Does The War Shed Light On the Future of Enlightened Government?

[keith]

really interesting thread, actually looked at the constitution and bill of rights today on the net, and cant find anything specifically prohibiting seccesion or indeed anything allowing seccesion, if i am wrong then feel free to correct me,

on the specific subject of the thread, 'enlightened govt' it s a pipedream, power corrupts.........

funnily enough there was a debate on bbc radio today about voter apathy and its causes, the overriding consensus was that although we live in a democracy its construction, ie 'first past the post' filters out any real political debate and that the two party system defacto in effect in britain and by extension in the states is both stifling constructive debate between people who hold oposite polittical ideoligies and preventing anything but centre left/right political ideas gaining acceptance, nothing changes an nothing ever will, ultimate power is in the hands of politicians who are more scared of 'vested interests ' than the electorate, it was the way in the 18th century and it is the way know. The 'if we dont win this time we will win next time' attitude of our mainstream parties is galling . Finally i refer to my last paragraph, unfortunatley the us civil war changed nothing

[pepe4158]

I think that even at the time many in the north did acknowledge the souths right to revolution, but not to be sucessful. The right to self determination is a pretty strong right in my humble opinion.

Hmmm its always been my understanding that Lincoln and every northern senator viewed the south as, 'insurrectionists' and not the dignity of setting up their own true legitimate government. The northern leaders always saw themselves as the rightfull only true american government.
How did the northern people feel?...well the ruling elite wanted the war, but who would fight it?...Surely not my son or daughter killed on a battlefield as the ruling elite bought, 'substitute soliders' to serve in their place. Hence you have the worst draft riots ever occurinng in american history in NY, July, of 1863.

[Qman39]

I think that is a good distinction to make about self-determination. I think the other side of the coin is the political philosophy side. Certainly hard to argue that the Declaration of Independence doesn't stand for the proposition that all "men" have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Using that as a threshhold the South was well within its moral rights to secede but perhaps not within its political rights to do so.

Which brings up another interesting point. Let's say the South had been allowed to secede and form its own nation. Any thoughts on how long it would have been able to make it? Slavery was on its way to extinction with or without the Civil War and without that "hot-button" issue would the South have been so eager to be on its own? Again, great discussion and very interesting thoughts and ideas from everyone!

[Skibear]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" Winston Churchill

Enlightened government is rubbish because the kind of person that thinks he has all the answers and wants to tell everybody else what to do is exactly the kind of person that you DO NOT want running your life. World changers almost always change it for the worst because they simply cant take advise or consider other peoples opinions.

But dont take my word for it, think what you like.

[pepe4158]

Yeah Ive always had thought that Lee really messed up in his two invasions of the north n needed to listen more to Longstreet who arqued against any invasion of the north from the practical point why go to them when they have to come here to win.
As long as the south could kill northerners, being on the defensive at a 2:1 ratio, they could succeed as the north would riot, due to forced conscription to fill their losses, and thus they would win as the north would give-up.
N even many historians argue if the south could have held out much longer, they would have gained a political victory over Lincoln, the north would have choose a peace canditate, at the time of Lincoln's 2nd election the south looked doomed n everyone in the north knew the war was at a close.

[Brochgale]

The right to self determination is not something to be given up lightly - right or wrong? If we give that up then are we no better than slaves?

Interesting dialectic?

[Brochgale]

The right to self determination is something not to be given up lightly. Right or wrong?

If we give that up without a fight then perhaps we are no better than slaves? It is an interesting contradiction?

[Le Ricain]

Maybe, though I am not sure he had a film crew. It was a night attack on a radio station from memory. He might have then taken photos of the dead but I cant remember. But back on subject....

It seems to me that from looking way back then the CSA acted on their right to rebellion, same as the 13 colonies had done no so very long before. It was perfectly within their rights to rebel, so long as they could keep their freedom by resisting the unionist governments attempts to bring them back into the fold.
But with the universality of the rebellion then it probably should have been allowed to succeed. These guys really REALLY hated the north and wanted no part of them telling them what to do. Obviously in the border states it was less clear, and some counties and individuals stayed loyal. But by the standards of most rebellions through history it was pretty universal, they had the right to self determination, the ability to stand alone as a workable nation and if they had got more help from the European powers they probably would have. Certainly even in 1864 after 3 years of war many in the north could still see no way that the south could be brought back into the fold by military means alone.
Its a bit alien to most of us I think just how hostile the two parts of the country were to each other so I suppose (for the most part) it is a testiment to the US govt that they were able to unite the country eventually and make it think as one again. But you can bet your bottom dollar that there was alot of hate for generations afterward.

Your assertion that the support in the South was universal for the rebellion is incorrect. Please see my thread 'Pro-Union regions'. It lists the regions within the CSA that remained loyal. Over 100,000 White Southerners enlisted into the Union army. Every Confederate state except for South Carolina raised Union regiments composed of white soldiers.

