Biggest union error?

[atlantis]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation the biggest union error of the conflict. It told slave owning southern unionists their property rights meant nothing to Washington and confirmed the fears of non-slave owning southern whites that the union would force them to compete with freed slaves for jobs.
The EP gave confederates whose morale was flagging reason to continue the fight thus prolonging the war.

Your Thoughts

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

There is no difference in morality actually. As your "justness" is indeed decided by the people. Morality and certainly "justness" is set by majority in democracy.

So if someone broke into your house and robbed you, and everyone else said it was okay, would you be alright with it?

 

[archieclement]

So if someone broke into your house and robbed you, and everyone else said it was okay, would you be alright with it?

Rather irrelevant to if that bizarre scenario was somehow actual, they would then unlikely be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted.

An individual or minority of individuals wouldn't change the reality. The only time vigilantism is deemed warranted, is if the majority or a jury of one's peers agrees.......

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

Rather irrelevant to if that bizarre scenario was somehow actual, they would then unlikely be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted.

An individual or minority of individuals wouldn't change the reality. The only time vigilantism is deemed warranted, is if the majority or a jury of one's peers agrees.......

No, I mean if everybody was okay with it. Like if the State of Missouri amended its laws to say, "theft is illegal, unless you're stealing from archieclement."

(I know it's a bizarre scenario. Go with it.)

How would you feel then?

 

[archieclement]

No, I mean if everybody was okay with it. Like if the State of Missouri amended its laws to say, "theft is illegal, unless you're stealing from archieclement."

(I know it's a bizarre scenario. Go with it.)

How would you feel then?

Again feeling would be rather irrelevant to actual law, and apparently the majority who passed it.

But let's go with your scenario, but it's you. Now you could appeal to higher authorities or courts I suppose, to try to give you some standing..........but in the end if your neighbors, local law enforcement, and courts support the state law it's unlikely to change anything in practice. Your community and local society views wouldn't change from some outside view, they would remain.

And then certainly according to some.......if they view the outside view you appealed to as immoral, illegal or unjust....we'll gee they are supposed to defy it then.......

That's cute thing about morals or morality, you or I could view such a scenario as immoral and unjust.......however society's morals are not bound to agree with us, they could view it differently.

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

Again feeling would be rather irrelevant to actual law, and apparently the majority who passed it.

No matter if it's irrelevant; how would you feel if you were robbed, and the law was (for whatever reason) okay with it?

 

[archieclement]

No matter if it's irrelevant; how would you feel if you were robbed, and the law was (for whatever reason) okay with it?

You would have to accept it as people do any laws whether they personally agree, or accept consquences if they did something illegal. Which would be likely null if local authorities agreed with you, otherwise you'd be punished

I do that most the time with seat belt law

fortunately it seems seldom enforced likely because of lack of support

As well most state patrol seem to agree with me I should be able to drive 10mph over speed limit, other states may differ

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

You would have to accept it as people do any laws whether they personally agree,

So you believe that people must obey the laws no matter what.

I'm glad we agree that the Confederacy had no right to secede.

 

[archieclement]

So you believe that people must obey the laws no matter what.

I'm glad we agree that the Confederacy had no right to secede.

Not at all, only if community agrees they need them enforced.

Many states still have adultry or sodomy laws on books, if you went to authorities to try to get consenting adults arrested......they are unlikey to do anything other then explain they don't enforce them.

So certainly not no matter what. Nor do I get pulled over for routinely driving 80 in 70. Community sets real standard.

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

Not at all, only if community agrees they need enforced

The North certainly did. And they were more populous than the South, at any rate.

You can't have it both ways, Archie.

If humans have natural rights… then slavery is bad, because those natural rights are being violated.
If might makes right… then slavery is bad, because the North won.

 

[archieclement]

The North certainly did. And they were more populous than the South, at any rate.

You can't have to both ways, Archie.

If humans have natural rights… then slavery is bad, because those natural rights are being violated.
If might makes right… then slavery is bad, because the North won.

Sounds your the one trying to have it both ways.

I've recognized we do not have consistent history enforcing federal laws, we often allow states and city defiance.Nor are even state or county laws somehow universally or consistently enforced. Then even if they are, if your peers disagree, your likely to be acquitted

Depending on case or view, it's either the strength or weakness of multi tiered government. Perhaps intentionally both by founders.

 

[leftyhunter]

The North certainly did. And they were more populous than the South, at any rate.

You can't have it both ways, Archie.

If humans have natural rights… then slavery is bad, because those natural rights are being violated.
If might makes right… then slavery is bad, because the North won.

