Did we have the right?

[StarvedIntelligence]

To stop the south from succeeding from the union during the civil war?

[madzakk]

Might makes right.

[fahrenheit]

We needed the south at the time, I am pretty sure we still need them.
So screw what they think, as long as we need them they are staying.

[Camarohusky]

Yes we had the right.

[agreenblinker]

At 9/20/05 11:46 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: To stop the south from succeeding from the union during the civil war?

The Constitution was signed by all states during the revolution and new states have to adhere to it. All the Constitution is is a contract between states and people as to how government should run.

When the South succeeded they, in essence, broke their contract with the other states. Normaly when a person breaks a contract it goes to court; when politics are involved however there is no real way to enforce rules other than through pressures-either violent or non violent.

So I suppose this is the long answer to might makes right, nuanced.

[StarvedIntelligence]

At 9/20/05 11:56 PM, madzakk wrote: Might makes right.

no it allows a country to do something, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Just because the US can blow up the world doesn't mean they have the right to.

At 9/21/05 12:17 AM, Velocitom wrote: We needed the south at the time, I am pretty sure we still need them.
So screw what they think, as long as we need them they are staying.

That didn't answer the question

At 9/21/05 01:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yes we had the right.

no we didn't - at least if you look at it the way we justify our existance
If we could declare indepencance from britain, why couldn't they declair independance from people they didn't agree with. People who they believed were trying to oppress them.

At 9/21/05 09:33 AM, agreenblinker wrote:
The Constitution was signed by all states during the revolution and new states have to adhere to it. All the Constitution is is a contract between states and people as to how government should run.

When the South succeeded they, in essence, broke their contract with the other states. Normaly when a person breaks a contract it goes to court; when politics are involved however there is no real way to enforce rules other than through pressures-either violent or non violent.

So I suppose this is the long answer to might makes right, nuanced.

I see what you are getting at, but whether or not they signed a "contract" was up for debate at the time. At the time many believed that states rights out wayed federal rights. Today that statement would have more validity then back then. But still I ask, how we could hold them to us 100 years after we broke from Britain.

[Jimsween]

WTF?

Stop whoring out the word right. You don't need to have a right to do something to do it. And at that, just because you should be able to do something, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

Stupid people.

[PhysicsMafia]

the south did pretty sweet from it, have most of ur presidents not bin from the souther states?

the north may have won, but the south hav bin runnin the country since pretty much.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

We didn't not have the right.

[Jimsween]

And at that, the south started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter.

[fahrenheit]

At 9/21/05 04:27 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: That didn't answer the question

Yeah, it did.
We had the right to hold them as states instead of individual countries because our country needed the food suply the south had, and I dont believe we were just going to let them go off with the majority of our crops and food.

Next time actually read what I say instead of skimming through it.

[V4lh4ll4]

Wow, is everyone in this topic North of the Mason-Dixon line or what?

Geographic locations aside. Yes, there was justified means to wage war on the South. There's a little thing called Treason gents. And the South was very much commiting it. As were we in the revolutionary war, we had just as much right to fight the South as the UK had to fight us.

Im just happy when the North won they didn't roll through here and execute every male over the age of 18, because they very much would have been able to get away with it.

[seventy-one]

We didn't have the right, we had the duty to keep the union together.

[Jose]

At 9/21/05 05:11 PM, lollerskaters wrote: We didn't not have the right.

I love double negatives.

[StarvedIntelligence]

At 9/21/05 05:40 PM, V4lh4ll4 wrote: Wow, is everyone in this topic North of the Mason-Dixon line or what?

Geographic locations aside. Yes, there was justified means to wage war on the South. There's a little thing called Treason gents. And the South was very much commiting it. As were we in the revolutionary war, we had just as much right to fight the South as the UK had to fight us.

Of course it was treason... but why did the north have any right to keep them in a union they didn't want to be in. I don't agree with what the south did, but If a group of people controls land and they don't want to be part of a country that doesn't respect them, I don't believe the others have a right to keep them there. The rights I'm speaking of are not spelled out in a constitution or book of laws.

And also so that people don't get confused, I am very much against slavery. I believe that it should have been left behind. And it would have been if it wasn't for the north.

[DamienK]

At 9/21/05 05:40 PM, V4lh4ll4 wrote: Wow, is everyone in this topic North of the Mason-Dixon line or what?

Well gee, I'm from the south. I guess I have to agree with you. Damn Yankees!!!

Sorry, don't work that way. The purpose of the constitution as stated by our forefathers was to "form a more perfect union" (and if they didn't say that about the constitution they said it about the federal government). Thus it is the duty of the nation to act upon anything that threatens the union. Put in simplified terms, it is the states ' job to govern the people and the federal government's job to govern the states. So when the South threatened the union, the North had every right to put a boot up our ass. Like the man said "united we stand, divided we fall".

I think the will of our founding fathers and our constitution would justify it, no?