If the South believed that secession was a right, why did they not allow Pro-Union regions to leave? 'The Free State of Winston' in North Alabama and the 'Free State of Jones' in Mississippi had to fight off Confederate troops to maintain their pro-union status.

[Le Ricain]

ohio born probably, but made his home in Lousiana (ha-ha I thought someone would make it an issue )

My point being, there was NOT on a personal level...this supposed animosity between the north and south, there was ony a cultural divide between societies.

1.Picketts dear friend, was none other then A. Lincoln, who he recieved his nomination from the point from n all fellow southeners knew you did NOT offend Abe in G. Pickett's precense (deul time).
2. When Arminstead was shot dead at Gettysburg, he gave his greatest position while dying to a union soldier (his own personal bible), to give to his closest friend, none other then union Gen W.S. Hancock
3. Longstreets closest friend, who he latter tried to rebuild the south with, was none other then U. Grant.

Grant married Longstreet's cousin.

Sherman was in Louisiana as the first superintendent of the university that would later become LSU. He resigned when he was required as university superintendent to take possession of a Federal arms depot that had been seized by LA. I bet LSU never names one of its buildings after its first superintendent (president in modern terms). 'Sherman Hall' has a nice ring to it.

[Coregonas]

Hmmmm I thought I was (intelejant)

but being a dumb southener ya lost me at the 2nd paragraph

Really man...you deduced this all from playing the game?

Really! I ve read some of this but...Can you translate into some language I can understand... this is too hard to me... ...better dont even try to translate.

I ve understand a line about predict the future or so... Are you proposing some kind of new Ageod Game, turning the Philipe s into Hari Seldon s and develop psycohistory for a future 2020-2200 grand strategy space wargame??

[MkollCSA]

<------ is lost

[pepe4158]

Well just saying Kgo's initial opening thread was a little too deep for me n Im missing whatever points he is making, not that he isnt a brilliant thinker ....just I dont get it but there is a lot my own lil wife says I dont get n aint gona get.

[Coregonas]

Well just saying Kgo's initial opening thread was a little too deep for me n Im missing whatever points he is making, not that he isnt a brilliant thinker ....just I dont get it but there is a lot my own lil wife says I dont get n aint gona get.

Oh boy sorry ! Your post was the easy one to understand, even with these rare "ya " words you say. I agreed with the post, as the original thread was the really hard !




pepe is a "sinonymous" for josé - joseph in spanish
my father is in fact "pep" for josep in catalan (the language we use in barcelona " the catalan nation inside the spanish nation")

is that related to your pepe4158?

[pepe4158]

yes ....ya is southerner for you... lol... eka. ya all=you all

N I use my Pepe persona because most of all of the southern USA has now been annexed by Mexico (hey when ya cant beat em join em I always say lol).....viva la raza!!!!!!! hee-hee i dun did it now lol

[tagwyn]

How many Americans had to die and how much money must be spent before this "peculiar institution" is obliterated and condemned finally and totallly. NO STATE has ever had the right to secede from the Union. lf Montanna chooses to leave the union they will learn that lesson quite quickly. apy: '
PS: I am a Southernor, born and bred. Many of my ancestors are buried in graves for Rebel dead. Our family lost everything in the war. It was a wrong war for a wrong reason and ended the way it should have ended.

[pepe4158]

really interesting thread, actually looked at the constitution and bill of rights today on the net, and cant find anything specifically prohibiting seccesion or indeed anything allowing seccesion, if i am wrong then feel free to correct me,

I suspect thats because had Franklin, Jefferson, or Washington himself had been alive at the time, they would have wanted to string J. Davis up and hang him personally for suggesting succession. They didnt deal with the issue cause it was simply, 'unthinkable' to them....but it was a different period and different time n just my opinion of what they thought.

By the same token....if any of the mentioned founding fathers were alive today they would want to string up BOTH the Clinton families and Bush familes for conspiring to give away american autonomy to a new north american union (similar to the European) but thats a different topic for a different board for sure, but illustrates times do change and whats expident for one period of time may not be for another.

[kgostanek]

Guys, I'm kinda sorry I introduced myself with a post like that. I'm no elite snob. I've been arrested and jailed for some time, if that tells you anything. A lot of my opinions and beliefs come from that experience. I don't think what I did (possession of drug 'residue') should be a crime in itself. Even if I did believe it should be a crime, I think my punishment was a little much. They even incarcerated me in this treatment program for eleven months after seven months in jail. Had I exited the premises, I'd have been arrested again. However, I agreed to it so they wouldn't make me a felon. It turns out I'm not an addict anyway. But damn, what a runaround!

Enlightened government is rubbish because the kind of person that thinks he has all the answers and wants to tell everybody else what to do is exactly the kind of person that you DO NOT want running your life. World changers almost always change it for the worst because they simply cant take advise or consider other peoples opinions.

