable that people will fight to defend their homes no matter what system they're under, that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have the superior moral justification. As was seen in the American Civil War, among other conflicts.

the PERSIANS Were right!!! Fuck Leonidas!!!

.....what?

No, seriously, what? Just how do you take the statement I made and derive from it that the Persian Empire's war of territorial aggrandizement is justified by what I said?

[cmdrjones]

I would say that premise is a factor to consider in the determination, but not of such weight it can decide the matter on its own. While it is understandable that people will fight to defend their homes no matter what system they're under, that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have the superior moral justification. As was seen in the American Civil War, among other conflicts.

the PERSIANS Were right!!! Fuck Leonidas!!!

.....what?

No, seriously, what? Just how do you take the statement I made and derive from it that the Persian Empire's war of territorial aggrandizement is justified by what I said?

Did the Spartans own slaves or not?

[K. A. Pital]

The main question is not that. The main question is whether Ancient Greece utilized slavery extensively, and we know the answer is yes. Persia of the time was not a slavery economy.

[cmdrjones]

The main question is not that. The main question is whether Ancient Greece utilized slavery extensively, and we know the answer is yes. Persia of the time was not a slavery economy.

exactly, and according to Steve owning slaves is good enough a justification for a foreign power to invade and rearrange your society after conquering you. Hence, the Persians were absolutely right to try to snuff out Western civilization in the cradle.

Persia was a giant imperial monarchy and I don't think they were big on human rights, but.... I doubt the practiced chattel slavery like the spartans did.

I just find it darkly humorous that all the Yankees who hate on Southrons so much also oppose things like the PRC's 'one china' policy, or the Mulsim brotherhood electoral victory in Egypt. Self determination for me but not for thee.

[K. A. Pital]

Persia certainly had better human rights than Ancient Greece, if slavery is taken into account. What could be worse than selling humans like meatbags on the market? Democracy for slaveowners is worth nothing. If anything, it is monstrous.

[Simon_Jester]

Could someone please expand on the statement that the Persians did not practice slavery?

I am honestly not aware of ANY ancient culture which did not practice slavery. Pray tell me more...

[K. A. Pital]

It is pretty much common knowledge that the Achaemenid Empire's population consisted in majority of free workers, while slaves were a minority, and could not rely on slave labour the way Athens, and Ancient Greece in general, did. In Athens, which was a slavocracy, slaves outnumbered the free citizens massively (like 10 to one or something) - on a scale unthinkable in the Achaemenid Empire, where slavery as a practice related to a small subset of men and was already on the decline as an institution.

I can cite some works on the period, if you wish.

The connection between the absence of large-scale slave populations and Zoroastrism is often proposed as the explanation, though I would say it is probably a mixture of different factors.

[cmdrjones]

Persia certainly had better human rights than Ancient Greece, if slavery is taken into account. What could be worse than selling humans like meatbags on the market? Democracy for slaveowners is worth nothing. If anything, it is monstrous.

I'll tell you whats worse, the same thing, but convincing the enslaved population to do it to themselves, and then brag about it....

Pay your taxes lately citizen? IT's the price we pay for like good roads and shit...

[Esquire]

Humans are social creatures by necessity as well as habit. We cannot maintain a modern standard of living without distributing the cost of infrastructure across whole national populations. Taxes really are the price we pay for good roads, as well as schools, hospitals, and security; if you want to live in a place with none of those things you're welcome to try Somalia. Either commit to your libertarianism or admit that it's just short-sighted selfishness trying for some dignity.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just find it darkly humorous that all the Yankees who hate on Southrons so much also oppose things like the PRC's 'one china' policy, or the Mulsim brotherhood electoral victory in Egypt. Self determination for me but not for thee.

What? Seriously, what are you even talking about, anymore? How is opposing the institution of slavery somehow inconsistent with either of those other positions, and where did you get the idea that everyone who opposes slavery also uniformly opposes those things?

Further, since you brought it up, I have to ask: what is your opinion on the Confederate States of America?

