I think the CSA AI or player should be able to choose another capital, like Atlanta.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think the CSA AI or player should be able to choose another capital, like Atlanta.
Owl,
30 years wasn't enough time. The Civil War was unavoidable from the day the Constitution left slavery legal.
30 years wasn't enough time. The Civil War was unavoidable from the day the Constitution left slavery legal.
I agree, the Civil War didn't just happen because of one event from one day to another - it happened because of a series of events that occured over several years. The only way to avoid it would be to put the domestic slider all the way to decentralization (to speak in EU2 fashion)...
No war is entirely unavoidable - OTOH slavery was not the only factor..... but if we continue this debate we'll find it hard to avoid getting shunted into the "Fun Fora"
Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
The right to secede already is not in the constitution, so that's not a problem
But neither is it forbidden. That was the problem. There was no right to institute slavery in the Constitution either, but it was still amended to ban it.
Eight million white Southerners (compared to 18 million Northerners) held a virtual monopoly on the executive, and through that the Supreme Court, as having almost equal representation in the Senate. That is disproportionate power for a group that is only 31 percent of the free population.
Don't forget that they had disporportinate power in the house as well 3/5ths of the slave population counted towards their representation giving them far more representatives per voter than the North.
That's not remotely true. There was significant support for letting "our wayward sisters go". Adding to that, there were *major* riots in Northern cities like New York where the immigrants saw no reason to fight. Peaceful secession was a possibility.
Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
The right to secede already is not in the constitution, so that's not a problem
Except that the constitution leaves all power not expressly ceeded to the Federal government in the hands of the state or of the people. Since the states never ceeded the right to seceed, they ipso facto retain the right the seceed. Of course, we've developed a political culture that ignores the constitution when it isn't in our interests (and this goes for both parties), so we never bother to actually read the document. Such a shame. . .
Alexandre
Originally posted by Alexandre
Except that the constitution leaves all power not expressly ceeded to the Federal government in the hands of the state or of the people. Since the states never ceeded the right to seceed, they ipso facto retain the right the seceed. Of course, we've developed a political culture that ignores the constitution when it isn't in our interests (and this goes for both parties), so we never bother to actually read the document. Such a shame. . .
Alexandre
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
Source.
The reserve powers clause, one of the more ignored articles of the Constitution.
It's easy to look back at something that happened and say that it had to happen the way it did. But to put a blanket statement out that there was no way anything could have been different is a bit narrowminded, IMO.
A "virtual monopoly" is a gross misrepresentation of fact. No president from before the Civil War was from the Deep South. And the presidents before the Civil War:
Lincoln (Illinois)
Buchanon (Pennsylvania)
Pierce (New Hampshire)
Fillmore (New York)
Taylor (Kentucky)
Polk (Tennessee)
Polk took office in 1845. That means there were 16 years since the last president from a Confederate state had been elected. Yes, there were several presidents from VA, but like I mentioned before VA was comparatively moderate on the slavery issue.
The Supreme Court (the official interpreters of the Constitution) ruled that the states did not have a right to secede. Texas vs. White, 1869 Supreme Court decision:
The Supreme Court of Canada also ruled against secession by majority on a moral basis in the Quebec matter. They ruled that even if a referendum to secede gets support from the majority, they would have to address the rights of the native Quebec people and English speakers before being able to secede. Its ironic that the south, in revolting against the suppression of the majority in the country, suppressed the minority (blacks and Unionists) in their own states.
Besides, how can a nation function if a minority secedes every time it doesn't get its way? Would it not be ludicrous if the Northeast US seceded because Bush won the election of 2000?
Well since the court ruled that in 1869, it is safe to assume in 1861 it was still an open question. Similarly, if a court ruled in 1869 that, even without the thirteenth admendment, that slavery violated the Constitution, I don't see how that would have any bearing on the Civil War.
No less ironic than the North suppressing secessionist in their territories. Or the Emancipation Proclamation leaving slavery intact in the Border States. Or race riots in New York while the North fought to free the slaves. I fail to see the point in singling out the South for hypocracy.
That is a good question, and surely would have caused a victorious Confederacy problems. But it has nothing to do with rather or not seccession was legal, or, more importantly, if some people believed it was legal in the late 1860s.
In order to bring a case to court, there must be an injured party. Therefore, no case regarding secession can come to the Supreme Court unless a state attempts to secede, which is probably why there was no decision on it earlier, even though debate raged one it. Between 1861 and 1869 nothing was added to the constition regarding secession, and the incident in question in the case happened in 1861. The court ruled that they didn't have the right to secede in 1861.
The Northern states never left the Union which they had all lived under since birth, so they didn't suppress the secessionists in the manner which I am referring to. (You are referring to Union states not territories, like Bleeding Kansas, right?) The Emancipation Proclamation was not hypocrisy: Lincoln said right in it that it was to fight the rebellion, not because he believed that blacks were equals. Lincoln himself was, actually, a white supremecist. He issued the proclamation to destabalize the South and end any hope they had of getting foreign recognition. The Mayor of NY City was a Southern sympathizer, and actually tried to get the city council to secede as well. He was not being hypocritical, he believed in slavery. And the North at the beginning fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.
What people believe is legal has no bearing on what is in actuality legal. I'm sure a lot of people thought it was legal, because they did it. But the Supreme Court ruled the secession of 1861 was null and void in 1869. You could argue that had the case been heard in 1860 things would have turned out differently, but it didn't so you can't.
Sorry, but how naive can you get? Just imagine: hundreds of thousands of Americans had just died in the biggest conflict in the history of the American continent and four years after the North is victorious, the Supreme Court tells all the widows of the US: "Your sons died for nothing. The South had every right to secede and the North shouldn't have tried to stamp the CSA back in the Union." Not very likely...
I argue the opposite; whether it was legal or not is irrelevent as to whether it was thought to be legal in 1861. A court ruled after the fact that the South could not secede, and you take that as clear evidence seccession was illegal? I disagree.
Edit - Suvorov's above post said it much better than I.
So can I argue the point or not?
It would be easy to dismiss the decision as the North imposing their will on the former Confederacy. However, the ruling that Texas was still a state also meant that the military government in Texas was unconstitutional, and that meant that the southern states could have their representation in Congress back, and the time of carbetbag rule were over. So the decision was a positive one for the south as well.
Did it restore the vote to former Confederate soldiers? Otherwise, I don't see how it ended "carpetbag rule", and, in fact, Republicans remained in power in the South throughout most of the 1870s. All it did was strengthen Republican majorities in the short term.
Besides, Suvorov is still correct, in that the possiblity of the court saying the South was right after all was nil.
I see you didn't quote my most important point:
The Supreme Court just couldn't tell the Americans 4 years after the ACW had ended, that all those deaths had been for nothing, that the South had been right all along and that Lincoln hadn't had any right to keep the Union together by force. This wouldn't have been acceptable in the South, nor in the North.
EDIT: IEX Totalview, this time you beat me to it.
The Supreme Court just couldn't tell the Americans 4 years after the ACW had ended, that all those deaths had been for nothing, that the South had been right all along and that Lincoln hadn't had any right to keep the Union together by force. This wouldn't have been acceptable in the South, nor in the North.
EDIT: IEX Totalview, this time you beat me to it.