I agree that government is not enlightened if it tries to run your life. I am saying that an enlightened government is one whose ultimate authority is a law restricting political power, so that politicians can't do very much at all. Congress and the president should just sort of oversee the country and take action to interrupt major problems. I only trust leaders who don't want to be elected so badly. We should all sort of identify the wisest member of our communities and say, "Hey, we want you to represent us." That person should then do it as a duty. If he gets in your face and tries to convince you to elect him, you shouldn't because then he'll pursue whatever uninformed policies his constituents support. Shouldn't we elect people who we assume are wiser than we are?

I think theory is pretty interesting, but recently realized that I don't know anything about international policy. I initially supported the war in Iraq. Looking back, it looks like a pretty bad idea.

[pepe4158]

eka why im a libertarian in my own political view point n philosphical beliefs....having my rights squashed suxs

[Skibear]

Your assertion that the support in the South was universal for the rebellion is incorrect. Please see my thread 'Pro-Union regions'. It lists the regions within the CSA that remained loyal. Over 100,000 White Southerners enlisted into the Union army. Every Confederate state except for South Carolina raised Union regiments composed of white soldiers.

If the South believed that secession was a right, why did they not allow Pro-Union regions to leave? 'The Free State of Winston' in North Alabama and the 'Free State of Jones' in Mississippi had to fight off Confederate troops to maintain their pro-union status.

I have read your thread before I found it very interesting. Howver if you read carefully I did acknowledge that it was not totally universal:
"These guys really REALLY hated the north and wanted no part of them telling them what to do. Obviously in the border states it was less clear, and some counties and individuals stayed loyal. But by the standards of most rebellions through history it was pretty universal"
Thats the tragedy that it was a civil war in some charateristics, and also it was a war between two belligerent states in other characteristics. But the rebellion was universal enough to form an elected government, a large and effective army, a navy, its own currency and economy and survive for 4 years. How many similar rebellions have there been that were not eventually to be allowed to form their own self determined government?

[Brochgale]

Guys, I'm kinda sorry I introduced myself with a post like that. I'm no elite snob. I've been arrested and jailed for some time, if that tells you anything. A lot of my opinions and beliefs come from that experience. I don't think what I did (possession of drug 'residue') should be a crime in itself. Even if I did believe it should be a crime, I think my punishment was a little much. They even incarcerated me in this treatment program for eleven months after seven months in jail. Had I exited the premises, I'd have been arrested again. However, I agreed to it so they wouldn't make me a felon. It turns out I'm not an addict anyway. But damn, what a runaround!



I agree that government is not enlightened if it tries to run your life. I am saying that an enlightened government is one whose ultimate authority is a law restricting political power, so that politicians can't do very much at all. Congress and the president should just sort of oversee the country and take action to interrupt major problems. I only trust leaders who don't want to be elected so badly. We should all sort of identify the wisest member of our communities and say, "Hey, we want you to represent us." That person should then do it as a duty. If he gets in your face and tries to convince you to elect him, you shouldn't because then he'll pursue whatever uninformed policies his constituents support. Shouldn't we elect people who we assume are wiser than we are?

I think theory is pretty interesting, but recently realized that I don't know anything about international policy. I initially supported the war in Iraq. Looking back, it looks like a pretty bad idea.

All politicians are controol freaks. If they had thier way you would not be allowed to even play this game?
As far as I am concerned what someone does in thier own bedroom is thier own affair and not that of Politicians who are the worst kinds of hypocrites.
What someone puts in his lungs is also thier own affair. I smoked and I inhaled and enjoyed it - I will not be standing for election anywhere any time soon.
As for international policy - if thier is oil etc anywhere then politicians will lie about reasons for sending troops anywhere? The Boer War was all about Gold/Diamonds etc?
Nothing changes? ACW or Iraq? Lying politicians self seving politicians?

[Qman39]

The right to self determination is something not to be given up lightly. Right or wrong?

If we give that up without a fight then perhaps we are no better than slaves? It is an interesting contradiction?

I think this is an interesting contradiction but it is very relevant to our current times. When you look at our society as a whole it seems to me that many people simply have been beguiled by distractions such as cell phones and i-pods to the point where they have simply stopped caring about important things such as their own personal liberties or the direction our government is moving. Is it inherent in any form of republican government? The US is already the longest lasting republic in history but why would it not fail as the others did? I see many similarities between the fall of Rome and our current situation. Some of the problem in Rome was the sated and happy populace that became too soft to care about the erosion of the empire and the dilution of Roman citizenry. Are we on the same path? Should we care about people losing interest in participating in the processes that will determine their future? I think so but so many people I know, especially young people, could care less about anything remotely like that. Good point Brochgale!

