Confederate/Nazi Alliance

[Ace Venom]

Even before the Civil War the SCUS said they did not have such a right.

Well, I highly doubt King George III or Parliament thought the Colonies had a right to secede when they declared their independence. Just because the United States won its independence doesn't mean the 13 Colonies had the right to secede from Britain anymore than force of arms supressing the Southern rebellion negated the Southern right to secede. It only means that the South could not become a free nation. In the end, it comes to the will of the people or the guns of those who say those people are full of crap that dictates what goes and the history books and the opinions of people.

I'd also like to note that I'm not a Southern apologist.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Well, I highly doubt King George III or Parliament thought the Colonies had a right to secede when they declared their independence. Just because the United States won its independence doesn't mean the 13 Colonies had the right to secede from Britain anymore than force of arms supressing the Southern rebellion negated the Southern right to secede. It only means that the South could not become a free nation. In the end, it comes to the will of the people or the guns of those who say those people are full of crap that dictates what goes and the history books and the opinions of people.

I'd also like to note that I'm not a Southern apologist.

I will say it again the South WAS represented in the Congress, the 13 Colonies were not represented in Parliment. If they were I would have seen a rebellion as wrong there too. A free nation? Last time I checked it was part of a free nation. The North didn't kick out the Southern congressmen, declare martial law etc. before the South tried to secede.

 

[robertp6165]

That is largely because the South didn't want to engage in normal politics by making trade-offs. I am sure they could have picked up Northern votes for helping the North get some of what they wanted.

I'm sorry, but extremism was running high on both sides. By 1860 it had turned into zero sum game for both sides, and neither side was willing to compromise anymore. The Crittenden Compromise, for example, was rejected by BOTH SIDES. That shows that the problem lay not just at the feet of the South...but at the feet of the North as well.

 

[robertp6165]

Even before the Civil War the SCUS said they did not have such a right [of secession].

I have done rather extensive research into that subject, and have never found such a decision prior to the 1868 White vs. Texas decision which was issued at the height of Reconstruction and in the aftermath of the Union victory in the war.

What decision are you referring to? I have heard Yankee apologists cite Marbury vs. Madison, but if you read that decision, it says NOTHING about secession.

 

[Ace Venom]

I will say it again the South WAS represented in the Congress, the 13 Colonies were not represented in Parliment. If they were I would have seen a rebellion as wrong there too.

I will say that I never attempted to refute your point there. I will quote one poster by saying the South felt their interests were not represented by Congress. So you are going to call them whiny babies? So were those ungrateful tits that rebelled against the protection of the Crown over a few taxes. It's quite funny that the Boston Tea Party is pretty much the equivalent of some terrorist burning an American oil well. No wonder the Crown was so mad, eh?

 

[robertp6165]

I will say it again the South WAS represented in the Congress, the 13 Colonies were not represented in Parliment. If they were I would have seen a rebellion as wrong there too. A free nation? Last time I checked it was part of a free nation. The North didn't kick out the Southern congressmen, declare martial law etc. before the South tried to secede.

And as I stated before (and to which you had no reply other than to blame the South for not compromising), the South may have had de jure representation in 1861, but not de facto representation. And de facto is far more important.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I will say that I never attempted to refute your point there. I will quote one poster by saying the South felt their interests were not represented by Congress. So you are going to call them whiny babies? So were those ungrateful tits that rebelled against the protection of the Crown over a few taxes. It's quite funny that the Boston Tea Party is pretty much the equivalent of some terrorist burning an American oil well. No wonder the Crown was so mad, eh?

Also because GB was passing laws about the colonies WITHOUT them being represented at all in parliment. Whatever the South felt it WAS represented but lost the election . You win some and you lose some, that is part of democracy.

 

[Faeelin]

And as I stated before (and to which you had no reply other than to blame the South for not compromising), the South may have had de jure representation in 1861, but not de facto representation. And de facto is far more important.

What the heck are you talking about? If you mean that the southern states lost when opposed by the majority of other states, then you're right.

 

[Brilliantlight]

And as I stated before (and to which you had no reply other than to blame the South for not compromising), the South may have had de jure representation in 1861, but not de facto representation. And de facto is far more important.

Sure it did, it had the ability to make deals as much as any other region in the country. They just decided they had to get EVERYTHING their way.

 

[Faeelin]

I will say that I never attempted to refute your point there. I will quote one poster by saying the South felt their interests were not represented by Congress. So you are going to call them whiny babies? So were those ungrateful tits that rebelled against the protection of the Crown over a few taxes. It's quite funny that the Boston Tea Party is pretty much the equivalent of some terrorist burning an American oil well. No wonder the Crown was so mad, eh?

It's at this point that I suggest you read up on the american revolution.

The military occupation of your cities and taxation after you win the war and pour blood and money into helping britain to save the empire does not compare to a republican president being elected by the majority of the US. For one thing, Lincoln did not speak of setting up an official church in america.

 

[Faeelin]

Well, I highly doubt King George III or Parliament thought the Colonies had a right to secede when they declared their independence. Just because the United States won its independence doesn't mean the 13 Colonies had the right to secede from Britain anymore than force of arms supressing the Southern rebellion negated the Southern right to secede. t.

Wrong again, as there was a strong pro-US party in Britain.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Wrong again, as there was a strong pro-US party in Britain.

