Secession: Did the South Have the Right to Secede/Hold An Armed Rebellion?

Secession: Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 47.5%
  • No

    Votes: 52 52.5%

  • Total voters
    99

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
I find a lot of similarities between the historical method used properly and the method lawyers have been trained in regarding finding and using source or evidence. "Words matter" and so does "letting the chips fall where they may". If one is expressing an "opinion" rather than a fact-based conclusion, they should say so. And it's a good idea to treat all sources and "accepted wisdom" with skepticism. You may end up in the same place, but you'll have gotten there by putting it to the test first.

I find that folks whose biases overwhelm their otherwise strong analytic capacities often fall into excruciating cherry-picking, self-serving prioritization of source material (and its corresponding dismissal of evidence to the contrary, regardless of corroboration), and the lawyerly maxim 'Frame the question, win the argument."

They have unfortunately gone beyond discussion of different opinions & priorities, into their one-track 'proof mode'. On their topic, you will find you are no longer in a true discussion.

The tricks and traps of this method are quite natural, even for intelligent analysts. We are all human. On a site such as this, it's best to understand that trap...even as it applies to yourself.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
I find that folks whose biases overwhelm their otherwise strong analytic capacities often fall into excruciating cherry-picking, self-serving prioritization of source material (and its corresponding dismissal of evidence to the contrary, regardless of corroboration), and the lawyerly maxim 'Frame the question, win the argument."

They have unfortunately gone beyond discussion of different opinions & priorities, into their one-track 'proof mode'. On their topic, you will find you are no longer in a true discussion.

The tricks and traps of this method are quite natural, even for intelligent analysts. We are all human. On a site such as this, it's best to understand that trap...even as it applies to yourself.
True. It's the difference in my profession between (1) accurately assessing a case and (2) marshaling evidence for argument. You can tell a lot from a bibliography and end notes. You can also tell a lot from "zero sum" statements in a book or article. The historical record is full of ambiguity and gaps in information. There are plenty of areas where definitive conclusions can be stated based on objective facts - but there are others where things are more uncertain.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I find a lot of similarities between the historical method used properly and the method lawyers have been trained in regarding finding and using source or evidence. "Words matter" and so does "letting the chips fall where they may". If one is expressing an "opinion" rather than a fact-based conclusion, they should say so. And it's a good idea to treat all sources and "accepted wisdom" with skepticism. You may end up in the same place, but you'll have gotten there by putting it to the test first.
FYI, the historian Gary Gallagher has made the point that, history and the practice of law are very different exercises.

Court cases involve one party in oposition to another party. It's party A versus party B. Each party's lawyer makes the best case for the client.

Proper historical method requires that all evidence be used and viewed objectively. In historical interpretation, there should never be a party A versus party B. There should only be the historical record. Gallagher makes the point that some people treat history as if they were lawyers, arguing "for" certain people, or choosing evidence that makes a case for something while ignoring evidence that doesn't. He doesn't use the following words, but I think he sees that a lot of people engage in history adversarially.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
FYI, the historian Gary Gallagher has made the point that, history and the practice of law are very different exercises.

Court cases involve one party in oposition to another party. It's party A versus party B. Each party's lawyer makes the best case for the client.

Proper historical method requires that all evidence be used and viewed objectively. In historical interpretation, there should never be a party A versus party B. There should only be the historical record. Gallagher makes the point that some people treat history as if they were lawyers, arguing "for" certain people, or choosing evidence that makes a case for something while ignoring evidence that doesn't. He doesn't use the following words, but I think he sees that a lot of people engage in history adversarially.

- Alan

I took the statement as meaning the disciplines in reviewing evidence are similar - not the entire practice nor the advocacy aspect.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
FYI, the historian Gary Gallagher has made the point that, history and the practice of law are very different exercises.

Court cases involve one party in oposition to another party. It's party A versus party B. Each party's lawyer makes the best case for the client.

Proper historical method requires that all evidence be used and viewed objectively. In historical interpretation, there should never be a party A versus party B. There should only be the historical record. Gallagher makes the point that some people treat history as if they were lawyers, arguing "for" certain people, or choosing evidence that makes a case for something while ignoring evidence that doesn't. He doesn't use the following words, but I think he sees that a lot of people engage in history adversarially.

- Alan
I think you might be missing the point I made - that a good lawyer has two missions, not one: (1) figure out what the objective facts are, first - the only way you can advise a client competently; and then (2) marshall the facts and argue authorities to the court from the most favorable angle for your client. Even the lawyer's freedom second mission is limited by the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding presenting evidence, citing cases, etc. The first mission requires the same skill set required of a good historian/researcher - be skeptical of everything, chase down leads, read documents carefully, etc. Gallagher appears to be focused only on the second mission, not the first. To be fair to him, I'll wager that I know a lot more about the first than he does. Are there incompetent lawyers who don't do the first? Absolutely - just as there are incompetent historians. The lawyers who are bad at the first mission are generally not too good at the second, by the way, because they are walking into a meat grinder of surprises - as is their (unhappy) client.
 

Unforgiven

Private
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Location
Caught Somewhere in Time
A yes vote is:

1. Any state has the right to revoke United States citizenship.

2. Any state has the right to alter the territorial boundaries of the United States.

3. Any state has the right to seize wholly owned property of the United States.

4. Any state has the right to use force against any United States citizen resisting any of the above.

5 Any state can do all the above for any reason whatsoever.

No.
 
Top