[pepe4158]

Hmmm Q....I thought Rome actually was a republic and would qualify as the longest lasting?

[Skibear]

Actually Venice was the longest lasting republic in history from 697AD through to 1797AD when Napolean spoiled the party. The USA has alot of centuries to go before it can claim that honour. Rome lasted about 450years as a republic before Julius Caesar became dictator. So Pepe's right Rome was a republic longer than the US, but Venice was twice as long again before a dictator showed up. I wonder who the dictator will be this time? Arnie?

[pepe4158]

Arnold...OMG lol....Ive met him in person is why Im LOL

[Le Ricain]

I have read your thread before I found it very interesting. Howver if you read carefully I did acknowledge that it was not totally universal:
"These guys really REALLY hated the north and wanted no part of them telling them what to do. Obviously in the border states it was less clear, and some counties and individuals stayed loyal. But by the standards of most rebellions through history it was pretty universal"
Thats the tragedy that it was a civil war in some charateristics, and also it was a war between two belligerent states in other characteristics. But the rebellion was universal enough to form an elected government, a large and effective army, a navy, its own currency and economy and survive for 4 years. How many similar rebellions have there been that were not eventually to be allowed to form their own self determined government?

I am sorry. I understood your post to read that the support for secession was pretty universal in the South. The elections for secession within the states shows how divided the South was before Sumter. In most states the elections were very close, even though the slave population was used to determine number of representatives. The secession vote failed in other states and recent studies have shown that Georgia voted to secede due to election fraud, ie more people voted for secession than the total vote in 1860 and then there were the no votes on top of that.

Imagine what the CSA could have done with an extra 100,000 men?

[tagwyn]

Korri: This thread does not belong here! Do we want to become a civil government discussion thread? What do you think?

[Brochgale]

I am sorry. I understood your post to read that the support for secession was pretty universal in the South. The elections for secession within the states shows how divided the South was before Sumter. In most states the elections were very close, even though the slave population was used to determine number of representatives. The secession vote failed in other states and recent studies have shown that Georgia voted to secede due to election fraud, ie more people voted for secession than the total vote in 1860 and then there were the no votes on top of that.

Imagine what the CSA could have done with an extra 100,000 men?

Lincoln himself was elected on a minority of the vote. Once he got the levers of power it went to his head and his inability to form a consensus and to compromise led inevitably to catastrophy? After all as adults do we not all have to reach consensus and compromise in our daily lives in order to get things done and maybe even to avoid violence and bloodshed?

[Brochgale]

I think this is an interesting contradiction but it is very relevant to our current times. When you look at our society as a whole it seems to me that many people simply have been beguiled by distractions such as cell phones and i-pods to the point where they have simply stopped caring about important things such as their own personal liberties or the direction our government is moving. Is it inherent in any form of republican government? The US is already the longest lasting republic in history but why would it not fail as the others did? I see many similarities between the fall of Rome and our current situation. Some of the problem in Rome was the sated and happy populace that became too soft to care about the erosion of the empire and the dilution of Roman citizenry. Are we on the same path? Should we care about people losing interest in participating in the processes that will determine their future? I think so but so many people I know, especially young people, could care less about anything remotely like that. Good point Brochgale!

I dont have cell phone or an ipod - so I am a certifiable weirdo to my contemporaies - can actually hold a conversation without need for noise making prop?

People just takke everything for granted till it smacks them in the face - tax bills dropping through the letter box or someone removing thier right to spend thier own worked for money on tobacco if they so wish?

[Le Ricain]

Lincoln himself was elected on a minority of the vote. Once he got the levers of power it went to his head and his inability to form a consensus and to compromise led inevitably to catastrophy? After all as adults do we not all have to reach consensus and compromise in our daily lives in order to get things done and maybe even to avoid violence and bloodshed?

I am afraid that the actual timeline of events does not support your conclusion.

November 6, 1860 : US Presidential Election
November 10 : South Carolina legislature calls for a convention to consider secession.
December 24 : South Carolina secedes.
January 9, 1861 : Mississippi secedes.
January 10 : Florida secedes.
January 11 : Alabama secedes.
January 19 : Georgia secedes.
January 26 : Louisiana secedes.
February 1 : Texas secedes.
March 4 : Lincoln inaugurated and assumes office as President.

It would seem that the inability to form a consensus or seek a compromise was with the Southern states and not with Lincoln. He never got a chance. Seven states has seceded by the time he got his hands on the levers.

[W.Barksdale]

Lincoln himself was elected on a minority of the vote. Once he got the levers of power it went to his head and his inability to form a consensus and to compromise led inevitably to catastrophy? After all as adults do we not all have to reach consensus and compromise in our daily lives in order to get things done and maybe even to avoid violence and bloodshed?

You should read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

This thread is just full of rhetorical nonsense. I really can't believe some of the things people are spouting off in here.