Quote:
In other words, might makes right? Heck, the colonies had to get French help before the War for Independence was finally won. I hate to admit that, but it's true. We probably would have won anyway, but the French played a huge role in ending it quickly.
The Confederacy could, in fact, have successfully beaten the everloving snot out of the United States, and did on multiple occassions. There are several freak instances, however, that ruined their war effort - General James Longstreet's near traitorous behavior at Gettysburg in particular.
As far as I can tell, you and I have completely different definitions of legitimate. My definition is that the new nation in question be capable of self-government. Yours appears to be that the new nation must be able to resist by force of arms - in other words, like I said, you appear to believe that "might makes right."
I'm here to tell you, it doesn't work that way. Not only does the South still have a legal right to be a separate nation, it has a moral right. Just because someone is able to force their will on another doesn't mean the victim is not a legitimate nation. By that standard, Poland and France are not legitimate nations, as both got creamed by Nazi Germany (France surrendered in six weeks - by your standard, then, they should certainly not be considered a legitimate nation). They had to get saved by Great Britain and the United States.
France and Poland were already nations before Hitler invaded them. The Confederacy was not. They were part of the United States and decided they wanted out for some legitimate and some not legitimate reasons. As I remember the Confederacy wasn't doing too well as a nation. There were plenty of individuals that owned slaves that were doing well but the majority lived in poverty. I know that is some peoples vision of a great nation but it isn't mine.
Might does not make right. We haven't been in a legitimate war since WWII. I never said might makes right. I just stated a simple fact. I'm sure the Confederacy could have beaten the loving snot out of their masters. Unfortunately for them they were up against the not so loving snot. Every war has battles that are lost by incompetency. The battles that the Union lost can have the same things said about them.
All I know is that the southern states are part of the United States for better or worse. By your standards they will just have to be immoral since they will never be able to secede.
BTW if you look at all the countries in the world you will find that most all of them had some force of arms in their formation. It is certainly the case in countries that just didn't feel like hanging out anymore. In modern times they usually break away because of inhumane treatment by the host country. It was just the opposite with the Confederacy.
JMO
The majority lived in poverty? I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If by poverty you mean, "terrible by today's standards," then sure. Same goes for the majority in the North; not sure how that helps your case there. It was lower-middle-class, mostly. Small farmers and the like.
So in other words, the Confederacy was not a legitimate nation because they lost, but at the same time military might is not the standard for a legitimate nation? Please clarify - I think I'm missing something.
As for your last paragraph, you clearly have not been paying attention to anything I've pointed out. I'll lay it out in a simple equation. Growing Northern power + Nat Turner + John Brown + wealthy Northern abolitionists funding John Brown + unjust tarriff + massive cultural and religious differences + a Northern majority hell-bent on a strong central government = 100% justified Southern secession.
In other words, might makes right? Heck, the colonies had to get French help before the War for Independence was finally won. I hate to admit that, but it's true. We probably would have won anyway, but the French played a huge role in ending it quickly.
The Confederacy could, in fact, have successfully beaten the everloving snot out of the United States, and did on multiple occassions. There are several freak instances, however, that ruined their war effort - General James Longstreet's near traitorous behavior at Gettysburg in particular.
As far as I can tell, you and I have completely different definitions of legitimate. My definition is that the new nation in question be capable of self-government. Yours appears to be that the new nation must be able to resist by force of arms - in other words, like I said, you appear to believe that "might makes right."
I'm here to tell you, it doesn't work that way. Not only does the South still have a legal right to be a separate nation, it has a moral right. Just because someone is able to force their will on another doesn't mean the victim is not a legitimate nation. By that standard, Poland and France are not legitimate nations, as both got creamed by Nazi Germany (France surrendered in six weeks - by your standard, then, they should certainly not be considered a legitimate nation). They had to get saved by Great Britain and the United States.
France and Poland were already nations before Hitler invaded them. The Confederacy was not. They were part of the United States and decided they wanted out for some legitimate and some not legitimate reasons. As I remember the Confederacy wasn't doing too well as a nation. There were plenty of individuals that owned slaves that were doing well but the majority lived in poverty. I know that is some peoples vision of a great nation but it isn't mine.
Might does not make right. We haven't been in a legitimate war since WWII. I never said might makes right. I just stated a simple fact. I'm sure the Confederacy could have beaten the loving snot out of their masters. Unfortunately for them they were up against the not so loving snot. Every war has battles that are lost by incompetency. The battles that the Union lost can have the same things said about them.
All I know is that the southern states are part of the United States for better or worse. By your standards they will just have to be immoral since they will never be able to secede.
BTW if you look at all the countries in the world you will find that most all of them had some force of arms in their formation. It is certainly the case in countries that just didn't feel like hanging out anymore. In modern times they usually break away because of inhumane treatment by the host country. It was just the opposite with the Confederacy.
JMO
The majority lived in poverty? I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If by poverty you mean, "terrible by today's standards," then sure. Same goes for the majority in the North; not sure how that helps your case there. It was lower-middle-class, mostly. Small farmers and the like.
So in other words, the Confederacy was not a legitimate nation because they lost, but at the same time military might is not the standard for a legitimate nation? Please clarify - I think I'm missing something.
As for your last paragraph, you clearly have not been paying attention to anything I've pointed out. I'll lay it out in a simple equation. Growing Northern power + Nat Turner + John Brown + wealthy Northern abolitionists funding John Brown + unjust tarriff + massive cultural and religious differences + a Northern majority hell-bent on a strong central government = 100% justified Southern secession.