[Simon_Jester]

It is pretty much common knowledge that the Achaemenid Empire's population consisted in majority of free workers, while slaves were a minority, and could not rely on slave labour the way Athens, and Ancient Greece in general, did. In Athens, which was a slavocracy, slaves outnumbered the free citizens massively (like 10 to one or something) - on a scale unthinkable in the Achaemenid Empire, where slavery as a practice related to a small subset of men and was already on the decline as an institution.

I can cite some works on the period, if you wish.

I'm prepared to take your word for it... except...

http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Page ... lation.htm

So here we have the idea that the Athenian population at the civilization's height was roughly 25000 first-class citizens, and 45000 second-class citizens and residents. Something like 100 to 150 thousand women (not citizens, but not really citizens under Persian law either although it may have been more gender-equal than Greek law for all I know). And something like 115 thousand slaves.

That doesn't sound like the 10:1 slavocracy you describe. And most figures I've heard for Athens say the population was roughly one third citizens and citizen families (many of whom couldn't vote, but who at least had actual legal rights and weren't property), one third foreigners and residents, and one third slaves.

More generally, though, part of the question is whether the Persians invaded Greece with any intention of freeing their slaves. Because if their sole goal was to reduce the Greek city-states to tributary status, then the war does not have a particularly progressive character.

Now, the war between Athens and Sparta, we can agree, was a war of a relatively more progressive side against a sharply less progressive one. The Spartan citizens were far more outnumbered by their slaves, and were correspondingly far more brutal to them.

[cmdrjones]

I just find it darkly humorous that all the Yankees who hate on Southrons so much also oppose things like the PRC's 'one china' policy, or the Mulsim brotherhood electoral victory in Egypt. Self determination for me but not for thee.

What? Seriously, what are you even talking about, anymore? How is opposing the institution of slavery somehow inconsistent with either of those other positions, and where did you get the idea that everyone who opposes slavery also uniformly opposes those things?

Further, since you brought it up, I have to ask: what is your opinion on the Confederate States of America?

#1 I didn't bring it up, it was mentioned upthread.

#2 Those who support the invasion of the South use slavery as their justification while ignoring or downplaying the sovereignty angle while simultaneously arguing that BECAUSE of slavery (or some other social ill) that sovereignty doesn't matter. These people (IHMO) tend NOT to grant the right of China to invade and take Taiwan on the grounds of Sovereignty (because the PRC is evil), or oppose the Muslim brotherhood takeover of Egypt (which was a popular vote BTW, but again because those people are evil, no), or again, oppose the secession of scotland (because UK or something) but Support the forcible extrication of Kosovo (Because this time the SERBS are evil!), but not the Secession of the Crimea or Novorussya, but Supported the breakup of the Soviet Union, but ALSO supported the Reunification of Germany.... etc etc.

What I didn't make clear (and I apologize) is that for the modern Liberal, Ideology purity trumps intellectual consistency. I favor letting people secede (liberty), ESPECIALLY if they are part of a voluntary union (Scotland and the South come to mind immediately), but I do NOT suport great power meddling in others affairs which leads to colonial adventurism and entangling alliances and 'coalition' warfare.

So, to sum up: if we support self determination and the idea that states can form political unions willingly, then they should be able to dissolve them willingly as well. Whether they are slave states, or communist states, or islamic states, or western liberal democracies, is immaterial with regards to the question should X state be able to dissolve this or that union?

The reason I cited the Spartans, as a semi-ironic joke, is that they are usually portrayed as the 'good guys' fighting for civilization etc when in reality they were a bronze age slave holding city state against an absolute divine right dictatorship. All they were fighting for was the idea that Greece had the right to exist as a separate civilization, that did NOT have to call Xerxes 'god' not for 'human rights' or whatever. So, if the mere presence of Slavery nullifies the rights to self determination, then the Spartans were wrong.

As far as the south goes, they had the absolute right, as sovereign states, to secede at any time. The North used the institution of slavery as a convenient excuse to invade and occupy the Confederate states. The Confederates DID fire first when the Union forces refused to evacuate terrorty that was not theirs anymore. The North acted hypocritically by #1 raising troops to invade states that had seceded, much like the British had done to them. #2 suspended habeas corpus #3 imprisoned dissidents #4 illegally used executive power to tax and wage war #5 when they DID free slaves, they did NOT free them within their own territory.

