Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[TanisFrey]

This really depends on what side you were on. The British felt that the colonies were represented by Parliament because Parliament represented everyone.

The point I was making is that the colonies formed there own country because they felt that England did not represent them. They felt Parliament did not have their best intrests when making laws and passing taxes.

The south felt the same way. They felt that the federal goverment would soon be controlled by a majority who did not have their best iintrests in mind when passing laws. So they did what their grandfathers did.

The colonies could not vote for any member of Parliament. We were a colony, no seats for us. Even Scotland and Irland had some Parliament seats but they were Eurpen nations conkered by England.

Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.

Just voting for sucession was not illegal act, seizure of Federal property was. Now If the them had sent reprensives to the congress and tried to withdrawl peacefully. BTW Texas was the only state to have sucession leagly bacause they entered the Union via a treaty that stated that they could leave later.

Except that Lincoln wasn't going to send him troops. He considered it to be too provocative an act.

said about Fort Sumter

The Union was sending in Supplies, not troops.

It's theorized that the "reconstruction period" the South went through would've been alot easier had Lincoln not been assassinated by Booth. He was more willing to work with the South to reintegrated them back into the union. And definitely alot more compassionate than his successor, Andrew Johnson, was. And he was willing, yes WILLING (a shocking prospect at the time) to allow blacks the right to VOTE. It's ideas like this that, had they come to fruition, might have staved off the need for the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s as the blacks would've had these same rights long before they had to fight for them, instead of having to wait 100 years and they still have problems with equality even now.

Altho President Andrew Johnson had been selected by President Lincoln to be Vice President to help path a peace after the war (he was a southner from Maryland) he had no real power. Andrew Johnson tried to veto the worst of the reconstruction messures he was over rided EACH AND EVERY TIME. The Radical were in full control of both of Congress and defato control of the exective branches of US goverement.

in the last decade or so, didn't maine threaten to secede from the Union?

edit: or was that vermont?

Qubeck provence voted to to sucessed from Canada mid '90. It was narrowely defeted. I beleve if they had voted and left Canada peacefully the rest of Federal Canaden Goverment had a fair chance of collopsing and the provence asking to become states within 10 years of the vote.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

When you get a bunch of history buffs together, you inevitably get a few who think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war.

I cannot really fathom that... Not that I think the south was evil but because a divided United States, not to mention a United States without a strong central government, could not have been the backbone of the trails and tribulations of the 20th century…

 

[Storm Raven]

England's goverment worked a little differently than ours. In their eyes Parliament was the people.

"In their eyes" doesn't work though. Because members of parliament (at least for the Commons) stood for particular districts. The American colonies (and all the other colonies) had no districts, and no members representing them. The analogy you are trying to make is a popular one, but one that is fatally flawed and carries no weight when subjected to any kind of analysis.

It was no smokescreen if new states joined the union and they were anti slavery then they would have the majority vote needed to abolish slavery. And the south who would be effected by this would have been powerless to do anything about it.

Only if they could have changed the Constitution, which requires ratification by 3/4 of the States. And they were far from that stage. Besides, if they had not thrown a hissy fit over Lincoln's election, the South probably could have evolved a political compromise that would have abolished slavery later, and compensated those who owned them, or something like that.

This issue between federal and state rights had been brewing since the time of the first congress. There are two sides to an issue. And I can understand how they felt what right did other states have to push their beliefs onto the south because they were the majority espically on an issue that would not have an economic impact on the states forcing the issue.

The only issue that this was "brewing over" of any consequence was slavery. Trying to frame the debate as a states' rights debate does a disservice to the concept of states' rights. In any event, the nature of a federal republican (small "r") political system is that, in some case, via the political process, the majority can determine how the country should be run. The South was willing to partake of the benefits of such a system (participating in elections, sending representatives to the Federal government, and so on), but unwilling to accept the other elements.

The South, for all that it is romanticized, was basically a big baby having a temper tantrum because it got outvoted.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's kind of hard to have a say in the selection of monarch as that's hereditary and not elected like our presidents are.

Which, in my opinion, makes revolt perfectly acceptable. All Kings (and all who claim to be King) should abdicate immediately, or be killed. In any event, having no voice for the chief executive applies equally to having no voice in the selection of the Prime Minister as to the King.

Legally, it's hard to say which is more wrong.... The American Revolution to make ourselves our very own sovereign nation or the southern states seceding from the Union because they didn't agree with certain things.

The Southern secession is "more wrong", those who have no say in their government have every right to complain and to seek an alternative. Those who participate in the process, and are simply outvoted, don't.

 

[Orius]

Lincoln. The historical record speaks for itself.

I'm surprised to see that Jefferson is rated the highest so far, but I'd probably rank him second or third myself.

I wouldn't have included very recent people on this list (ie, Bush, Clinton, Bill Gates), as their historical impact has yet to be seen IMO.

Also, where's Theodore Roosevelt?

 

[David Howery]

I cannot really fathom that... Not that I think the south was evil but because a divided United States, not to mention a United States without a strong central government, could not have been the backbone of the trails and tribulations of the 20th century…

I find it surprising too. Some of the people who think like that are southerners who still pine for the glories of Dixie. Oddly enough, quite a few of the non-Americans on AH.com think it would have been just great if the US had broken up in the ACW too, mainly because they hate Bush...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Was it? Seems to be it would be the sovereign land of the Union. It’s how embassy works, its how it’s done on warships, and the US currently has a number of forts, military bases that are sovereign US soil...

So I don't see any reason behind your way of thinking.

CSA asked the soldiers to leave; that is, the CSA did not agree to allow the US fort to remain.

By the way, part of the reason for the Second War of American Independence was that Great Britain had not abandoned several forts in Americna territory, as required by the Treaty of Paris.

 

[Gentlegamer]

However, the North, under Lincoln's direction, took the ciritical step of emancipation, even though many did not want him to do so. Which is really what makes him the greatest american.

Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States. Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."

 

[Gentlegamer]

On that list of twenty-five, for me, only Thomas Jefferson comes close to being in a league with Ben Franklin.

Washington dwarfs them all.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Their homeland wasn't invaded until after the Confederates had signed up in droves. They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the possibility that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement. In point of fact, until the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ignored several extremely provocative moves made by Southerners, even to the point that he didn't call for volunteers until after the Fort was attacked.

You really need to go back to Calhoun to understand the deeper reasons for secession.