Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
So, willing to come on over and give consideration to the idea that the nullification crisis of 1828 did NOT strain the Union to the point it impacted later on the Civil War?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
'Dunce' is insulting, at least here in the colonies it is considered as such, the same as calling one stupid. Although I am sure you did not intend to imply such, again, the word here is considered to be demeaning to one's intelligence.
Cedarstripper & Cash, might I ask that we refrain from a debate over implied intentions or supposed meanings and could we please go back to the original intent of the thread?
I do not relish being a kind of referee on this thread and taking time out to admonish my friends to kindly stop being so sensitive with one another. It takes away from the joy of real debate and learning.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I appreciate you last post and your willingness to take old Andy Jackson at his word. But lets make sure I got it right.
You are now of the opinion that the nullification crisis had nothing to do with the bringing on of the Civil War, is that the right assumption I have made to your last post?
If that is true, then do you feel the tariff of 1857 and the later Morril Tariff had anything to do with bringing on the Civil War?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No insult was meant by the word "dunce", but I am prepared to take Neil's word for it that it could be construed that way. I am therefore happy to offer an unreserved apology.
"Get over yourself". Could someone please explain what this piece of Yankee patois means in English?
Thanks for understanding, or for trying to understand the 'dunce' reference.
The phrase 'get over yourself' is construed by me to mean 'stop taking yourself so seriously' or something to that effect. Does that help at all? And if I got this meaning wrong, will someone help out and explain it to both me and Bill?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Many thanks for sharing such interesting thoughts with us. My comments will be brief, as I have to go to work.
I have a slight quibble with the collectivism v. individualism argument. The Confederacy was also an exercise in collectivism; it was simply a different collectivist endeavour to the U.S.A.
I'd like to throw an idea back at you. What is a nation? The definition I tend to use is that it is an arbitrary collection of human beings who agree, for the time being, that they have mutual interests and aspirations which make them into a group which is distinguishable from others. It is that agreement which forges a nation, not the laws and flags and anthems.
So what happens when that group of people discover that their interests and aspirations are no longer mutual? That they are pulling in two different directions? For me, this is the absolute heart of the issue.
And with that I must grab my coat and run for the bus.
I wanted to go back to your post#28 and discuss it a bit more.
You ask the question, 'why would anyone wish to exercise such a right?' You ask this because of the contention that I and others hold to, that a state and its people, once it has decided to join the Union, must get permission from all of the other states people in order to leave the Union. You liken it to the majority acting as some type of jailor (as we spell it here in the US).
You state further that you and Dawna are quite willing to let disgruntled groups leave the United Kingdom and Canada. Now this one sentence is about the only one I agree with totally.
But I will ask, why are you and Dawna so different? If the majority of Canadians felt as Dawna did, would not Quebec had been a separate nation long ago? And if the majority of citizens of the United Kingdom felt as you yourself do, would not the borders of the UK be much more confining? Do you consider yourself and your outlook on the prospect of letting disgruntled groups go in the majority with your fellow countrymen? What you may consider puzzling and more than a little frightening, just the normal outlook of most of our respecitve citizens in our two nations?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The fact is that no region of the United Kingdom has so far tried to leave. There is a Scottish Nationalist Party, but they have so far been unable to gain the support of the majority of Scottish people.
So the question is entirely hypothetical. But there has been a certain amount of theoretical discussion of an independent Scotland, and nobody - absolutely nobody - has suggested that Scottish independence should be resisted by force. There is literally nobody at all who wants to hold the U.K. together at gunpoint.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