All that being said, the South, (much like Japan in WWII) had exactly 0 chance of winning that war and should not have been surprised AT ALL at the Union response. If they had half a brain, they would have manumitted the slaves and THEN declared independance. (of course the slaves would probably have not voted for secession in the first place had they been given a chance, hence they probably would have not been full voting citizens even if they had been given a legal status other thatn 'slave') If that war was to be described accurately it should be called the War of Secession precisely because the war aims of the Confederate states was never to overthrow the US government and establish their rule over the entirety of the country which is what a 'civil war' is.
Slavery is still a monstrous crime and they sowed the seeds of their own destruction by engaging in it. I would bet money that if they had 9 million whites instead of the slaves, the economic and military balance would have swung far enough in their favor to ensure victory, but then again... if they had had 9 million slaves, then the war would probably not have been feasible in the first place, no?

[cmdrjones]

Humans are social creatures by necessity as well as habit. We cannot maintain a modern standard of living without distributing the cost of infrastructure across whole national populations. Taxes really are the price we pay for good roads, as well as schools, hospitals, and security; if you want to live in a place with none of those things you're welcome to try Somalia. Either commit to your libertarianism or admit that it's just short-sighted selfishness trying for some dignity.

or those expenses are the justifications that entrenched elites use an excuse to tax people.... I kinda detect a false dichotomy here: "progressive" taxes to take half your income and threaten you with Jail OR SOMALIA!!!! Dun-Dun-DUUUUUNNN!!

[Esquire]

Obviously I took the extreme case to try and show you the logical consequences of your position. The less extreme comparison would be, for example, the state of Mississippi and Sweden. Which of those two has higher taxes in order to pay for government programs? And which has longer lifespans, higher education rates, and higher marks in literally every single measurable indicator for quality of life?

Plus, it's not like taxes go into some secret underground vault where the mysterious 'elites' use your precious hard-earned dollars to light cigars while chuckling over getting another one over on the poor; it's all accounted for in the itemized yearly budget, except for things like the CIA's non-specific dirty tricks fund. By a massive margin, your tax dollars go to exactly the things I said, plus things like the VA. Of course it's not a perfect system, but, again, you're welcome to look at the real-world state with no central government of your choice for an illustration of why imperfect is better than nonexistent.

[mr friendly guy]

Could someone please expand on the statement that the Persians did not practice slavery?

I am honestly not aware of ANY ancient culture which did not practice slavery. Pray tell me more...

It was supposedly against the Persian religion of Zoastrian ? sp.

[mr friendly guy]

It is pretty much common knowledge that the Achaemenid Empire's population consisted in majority of free workers, while slaves were a minority, and could not rely on slave labour the way Athens, and Ancient Greece in general, did. In Athens, which was a slavocracy, slaves outnumbered the free citizens massively (like 10 to one or something) - on a scale unthinkable in the Achaemenid Empire, where slavery as a practice related to a small subset of men and was already on the decline as an institution.

I can cite some works on the period, if you wish.

I'm prepared to take your word for it... except...

http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Page ... lation.htm

So here we have the idea that the Athenian population at the civilization's height was roughly 25000 first-class citizens, and 45000 second-class citizens and residents. Something like 100 to 150 thousand women (not citizens, but not really citizens under Persian law either although it may have been more gender-equal than Greek law for all I know). And something like 115 thousand slaves.

That doesn't sound like the 10:1 slavocracy you describe. And most figures I've heard for Athens say the population was roughly one third citizens and citizen families (many of whom couldn't vote, but who at least had actual legal rights and weren't property), one third foreigners and residents, and one third slaves.

More generally, though, part of the question is whether the Persians invaded Greece with any intention of freeing their slaves. Because if their sole goal was to reduce the Greek city-states to tributary status, then the war does not have a particularly progressive character.