None de jure though and that counts for a lot. The pro-US faction in Parliment had to, by definition, vote for things that they THOUGHT the colonies wanted not necessarily what they DID want.

 

[Faeelin]

There was in fact a 'cabal', as you call it, organizing Northern immigration into Kansas, which is the only territory where "popular sovereignty" was tried.

Meh, in the south as well. I'll also point out that it was the south, not the north, who sent out filibustering expeditions.

The Republicans favored subsidies to railroad companies, for example. Lincoln himself was quite active in securing subsidies for railroad companies while a politician in Illinois. Some Republicans in the northeast wanted subsidies for the fishing and shipping industries. The Republicans favored all of this.

Subsidizing railroads! You mean promoting the industrialization of America and improving the domestic market? By god, I'd go to war to prevent that too.

And you are wrong about the tariffs. High protective tariffs were a plank of the Republican platform in 1860. And it was one they acted on. Yes, by 1860, tariffs had fallen somewhat from previous record highs in the 1830s. But in 1861, the Republicans forced through the Morrill Tariff, which at 40% was the highest this country had ever seen.

I suspect the fact that the south had seceded and the fact that the US was in a war in 1861 helped.

All of them. Even Alexander H. Stephens, in the infamous "Cornerstone Speech," talks about tariffs, business subsidies, and so on BEFORE HE EVER SPEAKS ABOUT SLAVERY AT ALL. I'll bet you and most other posters on this board never knew that, because the way the speech is reported in modern history texts makes it sound like slavery is all he talked about. Slavery was not the only issue the South was concerned about when it decided to secede.

No, I knew that. Most history books do nothing of the kind, because publishers know that saying your ancestors were evil doesn't make them sell.

 

[Faeelin]

None de jure though and that counts for a lot. The pro-US faction in Parliment had to, by definition, vote for things that they THOUGHT the colonies wanted not necessarily what they DID want.

You mean peace?

 

[Gedca]

even I admit that the Confederacy was pretty democratic for White people.

Are you saying that Europeans as a whole are less democratic than say Asians or Africans. As far as I know nearly every stable democracy is white. Or are you trying to say something else?

 

[Ace Venom]

It's at this point that I suggest you read up on the american revolution.

The military occupation of your cities and taxation after you win the war and pour blood and money into helping britain to save the empire does not compare to a republican president being elected by the majority of the US. For one thing, Lincoln did not speak of setting up an official church in america.

I never said that Lincoln tried setting up an official church (though I wouldn't put that one past Bush). Considering that the area of the United States was still part of the British Empire, it was technically "their" cities.

Wrong again, as there was a strong pro-US party in Britain.

Then explain to me why there was a rebellion in the first place if the party was as strong as you say. The colonies were a money maker for Britain. Since the colonies had no representation in Britain, the colonists felt justified to protest against Parliament and eventually rebel against the Crown. I won't doubt that there were sympathizers (there were a lot of them), but keeping the 13 colonies under the British Crown was a high priority, meaning there would have been no armed opposition to the revolution in the first place if it hadn't been..

 

[Brilliantlight]

Are you saying that Europeans as a whole are less democratic than say Asians or Africans. As far as I know nearly every stable democracy is white. Or are you trying to say something else?

I am saying that the Confederacy was democratic for those people who were of European descent. They did elect all their officials not have them thrust on them by fiat by a militant totalitarian party.

 

[Faeelin]

Are you saying that Europeans as a whole are less democratic than say Asians or Africans. As far as I know nearly every stable democracy is white. Or are you trying to say something else?

And this is the point where I take my leave of this conversation.

 

[robertp6165]

Lincoln offered the Southerners money if they sold the slaves to the Union which would then free them.

What you don't mention is 1) Lincoln never seriously pushed the proposal; 2) Lincoln never actually offered a bill for federally funded compensated emancipation. What Lincoln actually did was to encourage passage of a non-binding resolution through Congress which encouraged the State Governments in the Border States to pass compensated emancipation laws, with a vague promise that the Federal government would help to PARTIALLY finance this, which was very unlikely to actually happen (having abolished slavery themselves and passed the cost of doing so to the Southern States by allowing Northern slave owners to sell their slaves to owners in other States rather than actually emancipate them, why would the Northern States want to absorb the cost of abolition now); and 3) Lincoln's proposal was coupled with a plan for colonization of the freed blacks to Liberia and Haiti.

The South was late in the game to free slaves: the Northern states, England, France and Germany all did so already.

Germany didn't have slaves, but other than that, I won't argue the point, except to say that they all freed the slaves when it became economically convenient for them to do so. The South simply wanted the same right.

They had provisions on allowing states to abolish slavery to make it easier for France and England to recognize them not because they that thought there was any real chance of it happening in the future. The South didn't even try to REFORM slavery like not allowing families to be broken up until it was almost over and they were really desperate for ANYONE to help them.

That sir, is an opinion, not a fact. It is true that, in the final months of the war, Jefferson Davis even offered to emancipate the slaves if Britain and France would recognize the Confederacy and intervene on it's behalf. But what the Confederates did in their Constitution...when they fully expected they would not even have to fight a war, and they fully expected to win any war they did have to fight...certainly was not done for the reasons you cite.

 

[robertp6165]

Sure it did, it had the ability to make deals as much as any other region in the country. They just decided they had to get EVERYTHING their way.

Actually, they discovered that they weren't going to get ANYTHING their own way, because the North had total power. So they left.