Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:21:00 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
I was giving examples of the discovery of Principles as opposite to laws which are political edicts that can and are changed to meet the current power base's desires.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:25:16 AM PDT
BPL: Did the slaves get to vote?

f4a: What states allowed slaves to vote in 1860? Ohio? NY? Indiana? Illinois?

BPL: What states had a majority or a substantial minority of black slaves in 1860? Ohio? NY? Indiana? Illinois?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:26:02 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
f4a
How does slavery, which 95% of the southerners didn't have, rouse the people to fight?

f4a: Because the poor and middle class feared competition from free blacks both in the South and the North. The poor Irish rioted over conscription in 1863 in NY killing many blacks.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:27:35 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
Ask the question or not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:38:32 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
Yeah, let's take the discussion into the realm of philosophy, -that- will be productive.

Despite your attempt to recruit Kant to the cause of anarchy, he actually felt that nothing less than a world full of constitutional republics was the ideal, as he wrote in Perpetual Peace.

There are many interesting and thought-provoking concepts in Kant's writings, especially from the PoV of the German states in the late 18th century. However, even his adherents in the German Idealists were schizophrenic regarding Kant's limitations on human 'knowing'. Brit philosophers used Kant as a bulwark against the rise of secularism in Britain in the 19th century. Kant is certainly not The Age of Reason.

Kant (and Ayn Rand) make for wonderful, decisive (in the sense of simplistic answers to complex issues) reading when you're 14. Kant's naivete led him to fall into his own 'trap' of theoretical illusion by "using reason without applying it to experience". During the whole of his life, he never journeyed more than a half-day's walk from his birthplace.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:43:02 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"So the Chinese can dominate the planet?"

Based on what, exactly? The concept of a monolithic "CHINA" as boogieman is as ridiculous as the juggernaut USSR turned out to be. China is only now beginning to wrestle with a mass of internal issues which will completely change the nature of the country by the end of the century.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:54:28 AM PDT
Yes it was constitutional

Once the south seceded from the union is ceased to be under the Constitution and became a separate entity. The united stated (what was left of it) attacked and conquered a foreign entity.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:54:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 10:54:58 AM PDT
Ku says:
There are historic reasons.

During the era of the warring states, Chin or Qin decided the path to peace in the region was to defeat all the other kingdoms.

They may well decide that a global setting requires a similar campaign if the U.S. is no longer providing global security.

But that's in the fairly distant future.

More short-term:

They've been aggressively increasing their military spending. About half of it isn't even in the official budget.

Their economic interests require them to take a global interest in regions that supply their population and industry.

Their sovereign wealth funds are allowing them to buy up assets that enable you to dominate, too.

They have deep pockets that give them clout when liquidity issues arise.

Anyway, dismantling the U.S. would be a major disaster.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 11:02:06 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:How so? Ft. Sumter was FEDERAL land, not SC land.
=============================
ok, let's give you that Ft Sumter was Federal land. The waters around it belong to SC.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 1:47:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 1:48:21 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
kbw says: ok, let's give you that Ft Sumter was Federal land. The waters around it belong to SC.

f4a: Curious that Lincoln wanted to hold hold onto two Forts that commanded what came and went in their harbors, while abandoning all others military installations.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 2:20:59 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Once the south seceded from the union is ceased to be under the Constitution and became a separate entity. The united stated (what was left of it) attacked and conquered a foreign entity."

If what you state has -any- validity, than the USA was responding to an unprovoked attack by a foreign nation (the so-called CSA) on Ft. Sumter.

Posted on May 15, 2012 2:58:14 PM PDT
I disagree Joe Hill,the Souths exit was illegal treason,the North was putting down an insirection

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:03:27 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"There are historic reasons."

That's a somewhat flexible argument, given that the Middle Kingdom has also gone through periods of isolation and introspection, as well.

"They may well decide that a global setting requires a similar campaign if the U.S. is no longer providing global security."

They seem to be doing just fine with a campaign of economic dominance, I don't see any overriding cause for military adventures. Now, you did say fairly distant future. I don't know how long a period you are thinking, but if you look at the differences between the China of 1962 and the China of 2012 (is 50 years the 'fairly distant future'?), I'd say that just about -anything- can happen, so to speculate is rather an exercise in futility.

"They've been aggressively increasing their military spending. About half of it isn't even in the official budget."

Almost exactly the same words were used to describe the Soviet Union in the 1970s, so you'll excuse me if I voice some skepticism regarding how much of an actual threat this represents, in the absence of hard data. It should also be borne in mind that the USA 'defense' expenditures ($645.7 billion for 2012)represents about 43% of the -worldwide- total, whereas the PRC defense budget for 2012 is $106.4 billion. Let's compare these two figures, for a start. Even if we accept (which, again, I don't in the absence of evidence) that 50% of the PRC defense budget is off the books, they're still only spending one-third of the USA's published budget (which -also- doesn't include numerous off-the-books expenditures, as well).

