Interesting Take on the Civil War

The Civil War may have been the catalyst for centralization of government. Interesting article. Here are a couple paragraphs:

With the orderly, legal secession of the southern states, the American genius for self-government reached its highest moral expression. Here was something unprecedented in history; a vast continental empire of republics torn by sectional, economic, and moral conflicts seeking to settle its differences not by war, but by peaceful secession of eleven contiguous republics, legitimated by the consent of the people. This was the very thing that, in 1840, John Quincy Adams said might be necessary in the future, and which the American commitment to self-government of peoples would legitimate, rather than a Union held together by bayonets. It was this also that President Buchanan had in mind when, although opposed to secession, he declared that the central government had no authority to coerce a seceding state. The same doctrine was asserted by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist. Lincoln, however, like George III, was determined on coercion, but unlike the latter, he was also prepared to launch total war against the civilian population of the South to achieve the goal of a consolidated nationalism.

With Lincoln, then, a radical break occurs between the older Americanism that was grounded in the natural rights of substantial moral communities to govern themselves and a new Americanism grounded in the centralization and consolidation of power, and like the French Revolution, dedicated to an egalitarian doctrine of individualism. This doctrine, wherever it has been applied in the world, has required the destruction of independent social authorities and moral communities and the massive consolidation of power needed to achieve such destruction. Lincoln was a man of his age, and it was an age of unashamed empire building and of the coercion of independent political societies into consolidated unions. What Bismarck was accomplishing in Germany with a policy of “blood and iron,” and what Lenin would accomplish in Russia, Lincoln had accomplished in America. Lincoln did not preserve an organic indivisible union from destruction because he did not inherit one; rather, like Bismarck, he created one.

Read the rest of the article here:

http://mises.org/daily/6352/The-Amer...SelfGovernment

Pardon me, I thought this thread was another in an increasingly long line of mindless and illogical StupidOldLyingFart, "Blame Obama" rants. This time for starting the Civil War and/or not ending it quick enough.

Carry on!

The War for States Rights was all about increasing the and fortifying the central government.

You'd better not encourage the old geezer.

. . . He'll only start yammering about the meaning of the Magna Carta next!

You'd better not encourage the old geezer.

. . . He'll only start yammering about the meaning of the Magna Carta next!

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

It must be absolute HELL to be a StupidOldLyingFart!

Back off guys he was there and it is a fav topic to him.Knew Abe personally.

The southern states had every right to secede. The states formed the Union by voluntarily joining. They just weren't allowed to voluntarily leave. It's sort of like Islam's policy towards people who want to leave the faith; if you try to leave, they kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxEmry5lRKk

The southern states had every right to secede. The states formed the Union by voluntarily joining. They just weren't allowed to voluntarily leave. It's sort of like Islam's policy towards people who want to leave the faith; if you try to leave, they kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxEmry5lRKk Originally Posted by joe bloe

Or like Christianity where if you leave, your soul gets damned to eternal torment?

Where in the Constitution does it say States have the right to leave the Union?

Did you read the article, JBravo?

Or like Christianity where if you leave, your soul gets damned to eternal torment?

Where in the Constitution does it say States have the right to leave the Union? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

You liberals crack me up. You're so predictable. You always bend over backwards to defend anyone that hates America and our traditional value system. You'd have us believe that an Imam, issuing a fatwa to kill a Muslim leaving the faith, is the moral equivalent of Billy Graham preaching the gospel.

Where in the Constitution does it say the states don't have a right to secede? Are we supposed to assume that any right not specifically granted by the Constitution is denied to us?

Or the Vatos Locos; blood in blood out !

....They just weren't allowed to voluntarily leave. It's sort of like Islam's policy towards people who want to leave the faith; if you try to leave, they kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxEmry5lRKk Originally Posted by joe bloe

You liberals crack me up. You're so predictable. You always bend over backwards to defend anyone that hates America and our traditional value system. You'd have us believe that an Imam, issuing a fatwa to kill a Muslim leaving the faith, is the moral equivalent of Billy Graham preaching the gospel.

Where in the Constitution does it say the states don't have a right to secede? Are we supposed to assume that any right not specifically granted by the Constitution is denied to us? Originally Posted by joe bloe

Ahh the "traditional value system". Gotta love those halcyon days when blacks still rode the back of the bus and gays stayed out of the military, right?

I believe that extremists in any religion are what make that religion look bad. My experience with the average Muslim is that they're just like the average Christian - most of them are generally good people who want to live a good live and provide for their families.

Blindly lumping all Muslims into one group because of what an extremist leader said is the same thing as lumping all Christians into one group because of the actions of Fred Phelps and his family.

But hey, it's easier to spew out vitriol and propaganda than it is to actually discuss issues.

You liberals crack me up. You're so predictable. You always bend over backwards to defend anyone that hates America and our traditional value system. You'd have us believe that an Imam, issuing a fatwa to kill a Muslim leaving the faith, is the moral equivalent of Billy Graham preaching the gospel.

Where in the Constitution does it say the states don't have a right to secede? Are we supposed to assume that any right not specifically granted by the Constitution is denied to us? Originally Posted by joe bloe

Actually the Supreme Court has said there is no right to secede.

And secession does not involve individual rights in any event.

Or the Vatos Locos; blood in blood out ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Exactly. Try telling the Mafia, it's been fun, but I've decided to leave the family.

Actually the Supreme Court has said there is no right to secede.

And secession does not involve individual rights in any event. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The Supreme Court is wrong, again. The right to secede is an essential right of a free people.