Now, the war between Athens and Sparta, we can agree, was a war of a relatively more progressive side against a sharply less progressive one. The Spartan citizens were far more outnumbered by their slaves, and were correspondingly far more brutal to them.

I am surprised by those numbers of slaves for Athens. However its another story for Sparta. IIRC Thucycides mentioned the Helots outnumbered the free Spartan population 8-9 to one.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's late and I'm tired, so this is only a partial response. I'll get around to the rest later but I want to address two main points:

#2 Those who support the invasion of the South use slavery as their justification while ignoring or downplaying the sovereignty angle while simultaneously arguing that BECAUSE of slavery (or some other social ill) that sovereignty doesn't matter.

The sovereignty angle in the context of the American Civil War SHOULD be ignored, because it is almost entirely irrelevant. Slavery was the central cause of the war. Even take a look at the various states' articles of secession, i.e. the official announcement by the state governments of the reasons for secession. Notice how the message throughout is dedicated to discussing the of slavery, not the issue of state's rights or sovereignty. And the Supreme Court has confirmed that there was no legal basis for secession, thus there was no legitimacy to the Confederate government. Obviously, we can go down a whole rabbit hole here about what the notion of legitimacy actually means, and how if the Confederates had impossibly won we would be defining it differently, but that's really besides the point. The Civil War was not about sovereignty.

Now, this is the predominant opinion held among historians on the Civil War. It is ridiculous to then take this and claim that these same people are also claiming that because of slavery that sovereignty doesn't matter. I understand people have made that claim in this thread, but I am not making that argument. I am merely concerned with your inaccurate and apologist behavior towards the Civil War specifically. It was not about sovereignty, plain and simple.

These people (IHMO) tend NOT to grant the right of China to invade and take Taiwan on the grounds of Sovereignty (because the PRC is evil), or oppose the Muslim brotherhood takeover of Egypt (which was a popular vote BTW, but again because those people are evil, no), or again, oppose the secession of scotland (because UK or something) but Support the forcible extrication of Kosovo (Because this time the SERBS are evil!), but not the Secession of the Crimea or Novorussya, but Supported the breakup of the Soviet Union, but ALSO supported the Reunification of Germany.... etc etc. [/auote]

So you just are basically just grouping together everybody that has ever disagreed with you on any topic into the same category? I vehemently disagree with you on the issue of the Civil War, but the rest of that description doesn't fit me. Hell, I don't even consider that list of yours to be ideologically coherent. These are all complex issue that are hotly disagreed upon, even among liberals and conservatives and other broad swathes of public opinion. And there is no obvious logical link from the issue of the Civil War to any of those issues.

What I didn't make clear (and I apologize) is that for the modern Liberal, Ideology purity trumps intellectual consistency.

First of all: prove it. You just made a claim about half of the population, I expect you to back it up. Second of all: why do you even treat liberal as one big homogenous, like-minded group anyway? Conservatives aren't homogenous, either. Just because there are broad philosophical alliances, there are still huge differences between, say, communists and socialists and European liberalism and American liberalism and etc. etc.

I favor letting people secede (liberty), ESPECIALLY if they are part of a voluntary union (Scotland and the South come to mind immediately), but I do NOT suport great power meddling in others affairs which leads to colonial adventurism and entangling alliances and 'coalition' warfare.

I agree with you on Scotland. I disagree with you on the South, because there is nothing in the US Constitution that implies that the union is, in fact, voluntary. There was no legal basis for secession in that case. Scotland is different because there IS a legal basis for said secession, and the history and context are utterly different. I agree with you about colonial adventurism et al. I don't think there is a clear link between the reality of the Civil War and the reality of the latter.

As far as the south goes, they had the absolute right, as sovereign states, to secede at any time.

Most legal historians disagree with you. They were NOT sovereign states, under the US Constitution. States are permitted limited self-government, but are ultimately and definitively subordinate to the federal government. The abandonment of the Articles of Confederation ended any sovereignty for the states, from a legal perspective.

The North used the institution of slavery as a convenient excuse to invade and occupy the Confederate states.

