Was it worth it?

[wausaubob]

There had been an election. No candidate proposed a compromise that the voters accepted. Strange that advocacy of compromise disregards that the men who advocated it either did not run or lost.

 

[archieclement]

Yeah, we have gone round and round on this before. Your argument makes no sense. Your argument assumes every crime is prosecuted and every prosecution makes the right decision, since there can be no crimes unless people are convicted. So since no one was convicted of shooting Lincoln, I guess that was not a crime. Same for Kennedy. Same for any number of murders each year, but I guess since no one was convicted, they must not be murders, right? LOL....

It does not require a conviction for their to be a crime. I am amazed I have to tell this to an adult.

Since everyone else in the world realizes this is ridiculous, not going to waste anymore time arguing this with you. I feel its certain you know how silly your argument is, but you make it anyway. Why? Who knows?

OK you can call anyone you wish criminal you want......it certainly is ridiculous. As your argument is anyone you suspect is criminal......absent any actual finding other then your opinion.


It remains however absent a trial and conviction they are not legally. Which is rather the point of a criminal finding .

I can certainly distinguish between opinion of guilt, whether mine or yours, and actual record of finding, or lack of any actual finding.

 

[archieclement]

Give it up man, you can never win an argument with "TECHNICALLY" Guy.

It's a weird hill to die on, for sure.

Well actually if one is an American, the presumption of innocence along with the right of a trial by a jury of one's peers to determine criminal guilt......are rather large important technicalities to our system.

Wishing to disregard our actual principles would indeed be a weird hill to take.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Well actually if one is an American, the presumption of innocence along with the right of a trial by a jury of one's peers to determine criminal guilt......are rather large important technicalities to our system.

Wishing to disregard our actual principles would indeed be a weird hill to take.

Well actually

 

[archieclement]

Well actually

Indeed.

 

[damYankee]

Actual events would support they had alienated states into deciding they would be better off no part of the US. As well certainly seems the states had support of populace to secede.

And the "no right to protect or defend their sovereignty from internal threats." is nonsense. However do think to maintain the consent of governed does actually require not alienating large portions such as entire states to point of civil war. To suggest moderation or compromise would been impossible before the point of war would seem rather false, as it been rather easily done several times before.

Who is this "They" that you refer to?
Name them!

 

[damYankee]

Just to put a what if into the question… what if the northern states would have ceded land (forts) within the southern borders.?And then not blockade southern ports, how long would the confederacy have lasted? Instead of war they may have invented the cotton picker.

Let me understand your proposal.
What if the northern states caved into the demands of of a rebellious rising. Give up half of the established states on the grounds of a referendum of questionable validity?
Give up New Orleans, one of the largest port cities in the Americas?
Control of half of the Mississippi River, which was at that time the most vital waterway with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of trade going both north and south?
What was the north to get in return?

 

[archieclement]

Who is this "who" that you refer to?
Name them!

Assume your just being silly.

But just from Virginia certified return alone, there was 125,950 for compared to 20,373 against. 85% would rather indicate widespread support from populace.

But if you wish to try to post all the votes individually.....for or against, knock yourself out.

 

[damYankee]

Give it up man, you can never win an argument with "TECHNICALLY" Guy.

It's a weird hill to die on, for sure.

Mark Twain said it best huh?

Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[damYankee]

Assume your just being silly.

But just from Virginia certified return alone, there was 125,950 for compared to 20,373 against.

But f you wish to try to post all the votes individually.....for or against, knock yourself out.

I meant who is this they southern apologist always refer to?

 

[archieclement]

I meant who is this they southern apologist always refer to?

Have no idea what you mean. Acknowledging actual events or historical support isn't apologist at all. So no idea.

History is simply what was......trying to either condemn or excuse events doesn't change them.

 

[major bill]

There had been compromises before to expand and protect slavery. Even if a compromise was possible in 1860, then a compromise in 1870 would be needed, another compromise in 1880 to expand and protect slavery, and another in 1890, perhaps again in 1900. The issue is at some point the federal government attempting to expanding and protecting slavery might not be able to save the slave base economic system. What could the federal government do in 1920 as a compromise that would protect and expand slavery? The advance in weapons by 1920 would have made a 1920 Civil War very destructive.

 

[damYankee]

Several founders actually were slave owners.
It's not exactly clear who was opposed.
View attachment 569844

What-about-ism is a weak argument.

