How Many Mississippi Voters Wish the South Had Won the Civil War?

[grumbler]

First nations sovereignty is sui generis.  That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.

In the US, it is even worse:  Some of the indian nations started (legally) as separate nations, exactly like their European counterparts, and their status changed over time.  Other "nations" came into being from post-facto recognition by the US government.  It is a mess, as you note; today they are all without a doubt sui generis.

[grumbler]

Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?

Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay? How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality? The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?

[Lettow77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cHsNnDfmDs
Both main reprises of this song were evoked in me by this wonderful thread

Edit: something something Forrest is so tsundere~
stonewall jackson the stern shrine maiden
Lee the refined yamato nadeshiko
yeah but now i'm going to bed probably

[Razgovory]

Dammit, don't post that shit.

[The Minsky Moment]

The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?

The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, because the southern states (who later formed the core of the CSA) insisted that it be written that way, and the northern states compromised on the issue.

[The Minsky Moment]

Edit: something something Forrest is so tsundere~
stonewall jackson the stern shrine maiden
Lee the refined yamato nadeshiko
yeah but now i'm going to bed probably

If Lee, Jackson and Forrest could see this coming from one of their partisans, they would regret ever fighting to preserve the South.

So  . . . I guess it's a good thing.   

[Berkut]

Well, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.

If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.

Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?

Not at all, since even if the USA and Lincoln were "ok" with slavery (which isn't really true at all of course), the reason the war was fought was because of slavery. Slavery was the reason the union was threatened. Lincoln and the north fought to preserve the Union, but slavery was why the union was in jeopardy to begin with. We are talking about the South's reasons for rebellion, not the North's reasons to oppose that rebellion.

Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay?

What is ok? Slavery? Of course not. But there were lots of things happening in America that were probably not ok, but had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Slavery was one of them.

How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality?

It is not a decisive black mark against the justification for rebellion. Of course it is a nasty black mark against the American nation in general.

The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?

We are talking about justification for rebellion. The South gets the hate because they were the ones willing to break the Union in order to maintain and expand slavery. That pretty much destroys any moral or ethical validation for their rebellion. It isn't really that complicated.

[grumbler]

Not at all, since even if the USA and Lincoln were "ok" with slavery (which isn't really true at all of course), the reason the war was fought was because of slavery. Slavery was the reason the union was threatened. Lincoln and the north fought to preserve the Union, but slavery was why the union was in jeopardy to begin with. We are talking about the South's reasons for rebellion, not the North's reasons to oppose that rebellion.

...


What is ok? Slavery? Of course not. But there were lots of things happening in America that were probably not ok, but had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Slavery was one of them.

...

It is not a decisive black mark against the justification for rebellion. Of course it is a nasty black mark against the American nation in general.

...

We are talking about justification for rebellion. The South gets the hate because they were the ones willing to break the Union in order to maintain and expand slavery. That pretty much destroys any moral or ethical validation for their rebellion. It isn't really that complicated.

You are making quite an error here.

[Razgovory]

Is it responding to Jonas Salk in the first place?

[jimmy olsen]

Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.

So the USA should still be part of Britain?

The South had representation in the U.S. Congress and could vote for the President, America did not have representation in the British Parliament. If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.

[grumbler]

If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.

They would have needed a different justification, but that's not the same as having no justification at all.

[jimmy olsen]

If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.

They would have needed a different justification, but that's not the same as having no justification at all.

That's true, a revolutionary can always find another justification. But would a justification have been found that could have swayed the masses like "representation" could have? Especially when the very existence of representation imbues in people the belief that political problems can be solved through negotiation rather than war, especially when demographic trends trends are on your side. 

[Razgovory]

Their justification was the altering of the charter of the colony of Mass.  When that happened all the the other colonies realized that London could change their colonial charters and remove their rights with out any due process.

[grumbler]

But would a justification have been found that could have swayed the masses like "representation" could have? Especially when the very existence of representation imbues in people the belief that political problems can be solved through negotiation rather than war, especially when demographic trends trends are on your side. 

Almost certainly.  The DoI was full of charges that would sway public opinion - that is why they were there.  The mercantilist British approach to the economy and trade was probably enough by itself.