Blatantly false. It is clear how little you know about the actual history of the Civil War. Read the link I posted above. The Confederate states explicitly use slavery as THEIR excuse for seceding from the Union; the Union initially invaded to restore rightful (under the Constitution, anyway) sovereignty over those states. The Emancipation Proclamation, and the convergence of abolitionist goals with strategic war goals, would not come until 1863.

The Confederates DID fire first when the Union forces refused to evacuate terrorty that was not theirs anymore.

Again, blatantly false. The Confederates had no right to that territory under interpretation of the law. Further, even if the states were sovereign (which they weren't), that land didn't belong to the states anyway, it was officially property of the US Federal Government. Attacking them is still an act of war, because they are invading foreign territory.

The North acted hypocritically by #1 raising troops to invade states that had seceded, much like the British had done to them.

Not directly comparable, in my opinion. Granted, there is room for debate on a philosophical level to this regard, but I consider that a completely separate discussion so I won't address this further.

#2 suspended habeas corpus #3 imprisoned dissidents #4 illegally used executive power to tax and wage war #5 when they DID free slaves, they did NOT free them within their own territory.

Agree with you on #2 and #3. Nobody ever claimed that the Union were 100% angels or anything. But that's completely separate from the argument over the legitimacy of slavery and secession. #4 is idiotic, as there is nothing illegal about said use of executive power, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution. #5 is true, but it's hilarious because it directly contradicts your earlier assertion that the North used slavery as a flimsy justification for an invasion.

If that war was to be described accurately it should be called the War of Secession precisely because the war aims of the Confederate states was never to overthrow the US government and establish their rule over the entirety of the country which is what a 'civil war' is.

All 'civil war' means is a war between citizens of the same country. It is not further qualified by any war goals of said citizens. War of Secession and Civil War are equally accurate, the latter is simply more common and more familiar.

I would bet money that if they had 9 million whites instead of the slaves, the economic and military balance would have swung far enough in their favor to ensure victory, but then again... if they had had 9 million slaves, then the war would probably not have been feasible in the first place, no?

Maybe I'm just tired, but I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say here, exactly.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm prepared to take your word for it... except...

http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Page ... lation.htm

Hmm, I think that I put too much trust in the census of Demetrius, which I remembered as putting the slave population pf Athens at 400 000; however, I found that most historians dismiss it as too high. Still, it is still possible that slaves did outnumber the free citizens by two-three times, at least as far as this census is concerned:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=8441541

More generally, though, part of the question is whether the Persians invaded Greece with any intention of freeing their slaves. Because if their sole goal was to reduce the Greek city-states to tributary status, then the war does not have a particularly progressive character.

I am not sure what the goals of the Persians were, other than removing a competitor.

[Metahive]

The goals of the Persians were to punish some greek city states for supporting uprisings in Ionia which resulted in several persian cities going up in flames. So no, unlike what 300 and its sequel say, it wasn't because "Dareios hated the Greeks for their freedom" (actual movie quote, paraphrased).

The Achaemenid Empire was quite progressive when it comes to human rights for its time and yes, they did have slavery outlawed. Unlike Athens and especially Sparta, the latter of whom resembled Apartheid South Africe in how it was run and its society made up. Do not believe the propaganda spouted by western historians and politicians that the Pesian Wars were some sort of "defense of western civilisation against eastern barbarism", it's all self-serving bullshit. Shortly after the Persian Wars, Athens, the so-called "inventor of democracy" itself tried to enforce its own imperialist policy on its fellow Greeks and her rule was considered harsh even for the time. The war this resulted in, the Peloponnesian War ended with Sparta occupying Athens, abolishing democracy and installing tyrants. I bet you won't ever hear good ol' Frank Miller make that into a graphic novel.

ETA:
Gotta' add, the reason why Sparta was so deeply concerned with soldiery and military matters was because they were so vastly outnumbered by their slaves and in fear of slave revolts. Another thing that Frankie-boy'll probably never mention.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanks for the background. I also remember that gender relations under the Achaemenid Empire were far better than in Greece; women and men received equal wages based on skill, for example. It is really a shame that history of the place has been thoroughly warped by modern propagandists seeking to cast the story as "civilized West versus evil East".