 

[damYankee]

There had been compromises before to expand and protect slavery. Even if a compromise was possible in 1860, then a compromise in 1870 would be needed, another compromise in 1880 to expand and protect slavery, and another in 1890, perhaps again in 1900. The issue is at some point the federal government attempting to expanding and protecting slavery might not be able to save the slave base economic system. What could the federal government do in 1920 as a compromise that would protect and expand slavery? The advance in weapons by 1920 would have made a 1920 Civil War very destructive.

With every compromise (aka let's kick the can down the road) the proslavery took more power and were empowered to become more belligerent,

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Have no idea what you mean. Acknowledging actual events or historical support isn't apologist at all. So no idea.

History is simply what was......trying to either condemn or excuse events doesn't change them.

And here we have the playing innocent, what I'm just asking questions response.

Here's the deal guy. The weird hill to die on is "well actually they technically weren't criminals because they weren't tried." Sure, legally. But if a large portion of the population did see secession as a crime against the Union, there wouldn't have been a war at all.

Now in another post, you're somehow simultaneously claiming that the southern states were goaded/bullied/add the verb you want into seceding. But the fact of the matter is, regardless of the rhetoric, prior to Lincoln's election, that's all he was capable of-rhetoric. And yet states seceded anyway, prior to his taking office. Thats not rhetoric, that is action that put lives in danger. And to steer it back to the topic of the thread, which your "well technically" responses don't even attempt to address (as usual), I would venture to guess that after the miserably failed revolution, a large portion of white southerners would agree that it was, in fact, not worth it.

So yeah, piping in, off topic, to say, "WHALE ACKSHUALLY they weren't criminals"…that's a weird hill to die on.

YMMV

 

[major bill]

With every compromise (aka let's kick the can down the road) the proslavery took more power and were empowered to become more belligerent,

I worry that the demands of the slave states by 1910 would have involved the end of democracy as we know it. With immigration growing their political power, the only real solution to protect and expand slavery would by to taking away the right of the norther states to vote.

 

[archieclement]

And here we have the playing innocent, what I'm just asking questions response.

Here's the deal guy. The weird hill to die on is "well actually they technically weren't criminals because they weren't tried." Sure, legally. But if a large portion of the population did see secession as a crime against the Union, there wouldn't have been a war at all.

Now in another post, you're somehow simultaneously claiming that the southern states were goaded/bullied/add the verb you want into seceding. But the fact of the matter is, regardless of the rhetoric, prior to Lincoln's election, that's all he was capable of-rhetoric. And yet states seceded anyway, prior to his taking office. Thats not rhetoric, that is action that put lives in danger. And to steer it back to the topic of the thread, which your "well technically" responses don't even attempt to address (as usual), I would venture to guess that after the miserably failed revolution, a large portion of white southerners would agree that it was, in fact, not worth it.

So yeah, piping in, off topic, to say, "WHALE ACKSHUALLY they weren't criminals"…that's a weird hill to die on.

YMMV

I'm just being honest.

I would think everyone here, if being honest, has experienced cases today (in your lifetime) where juries reach entirely different opinions then yours as to criminal. Indeed they can weigh mitigating factors, have prejudices, ect

So I do find it particularly amusing when some seem to pretend they can predict what juries would would found in entirely different eras, with different beliefs and societies then ours. Even moreso when there's evidence prosecutors at the time had doubts.......

But certainly in our system, such determination would been made then, by the peers at the time as to whether something was criminal to convict. What we think 150 years later doesn't convict anyone.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

I worry that the demands of the slave states by 1910 would have involved the end of democracy as we know it. With immigration growing their political power, the only real solution to protect and expand slavery would by to taking away the right of the norther states to vote.

It was inevitable that, in a system that awards electoral votes to states based on population, slave states would be on a forever downward spiral. Most European immigrants had zero interest in living down south prior to the civil war, and little changed after it in that regard.

So no, I don't think European immigrants would be any more inclined to move to southern states in a second half of the 19th century where their chances for low wage jobs were nil because slavery was still legal. And a civil war 50 years later would likely have cost much more in the way of lives and fortunes.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

I'm just being honest.

So I do find it particularly amusing blah blah blah

We clearly have different ideas of where to find amusement, Mr just being honest.

So. Was it worth it?

 

[archieclement]

We clearly have different ideas of where to find amusement, Mr just being honest.

So. Was it worth it?

I have no opinion particularly one way or the other. There certainly was a huge cost and negatives that went with it as well, so see it rather hard to weigh. As well such a determination would assume their was no possible alternatives, which i think is rather false.

The arguments are amusing though, as some that say it was worth it......will turn around to condemn Mexican or Indian wars......which provided argueably far more upside for far less cost