I cant speak for @archieclement but if a law is not enforced it becomes irrelevant. Yes on paper African Americans certainly had the right to vote post ACW per the US Constitution as well as be entitled to equal rights pist ACW but the federal government stooped even pretending to care after President Hayes withdrew US troops from the Sputh by 1877. Even during the Johnson and Grant Administration very seldom did federal troops or US Marshall's make a serious attempt to battle white racist paramilitaries.
At best occasionally during Reconstruction staye militas occasionally battled **** paramilitaries.
Quasi slavery was quickly reintroduced known convict leasing.
The former Confederates lost the ACW in terms of establishing an independent slave republic but we're able to maintain **** for a good one hundred more years post ACW.
Leftyhunter

 

[damYankee]

I am not saying their fear was justify I am saying it existed and therefore lead to certain decisions, mainly to keep fighting. The press played a shameful role in amplifying fear as did politicians and clergy. Sadly, the statement by Hermann Goering about how easy it is to convince people to go to war still remains true. What a shock it must have been to hear let's conscript slaves when just before leaders were claiming the next Santo Domingo was just around the corner.

I understand, the exploitation of fear, patriotism, and ignorance (Conspiracy theories) are as old as mankind.

 

[archieclement]

I cant speak for @archieclement but if a law is not enforced it becomes irrelevant. Yes on paper African Americans certainly had the right to vote post ACW per the US Constitution as well as be entitled to equal rights pist ACW but the federal government stooped even pretending to care after President Hayes withdrew US troops from the Sputh by 1877. Even during the Johnson and Grant Administration very seldom did federal troops or US Marshall's make a serious attempt to battle white racist paramilitaries.
At best occasionally during Reconstruction staye militas occasionally battled **** paramilitaries.
Quasi slavery was quickly reintroduced known convict leasing.
The former Confederates lost the ACW in terms of establishing an independent slave republic but we're able to maintain **** for a good one hundred more years post ACW.
Leftyhunter

Indeed certainly not everyone in 1800s supported civil rights or equal rights......people tend to forget when discussing ex slaves....people north and south had largely ignored rights even for white women.

The "even pretending to care after President Hayes withdrew US troops from the Sputh by 1877." would go to Republicans realizing they had blundered with civil rights with reconstruction.

One can't be restoring self rule and democracy with policy the majority won't accept. Or get historical result of it failing. So ultimately they detatched from trying to force the policy that won't be accepted. Looking at our history, its not really unique, it's a pattern that has continued with other issues.

Lefty is correct if there is little community support, and instead opposition, they simply are unlikely to enforce unpopular law.

 

[leftyhunter]

Indeed certainly not everyone in 1800s supported civil rights or equal rights......people tend to forget when discussing ex slaves....people north and south had largely ignored rights even for white women.

The "even pretending to care after President Hayes withdrew US troops from the Sputh by 1877." would go to Republicans realizing they had blundered with civil rights with reconstruction.

One can't be restoring self rule and democracy with policy the majority won't accept. Or get historical result of it failing. So ultimately they detatched from trying to force the policy that won't be accepted. Looking at our history, its not really unique, it's a pattern that has continued with other issues.

Lefty is correct if there is little community support, and instead opposition, they simply are unlikely to enforce unpopular law.

Its more a matter of lack of will power. Reconstruction actually occurred one hundred years after the ACW. The average American voter didn't want to spend money to enforce the constitution. It wasn't an unbearable cost to station some federal troops in the South and hire a part-time paramilitary force made up of ex USCT veterans and Unionist soldiers who knew the people and terrain of the South but unfortunately when there's no will there is no way.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Its more a matter of lack of will power. Reconstruction actually occurred one hundred years after the ACW. The average American voter didn't want to spend money to enforce the constitution. It wasn't an unbearable cost to station some federal troops in the South and hire a part-time paramilitary force made up of ex USCT veterans and Unionist soldiers who knew the people and terrain of the South but unfortunately when there's no will there is no way.
Leftyhunter

Your post simply proves my point.

If somehow advocating martial law or endless occupation.......its certainly counter to restoring democracy and self rule to states supposedly being restored to Union.

Certainly don't see any strong Federal enforcement agency being created in era. They knew Federal Marshall's were rather insufficient and didn't address it. FBI isn't created until 1908.....think all the other 3 letter agencies are far more recent.

 

[leftyhunter]

Your post simply proves my point.

If somehow advocating martial law or endless occupation.......its certainly counter to restoring democracy and self rule to states supposedly being restored to Union.

It sometimes take force to have democracy. Groups such has the KKK use violence and unless they receive severe pushback they won't agree to equal rights based on polite debate.
Leftyhunter

 

[tony_gunter]

You left out the Illuminatii, the Rothschilds and the Holy Roman Empire, and the Boogie Man.

I mean, if you have primary sources that show that southern writers were concerned about any of that, sure.

But we know that they viewed the Republicans as an existential threat.

 

[damYankee]

I mean, if you have primary sources that show that southern writers were concerned about any of that, sure.

But we know that they viewed the Republicans as an existential threat.

There was pro and anti slavery violence in Kansas before the Republican party was formed, every uprising needs a boogie man, before the Republicans it was the great fear of a slave uprising

 

[tony_gunter]

There was pro and anti slavery violence in Kansas before the Republican party was formed, every uprising needs a boogie man, before the Republicans it was the great fear of a slave uprising

How are those different? It seems Republican rule and slave uprisings were synonymous.

 

[JerryD]

How are those different? It seems Republican rule and slave uprisings were synonymous.

Only problem with that statement is there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Please list all the slave uprisings under Republican rule.