From what I understood in my ancient history course, though, slavery was not universally prohibited in the Empire, but selling oneself into slavery was. This led to the majority of slaves being foreign captives. But even the limited number of slaves the Achaemenid Empire had enjoyed better rights than in Greece: they could buy freedom and they could marry citizens.

I also remember that free labour was the basis of their economy (affirmed in e.g. Dundamaev), which actually led Marx and Engels to conoct a special "Asiatic mode of production" since Eastern societies did not fit the classical slavery economy picture.

P.S. Indeed, after reading some more, it seems that the slave population of Greek Attica was somewhere between 300 and 400 thousand slaves, and slaves did often outnumber the free men (considering that it was normal for Athenians to own at least one slave, this is hardly surprising).

And contrastingly, slavery in the core Achaemenid provinces was almost extinguished. Even the partially unfree forms of labour relations were closer to temporary serfdom or time-limited mobilization than to classic slavery. Slaves could not only marry, but also own property and witness in court. Debtors could not be forced into slavery as to turn into property - only repay their debt with unfree labour, after a period of which they would be free again. Women could manage property and make contracts. Wage workers, who were a majority in both agriculture and craftsmanship, could reject the work offers or pay terms, if they could find better ones elsewhere in the Empire.

[mr friendly guy]

It's late and I'm tired, so this is only a partial response. I'll get around to the rest later but I want to address two main points:

The sovereignty angle in the context of the American Civil War SHOULD be ignored, because it is almost entirely irrelevant. Slavery was the central cause of the war. Even take a look at the various states' articles of secession, i.e. the official announcement by the state governments of the reasons for secession. Notice how the message throughout is dedicated to discussing the of slavery, not the issue of state's rights or sovereignty.

The problem is, I could simply quote Lincoln who said preserving the Union was paramount (more so than ending slavery), and use that as an argument that sovereignty was an important part of the war. Important enough that it shouldn't be ignored as irrelevant.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

Even if you argue Lincoln was just saying that to gather support, the fact that he even needed to say it in the first place should be all the evidence you need that the sovereignty angle is damn important, at least for the North.

[Steve]

....wasn't this thread about Waterloo and Napoleon?

I mean, if cmdrjones wants to growl about the poor widdle South being invaded in the War of Southern Aggres....er, I mean, the American Civil War, shouldn't we do that in another topic?

But just in case people want to stay here.

First things first. Hey, Jones? Newsflash: I hate the fucking Spartans too. At best, I have a glimmer of respect for Brasidas, the same way I might have for Cleburne or Joe Johnston or Longstreet. My favorite figure in classical Greece is the Theban leader Epaminondas. Aka the guy who kicked the Spartans out of Messenia and liberated the helots. And the guy who's never had a movie made about him, which sucks, although admittedly a lot of sources about him were lost over time, so that probably contributed.

I admit I'm not an expert on the Achaemenid Persians, but wasn't their entire system a theocratic monarchy where the Great King was the embodiment of Ahura Mazda, where he called even satraps his slaves and where anyone's life or property could be taken at his whim? If not, I'll gladly read sources that show where this is incorrect. I love learning new stuff about history.

Now, on to the War of Southern Aggression.

The South, from the 1820s on, repeatedly acted to threaten the Union on behalf of their economic and social system, centered on slavery. The South attempted to push through censorship laws that violated the 1st Amendment to stop abolitionist literature in the mails. Pacifist Abolitionist literature at that, as in the 1830s the abolitionists were primarily pacifists and their literature wasn't addressed to black slaves but their white owners, attempting moral conversion!

The South spent nine years attacking the civil liberties of American citizens with the gag rule in the House, made specifically to prevent people from making any petitions relating to slavery. Southern congressmen attempted to gerrymander the Committees of the House to stack them with Southerners. Southerners threatened to murder abolitionists. Southern Congressmen twice attempted to censure US Rep. John Quincy Adams, once because he *gasp* presented a petition from slaves and then because he presented a petition from a town in Pennsylvania calling for - wait for it, maximum irony - dissolution of the Union, because they were tired of Southern suppression of American civil liberties! Adams himself got to snark about how he was being attacked from a quarter that had, it was known, made so many "calculations" about the "worth of Union".

On top of that, despite all protests of "states' rights", the South pushed through enforcement of fugitive slave laws that used federal power over local state power on the issue of suspected fugitives, including a provision that gave financial incentive for the commissioner - not a judge or jury - to find a suspected fugitive to be a slave even if he was free.

Diplomatically Southerners and Southern-aligned politicians embarrassed the United States with the notorious Oostend Manifesto, which made what was effectively a threat against Spain that if it did not negotiate selling Cuba to the United States, the US government would invade Cuba if it deemed it necessary (that is, if, say, Spain ordered abolition of the African slaves in Cuba, or if there was a slave revolt). Southerners kept the United States from recognizing the Republic of Haiti until the Civil War. Southerners used violence against free settlers in Kansas, provoking men like John Brown into counter-reprisal. A Southern Congressman assaulted a United States Senator on the floor of the Senate, injuring him so badly he took months to recover, and the reaction from the South was a flood of new canes with the message "Hit him again!"

Then we have the Dred Scott decision. Hoo boy. Instead of the simple expedient of "He's a slave, he can't petition the courts", Taney - a Southerner, mind you - went further, declaring the provisions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that slavery could not be forbidden in any territory, thus opening up every section of the United States that was not already an organized state to slavery. Which, naturally, infuriated the non-slave states.

And then, finally, in 1860 the South collectively helped Lincoln win by dogmatically splitting the Democratic Party instead of accepting the Douglas candidacy, and upon the results of this fuckup, they promptly began seceding because "OMG them Republicans are comin' for our darkies!", during which they fired on a federal fort!

And as a final note, what do we find when we read the CSA constitution? Link: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Well lookie what we have here! States are not allowed to ban negro slavery - you can ban slavery of whites but by God blacks are staying in chains! - and Territories have to permit them too! What was that about states' rights? After all, in the Union under the Constitution, any slave state could choose to undo slavery. Virginia was voting on it at one point, I'll remind you, Delaware actually did on its own initiative during the war, and in the first decades of the Union the New England and Upper Mid-Atlantic States all ended slavery. But under the Confederate Constitution? Nope! States and Territories don't have the right to say no to slavery, they need a Constitutional Amendment!

Sec. 2. (I) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.

Oh look, another right of the states taken away. Under the Constitution of those damned states' rights-hating Northerners, states pick their own electoral law. Not in my states' rights haven, good sir! After all, some liberal lily-livers might actually let brown people vote. Or even, dare I say it, free blacks. OH THE HUMANITY!

And I'm not even getting into the various ordinances of secession which specifically cited tha perceived threat to negro slavery as a justification for secession.

Hell, even if you take Persia as the land of freemen under their Great King and Greece as a slave society, the Confederacy still has less justification than the Greeks. The States of the South had entered into a fair compact with the other states. A compact that the states of the North had honored, even after the South began to fucking abuse it, beginning with the three-fifths clause artificially inflating their proper representation! The Northern states did not secede, or even threaten to, over the gag rule. They did not threaten to secede over the attempt to censor the mail. They did not do so when one of their Senators was violently assaulted on the Senate floor, or all the times the South's representatives tried to block their people from congressional appointments and committees. The Haverhill petition that saw John Quincy Adams put in the figurative dock was just a petition from members of one community.

The South? Constant threats of secession. Constant blackmail against the other states if they didn't get their way, tempered only by Unionist moderates in the South. And finally.... oh my God, Lincoln was elected because we split the Democrats! THE NORTH IS AFTER OUR GUNS, ER, OUR DARKIES! WE MUST SECEDE!!!!

You know what? I've come to a conclusion recently. The American Civil War, boiled down... is about a junkie violently attacking his brother because said brother said something that made him think his drugs were going to be taken from him. That's what the South was. A crazed fucking junkie lashing out to protect his drugs.