As to the 'wealth' of the PRC, well, we'll see what happens when their economy starts cooling off. Fearmongering abounded when the Japanese 'wealth' enabled them to "buy up assets" as well (despite the fact that the UK had, and has, a larger share of the US than the Japanese ever did), and then, suddenly, every fourth house on the Big Island of Hawai'i was on the market at fire sale prices when their bubble burst.

"They have deep pockets that give them clout when liquidity issues arise."

Which was exactly the situation the USSR found itself in during the 1930s, when they were relatively unaffected by the last global economic meltdown. And a tide of communist states didn't suddenly sweep the world then, either. They simply bought the tools from capitalist countries, which were more than happy to sell to them, to modernize their economy. WW II in Europe was won at least as much by the license-built copies of Ford's River Rouge plant as it was by Lend-Lease.

"Anyway, dismantling the U.S. would be a major disaster."

On that, we can agree.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:13:14 PM PDT
kbw: Once the south seceded from the union is ceased to be under the Constitution and became a separate entity. The united stated (what was left of it) attacked and conquered a foreign entity.

BPL: Actually, the south fired first. Neo-Confederates don't want you to know that.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/CivilWar.html

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:14:24 PM PDT
f4a: Curious that Lincoln wanted to hold hold onto two Forts that commanded what came and went in their harbors, while abandoning all others military installations.

BPL: OMG OMG!!! You mean the president of a country wanted to hold onto a military base in a strategic location? What was he THINKING?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:19:47 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Neo-Confederates"

LOL! Now -there's- a humorous concept. ARE there still places where they display the 'stars-and-bars' in their rear windows, and buy after-market car horns that play Dixie?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:21:16 PM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
BPL:
Do you honestly believe that all fighting in the south was done by the regular army?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:31:38 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Do you honestly believe that all fighting in the south was done by the regular army?"

Which, of course, has ZIP to do with the discussion. Or are you privy to information regarding Southern African Americans participating in confederate guerrilla bands? If so, let's see your citations.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:41:06 PM PDT
Ku says:
Well, make what you want of the Chinese military.

I'm keeping my ear to the ground and what I'm hearing isn't particularly happy.

"The International Institute for Strategic Studies in a 2011 report argued that if spending trends continue China will achieve military equality with the United States in 15-20 years."

"Confronting anxiety about China's growing political and economic clout, President Obama announced a strategic shift by the United States to reassert its role as the dominant military power in the Pacific as it pulls back from post-Sept. 11 wars."

"For the second time in three years, China has shot down one of its dysfunctional satellites with a missile, US-based Foreign Policy magazine reported in its latest issue.

The destruction of the satellite, which reportedly happened in January, shows China's defensive missile ability, the magazine said."

"As the Middle Kingdom expands, its economic heft will inevitably chafe its neighbours. Its challenge will be to create as little offence as possible; for neighbours it will be hard to avoid taking any."

This is all I want to say on this subject because it's far adrift from Lincoln and the secession of the Confederacy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM PDT
The best hope for the western world is that the PRC is walking an economic and social tightrope. There are a lot of tensions rumbling under the surface that might very well destroy the PRC, and turn it's citizens attention back inwards as they have been throughout Chinese history.

Posted on May 15, 2012 3:47:10 PM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
Just a little aggressive there, aren't you Joe? I believe I was asking BPL if he thinks all fighting in the south was done by the regular army. And this was in responce to his remark: "Blacks weren't allowed in the CSA army at all." So if you don't think it has anything to do with the topic, take it up with your friend, he's the one who introduced it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:57:42 PM PDT
Ku says:
Well, historically, they had all they needed within their borders. It's a rich country.

But now they've launched themselves on this export-led industrial growth trajectory that requires vast amounts of imported raw materials from places like Australia and Africa and Latin America.

The main danger to regimes is when the rising aspirations of their populations can't be met anymore and the people revolt in disappointment. That's when revolutions tend to happen.

It's an unusual experiment to have a capitalist economy with communist leadership. They're anxious to avoid the errors committed by the Soviets.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:29:12 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:If what you state has -any- validity, than the USA was responding to an unprovoked attack by a foreign nation (the so-called CSA) on Ft. Sumter.

========================

The first attack was against a federal ship in SC waters.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:30:54 PM PDT
BPL: Actually, the south fired first. Neo-Confederates don't want you to know that.
=================
who cares who fired first. Lincoln didn't go to war because the the north was fired at.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:32:25 PM PDT
A.S. Turner says:
Just a little aggressive there, aren't you Joe?
-------------
joe tends to be angry and aggressive right out of the box.
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 82 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  108
Total posts:  2033
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  8 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions