Human rights violations like what was going on in the Northern factories? A worker was paid less than it cost to live and had to run a line of credit at the company store. He couldn't leave for a better job, until he paid off the company store, which would never happen. If he left the job, he would be imprisoned, then sent back to the same factory to go back to work.
Sounds alot like slavery, to me.
*The "right" for states to have slavery.
No, the right to own property.
How on earth can we morally say that it would have been alright for slavery to continue even one day longer than it did?
But, it should have the right to abolish it itself, without the threat of military intervention by a central government. Yes?
I would've been an abolitionist, so.....North.
So what? They wrote it into the Constitution, what does that tell you? I don't care any who served em, **** them to. If they were to stupid or misinformed to know what they were fighting to preserve, so what?
Violence was absolutely the answer. When the South seceded they should have seen the writing on the wall.
If you view human beings as property, I pity you.
An interesting argument, but I would say that its better to leave and be free if that is what is open to you, than to stay and be oppressed. And while it might be worth fighting for freedom if you wish to stay if we talking of land, it doesn't make much sense in a form of government, or at least to me. If it was me I would of decided to form a new government, then to waste my time working with men that are only interested in controlling me. That is the situation that south was in, the north wanted to control them, and the south wanted no part of the new controls being put in place. They had no reason to tolerate it, and no reason to stay and fight for change, specially when they were doing that for awhile already and getting no where. Their solution was peaceful, and solved their problems. It seems to me to be a fine decision on their part that I agree with fully.
Umm no. The "right to abolish it itself" is really the "right to dither for a few more decades while human beings remained enslaved." No state has that right. Just like if one of our state governments decided to become totalitarian and start murdering its residents, you damn well believe the federal government would militarily intervene rather than respecting the states' "right" to sort the matter out for itself.
OK so bad things happened up North as well. That makes it all right. :doh
There are people that would say the same thing about owning a dog, or a horse. In fact, there are members of the current administration that want to give animals the same rights as humans, which could eventually make animal ownership illegal. When you consider that fact, it's not a far stretch for Southerners to fear for their property rights.
They seized many government buildings and property. They never compensated the North.
If the Noth could threaten the states with military intervention over slavery, then it would create a president for them to threaten military intervention over anything.
apdst said:The Constitution makes deployment of the United States military in the states illegal.
apdst said:You don't get to throw the law aside when it doesn't suit your agenda.
When they left in peace, and meant no harm to another, and when the nation was formed out of willing members I see no reason for violence. The only reason the north could manage was government property, and that was a weak one.
Umm, what? Are you seriously comparing owning human beings to owning a horse? Or are you saying that the southerners seceded to prevent the animal rights movement 150 years later?
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
What would be the compensation? Money? If I recall it wasn't that easy. They wanted the forts, and the land it was on as compensation if I recall. Not an easy order for a nation that was being formed that no way to have a military or protections, specially if part of the deal is losing the land as well. If I am to allow the land to be of a different country that allows them to be in a situation where they are inside my country, a situation I have no interest to agree with. Would you actually agree with what they wanted if you were the south?
I voted north, but on further consideration, I'd change that to neither. Knowing what I know today, I'd just let them secede.
First of all, let's clarify who you mean when you say "the south wanted no part of the new controls."
You're referring to the governments of southern states which were not democratically elected and did not reflect the will of the people living in those states (and I mean ALL of the people living in those states). And even if they did, too bad. Human rights are not and should not be subject to a popular vote.
You made that clear when the only argument you could muster was to put words into my mouth. What's next? You gonna call me a racist/homophobe?
They could have worked something out.
You just compared owning slaves to owning horses. You tell me.
First of all, let's clarify who you mean when you say "the south wanted no part of the new controls." You're referring to the governments of southern states which were not democratically elected and did not reflect the will of the people living in those states (and I mean ALL of the people living in those states). And even if they did, too bad. Human rights are not and should not be subject to a popular vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?