[seventy-one]

At 9/21/05 07:09 PM, Grish_Noren wrote:
Of course it was treason... but why did the north have any right to keep them in a union they didn't want to be in. I don't agree with what the south did, but If a group of people controls land and they don't want to be part of a country that doesn't respect them, I don't believe the others have a right to keep them there. The rights I'm speaking of are not spelled out in a constitution or book of laws.

If they don't like the country move to another, suceeding from the union was an irrational and stupid move by the south. The north had to at least try to keep the country together, if they didn't, the U.S. would be weaker to defend attacks from foreign nations, they would lose resources, and if they just let the south go then it would be an open invitation for anybody who doesn't agree with some stuff in the U.S. to leave.

[DamienK]

At 9/21/05 07:09 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: Of course it was treason... but why did the north have any right to keep them in a union they didn't want to be in. I don't agree with what the south did, but If a group of people controls land and they don't want to be part of a country that doesn't respect them, I don't believe the others have a right to keep them there. The rights I'm speaking of are not spelled out in a constitution or book of laws.

If all they wanted to do was leave then they would have left, to England or whatever. But that's not all it was, they wanted to start their own government, their own nation. If a group secedes from the nation and tries to have their own government, the federal government has every right to put up a fight. Britain had every right to fight the US for control over the colonies. It was actually the US who was infringing upon their rights. Don't get me wrong, it worked out, but the government has a right to fight for their land.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 9/21/05 06:31 PM, -Jose- wrote:

At 9/21/05 05:11 PM, lollerskaters wrote: We didn't not have the right.

I love double negatives.

I wasn't saying that we had the right, I was saying that there was no law saying otherwise. Using double negitives made it easier to get that point across.

[DamienK]

At 9/21/05 08:28 PM, lollerskaters wrote:

At 9/21/05 06:31 PM, -Jose- wrote:

At 9/21/05 05:11 PM, lollerskaters wrote: We didn't not have the right.

I love double negatives.

I think he got the joke. And if he didn't, I did.

[therealsylvos]

I pledge allegience to the flag of the UNTIED states of america and to the republic for wich it stands one nation under GOD INDIVISIBLE with liberty and justice for all
important words capitalized(god doesnt really aplly to this subject just a thing u libs should know before trying to ban it)U c lincoln in the end wouldve been happier to have the slaves stay slaves if it meant gaining back thew south but so late in the war the south werent having any so he signed the emancipation proclimation to enlist some blacks. we were not trying to kill them to defeat them we were trying to regain them.
of course the whole idea is absurd that we didnt have the right do u think the british had the right to fight us when we wanted america for ourselves? of course however we won its ours end of story. of course we have the right to try and get it back

[DamienK]

At 9/21/05 09:15 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I pledge allegience to the flag of the UNTIED states of america and to the republic for wich it stands one nation under GOD INDIVISIBLE with liberty and justice for all
important words capitalized(god doesnt really aplly to this subject just a thing u libs should know before trying to ban it)U c lincoln in the end wouldve been happier to have the slaves stay slaves if it meant gaining back thew south but so late in the war the south werent having any so he signed the emancipation proclimation to enlist some blacks. we were not trying to kill them to defeat them we were trying to regain them.
of course the whole idea is absurd that we didnt have the right do u think the british had the right to fight us when we wanted america for ourselves? of course however we won its ours end of story. of course we have the right to try and get it back

I'm really sorry man. I agree with everything your saying, but its just so hard to understand because you're using AIM lingo. Could you please take the extra few seconds and use proper grammar?

[GorillaUnit485]

I can understand that the population of the south wanted to start their own country, but they had no right to try and keep the north's land, too. The north had the right to fight to keep their land, if not the right to fight to keep the country united.

[darkdragn]

Of course we had the right. If the south left it would have weakened the US

[Buffalow]

At 9/20/05 11:46 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: To stop the south from succeeding from the union during the civil war?

The Broke the agreement between the states in the constitution, so basically what they did was un-constitutional. So the Union had to "Re-conqure" *spelling* the south.

[Gunter45]

At 9/21/05 04:27 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: no we didn't - at least if you look at it the way we justify our existance
If we could declare indepencance from britain, why couldn't they declair independance from people they didn't agree with. People who they believed were trying to oppress them.

I have a feeling that you cut with the dull edge of the knife. You're saying that the British didn't have a right to try to maintain their colony? The British had every right to fight the colonists for control of America just like the North had every right to try to keep the South in the Union. You could just as easily say that both the colonists and the South had a right to declare independance. Right isn't one-sided. You can't simply say that one side was right and another was wrong in the matter. The fact is that the North won and the South is in the Union.

Personally, I think that the US is better for it, and that's more important than who was "right."

[punisher19848]

At 9/20/05 11:46 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: To stop the south from succeeding from the union during the civil war?

Does it matter? What matters is that we were strong enough to beat them and bring back in line: right or wrong doesn't even factor into this.