tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post4522103056619292282..comments2024-03-27T15:44:43.564-08:00Comments on What Do I Know?: Should Lincoln Have Let the South Go?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-11615747346913497012010-08-06T05:53:46.602-08:002010-08-06T05:53:46.602-08:00Ropi the first permanent President of the European...Ropi the first permanent President of the European Union was Elected? strange<br /><br /> strange... i don't remember voting or even being given a chance too, oh wait only the political classes where allowed to decide not us plebs we might do something crazy and vote for some one the political elites disprove of like all those no votes<br />that the we gave.<br /><br /><br />nope the EU cant afford to risk the people of Europe messing up their top down supranational and increasingly corporatist style of government with direct elections can they.<br /><br /><br />jay in uk and others might like the co-operation and see it as an end to European war I'm no confederate but i fear unless their is a right to succeed their could one day be a European war of succession(well it couldn't be called a civil war could it), peace is a wondrous thing but first and for most to me is freedom from those directly elected and more importantly those who arn't. <br /><br /><br />for their to truly be peace their has to be freedom for to take someones freedom away who peacefully insists upon keeping it requiters the threat or initiation of unwarranted force.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-91602800024837815652009-12-08T00:34:05.217-09:002009-12-08T00:34:05.217-09:00cmeneken, thanks for your thoughts. I hadn't...cmeneken, thanks for your thoughts. I hadn't even considered the the legality of secession.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-89339813951365204382009-12-07T21:17:15.997-09:002009-12-07T21:17:15.997-09:00this is an interesting quewstion I have pondered f...this is an interesting quewstion I have pondered for some time. While the constitutionality of the South's secession was never addressed by the courts, as far as I know, the larger question is whether the SSuthern states' decision to secede was democratic. Granted most decisions by the U.S. Senate or House, or by individual state assemblies was never democratic in any real sense since elected representatives were granted the power under our reputblican form of goverhnment, to vote on behalf of their constituenciies, nevertheless the question must be considered: did the Southern decision(s) to secede constitute that of the majority of Southerners? The answer is probably not, if one includes the slave population, women, and other dispossesed groups. But since all Amnerican political decisions at this time, and since, have been taken by elected "representatives", the question of the Southern states' decisions to secede must be measured by then existing political legalities. On this level, a decision to secede taken by a state legislature or by a group of such was not in violation of any provision of the U.S. Constitution and could have been seen as a valid exercise of a state's rights. While most states' rights theories (including the rationale behind the decision to secede) camouflaged racist views, that did not make them unconstitutional. While it may have been politicallly impolitic for Lincoln to accede to the South's secession votes, it would not have been impossible. Lincoln made a decision for war to save the union with the consequent loss of one half million men. The Southern decision to secede was no less catastrophic. The course of history might have been for the better if the War had not come, but the question is moot since the war came.cmenekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-61982378627480220202009-11-19T11:26:02.302-09:002009-11-19T11:26:02.302-09:00Today the first permanent President of the Europea...Today the first permanent President of the European Union was elected.Ropihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17214991557644729165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-26978758575726995742009-11-19T10:40:19.597-09:002009-11-19T10:40:19.597-09:00Steve. Dark waters, your words. Yet as I begin to ...Steve. Dark waters, your words. Yet as I begin to study and hope for the realization of the EU here, I am taken by your suggestion. You know that I've toyed with the idea of Alaska ceding to Canada. Unfortunately, the America's Civil War answered that considerable constitutional confusion through deadly kinds of conflict resolution.<br /><br />How much more complex is the European situation! Why I am excited by the EU supranational solution to conflict is precisely because of Europe's history. Its the American Confederation in advanced stages, really, and it's still (fingers crossed) largely working.<br /><br />As I study the legal questions of the US 'civil war', I'm afraid I'm more with Steve and the South's side--they had a strong claim to separation given the stated American right to revolution. Do I wish the USA had let the South go--yes--for many more reasons than I have space or inclination to address here.<br /><br />The appeasement by the North toward Southern politicians that started immediately after the reconstruction period of the 1870s secured the real hope of that conflict--manifest destiny. The war never really reunited the disparate parts of a country divided along too many lines. It did help realize America's goal of political empire.<br /><br /> As Gene and I were swept up in what was called a passing 'culture war', we came to see and know its effects. It has long been a factor of American culture. But we must understand great power status is history's prize. Losing the South would have defeated that ambition. It's interesting that a writer here alluded to Rome; there is a connection.<br /><br />We think of places we might wish to live in if we were to come back to the US. Admittedly, there are some; but as we say, a bad day in Britain is better than a good day in the USA (and I just had a bad day before reading your post). <br /><br />I rarely put these kind of words to print with American friends. It is so readily viewed as ideological apostasy, some form of treason. I fear you'll hunt us down. We know Americans are armed.<br /><br />And that's the problem, Uncle Sam. I'm just an American who sees your anger problems differently now.<br /><br />Think I'll stay on this side of the Atlantic, thank you.Jacob Dugan-Brausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287631724339961459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-29123303515148389832009-11-19T07:14:10.252-09:002009-11-19T07:14:10.252-09:00How you do scare me! The hate has been allowed to...How you do scare me! The hate has been allowed to percolate and is encouraged by religion, politics, and greed! We are a better country than this. The republicans need to stand up and stop the madness before real problems overwhelm our country. The resulting "mess" would not be worth the temporary power. Don't push us back a century or the world will overtake us and we will fall like Rome fell and no one will be able to save us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-41812201417376307312009-11-19T05:43:21.707-09:002009-11-19T05:43:21.707-09:00I also memorized the Gettysburg Address when I was...I also memorized the Gettysburg Address when I was a kid growing up in the public schools of Tennessee and proudly stood in front of the class to recite them. The Gettysburg Address sounded good to me and I assumed the things it said were true. That's when I was a child.<br /><br />Looking back, from the perspective of having studied American history for more than sixty years, I realize how false Lincoln's speech really was. Dishonest Abe Lincoln was a master of political spin, whose words were the polar opposite of his deeds. Government of the people, by the people and for the people was exactly the thing he was trying to crush in his unconstitutional and brutal attack on the Confederate nation. It was the Confederates who, to the point of laying down their lives, believed in government of, by and for the people. <br /><br />Famous American writer H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), said of the Gettysburg Address:<br /><br />The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.J. Stephen Connhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00944756120065605666noreply@blogger.com