Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Brother Shatterstone]

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

I don't even remember what this was in regards too... but its okay we're just going around in circles in this and no one is changing anyone’s opinion so I think I'm done here. (Plus my on vacation in a matter of hours now and won't be around the PC for any length of time for 11 days or so.)

 

[Gentlegamer]

The legislature voted not to seceed.

The legislature of Maryland was arrested by Lincoln.

 

[Gentlegamer]

There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.

The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.

By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another . . .

 

[Gentlegamer]

I think this leads to some very unpleasant instruction in the American political system. It's only been comparatively recently that the federal government, in any really meaningful sense, has become a body that serves the public in general rather than powerful elites.

At the beginning of the republic, there were no powerful elites (not in the way you mean) . . .

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Does the term "concurrent majority" mean anything to you?

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I don't even remember what this was in regards too... but its okay we're just going around in circles in this and no one is changing anyone’s opinion so I think I'm done here.

As with alot of debates, it seems....

(Plus my on vacation in a matter of hours now and won't be around the PC for any length of time for 11 days or so.)

WOWZA!! That's a long vacation!!! I hope you enjoy it and have fun!!!

 

[Storm Raven]

Does the term "concurrent majority" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does. And in the context of the start of the Civil War, it is meaningless. Because the Southern states would have (had they not seceeded), kept all of the rights guaranteed to it under the Constitution, which is the instrument of protection for such minorities.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

Calhoun was full of crap. Plain and simple. His argument was merely a justificiation for preserving slavery clothed in pretty language.

 

[Storm Raven]

The legislature of Maryland was arrested by Lincoln.

Not before they voted to stay in the Union. You can argue about whether Lincoln should have arrested Southern sympathizers or not, but the fact remains that the State song was in response to a perfectly normal act of the Union - transiting troops though Balitmore to Washington D.C. No "occupation" occured until well afterwards, and was at the invitation of the loyal members of the Maryland government.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

Given that secession was an illegal act to begin with, they didn't have much of a case. Given that the fort in question was Federal property, taking it by force is, in itself, a criminal act, whether the CSA wanted to fort to remain or not.

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.

Yes, forts that had been ceded by the U.K. via treaty. Did the CSA have a right by treaty to claim Federal property? I thought not.