Quote:
Originally Posted by Zachstar
Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.
BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.
And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.
|
You're as unreachable as I was at your age.
Buddahaid has a good point, and I like to think that I do as well. It's not a matter of good or evil states in most cases; it's a matter of the nature of states in general.
Governments are what governments are; force monopolies. Even with the consent of the governed, they are still monopolies on the use of force. Governments are also made of people, not angels, and there is no way to ensure that the "right" people are in government at any given time, no matter what nation sponsors it.
When one combines a monopoly on force with people, one will invariably arrive at the same result that every nation in the history of the entire world has; the will of the few dominate the will and needs of the many. The mechanisms by which they arrive at this condition differ, but the principle always hold true.
That idea was the genius behind the US Constitution; if government was forced by itself to limit its own power, and the will of the people was protected, it could never abuse its own power.
Sadly, it didn't work out quite as well as intended, but such are the plans of mice and men. Voltaire once said that there was no problem capable of withstanding the assault of sustained thinking. I don't believe that's entirely true, but I certainly believe he was correct when one considers the nature of any human institution. The US has certainly helped to prove that in the creative way it has bypassed its own Constitution.
It isn't as black-and-white as you think, ZS. There are aristocrats and manipulators on both sides of any battle line. You do yourself a disfavor by accepting one preached doctrine over another. It is only when we value individuality and personal judgement that we gain freedom, and that is why I side with the CSA, despite the fact that they also used manipulative tactics.
Actually, that remains true to this day. I said earlier that the CSA never enstated the draft, but I was somewhat wrong. The CSA began what is now known as "stop-loss" in 1862, well before the Union enstated the draft in 1863. They forced Confederate soldiers who signed one-year contracts to serve for three.
Some historians argue that this constitutes a draft. Others say it was not because the soldiers volunteered to begin with. I ask: What kind of conflict, if it is supported by the populace, requires such measures if it is truly justifiable? What it boils down to, what is
always boils down to, is the few controlling the many.
Given a choice, I'd side with the government that used states' rights as its' rationale, not becuase I really buy it, but because it will be held accountable to some greater degree than a state that professes a desire for union at any cost.