If this thread alone caused you to change your mind, you must be pretty shallow.
Must you always be this critical and antagonistic, Joe?! I don't pay that much attention to presidential history or politics that much, so this is all new to me. Instead of gauging somebody's intelligence or knowledge of a topic based on what they've typed, why not try experimenting with them by asking questions or ask them their opinions on any given issue.
He didn't gauge your intelligence. All he said was that you were easily swayed. Also, arent you giving your opinion when you post? What's wrong with judging intelligence based on a post? What else can you be judged by?
While letting the South would have definitely left a bad taste in the mouth of many Northerns, it is very likely that they would have simply said "To hell with them, those filthy traitors" and went on with their lives.
just for fun name a country around this time period that successfully seceded from a part of another country and wasn't instantly at war with them....
Must you always be this critical and antagonistic, Joe?!
Actually, yes. Read what you said. You said that an opinion you held for many years was completely changed by this thread. You then railed against the lies that previous authorities taught you that caused you to hold your old opinion and showed that you were grateful that you had a diametrically opposite opinion taught by a new authority.
You haven't had any sort of epiphany. You've merely traded one authority for another. You can expect that I'll be pretty critical of that.
Must you always be this critical and antagonistic, Joe?!
Actually, yes. Read what you said. You said that an opinion you held for many years was completely changed by this thread. You then railed against the lies that previous authorities taught you that caused you to hold your old opinion and showed that you were grateful that you had a diametrically opposite opinion taught by a new authority.
You haven't had any sort of epiphany. You've merely traded one authority for another. You can expect that I'll be pretty critical of that.
Actually, my father had recently read a bio about Lincoln's life that said much of what was posted here. When he told me some of the things that he did, I outright refused to believe it because it sounded so unreal in contrast to what I've been taught over the years. On a sidenote I think that bio was written around 2006 or something, I don't remember as I didn't look inside it or nothing.
I've since heard the same things my father said to me about 2 times more and both times I was extremely skeptical of it (they were from non-authoritarian sources by the way). It wasn't till I saw this thread, that I told myself to stop kidding myself and just stop holding onto something that isn't true, especially since Scrym (whom I'm pretty sure aren't a pair of shit talkers) posted pretty much the exact same information I've heard the last three times.
To cut to the chase, the post that you saw was that of me finally letting go of me lying to myself and finally coming out with it and accepting the cold hard truth.
I've since heard the same things my father said to me about 2 times more and both times I was extremely skeptical of it (they were from non-authoritarian sources by the way). It wasn't till I saw this thread, that I told myself to stop kidding myself and just stop holding onto something that isn't true, especially since Scrym (whom I'm pretty sure aren't a pair of shit talkers) posted pretty much the exact same information I've heard the last three times.
Oh, so you 've heard it three times? Then it must be true! Is this supposed to be some sort of reference to The Hunting of the Snark?
Seriously, you've confirmed that you're just parroting back the last authority you hear.
I've since heard the same things my father said to me about 2 times more and both times I was extremely skeptical of it (they were from non-authoritarian sources by the way). It wasn't till I saw this thread, that I told myself to stop kidding myself and just stop holding onto something that isn't true, especially since Scrym (whom I'm pretty sure aren't a pair of shit talkers) posted pretty much the exact same information I've heard the last three times.
Oh, so you 've heard it three times? Then it must be true! Is this supposed to be some sort of reference toThe Jabberwocky?
Seriously, you've confirmed that you're just parroting back the last authority you hear.
Holy shit. I don't check the forum for one day, and look what happens. So that's what the earthquake and the rending of the sky and the strange lights and trumpets were all about.
Ok, Other then the super awesome Nordic countries that are all awesome and cool with their awesomeness... The point is, that was nearly a unique situation, most people would be extremely pissed...
Ok, Other then the super awesome Nordic countries that are all awesome and cool with their awesomeness... The point is, that was nearly a unique situation, most people would be extremely pissed...
You asked for me to name a country and I did, don't backpedal and say that it doesn't count just because it includes the Nords.
Also, if you actually read the whole article and even bothered to do follow up research, you would know that Sweden was pissed at Norway for what they pulled. Instead of going with what you think is right, why don't you go with what is right.
Ok, Other then the super awesome Nordic countries that are all awesome and cool with their awesomeness... The point is, that was nearly a unique situation, most people would be extremely pissed...
The former nation of Czechoslovakia, India, Botswana, South Africa, Iceland... the list goes on and on. But I digress.
Lincoln may have used some devious and/or underhanded tactics in order to get what he wanted, but look at the circumstances: a war between the North and the South was nigh inevitable regardless of Lincoln. Sectionalism created by the agrarian slave-dependent economies of the South in opposition to the urban industrial economy of the North, which drove the differences of opinion regarding slavery in the West, which drove conflict, both armed and unarmed, within the contested states. The string of compromises over slavery's boundaries was tenuous at best, and doomed to failure. The economy of the North was driven by Southern goods, and the economy of the South was driven by Northern demand; if either collapsed, it would mean economic chaos for both.
As president of the Union, Lincoln had a duty to do what he could to protect Union citizens, and to try and win the war or end the conflict. The South had already attacked, so the possibility of avoiding conflict altogether was already right out. In order to prevent the Union from collapsing, Lincoln was forced to fight.
In order to protect the Union, he had to raise an army, which he did. However, the creed of "Preserving the Union" was rather flimsy, and the South had a solid ideal they were fighting for; in addition, it looked like European powers were going to step in on the side of the Confederacy (their biggest supplier of cotton and other products). Thus, Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation, in order to keep Europe out of the conflict and to give the Union soldiers a common ideal to fight for. In order to keep the Union slave states on his side, in order to win the war, he exempted them.
The liberation of slaves in the Confederacy (when Union armies got to them) also led to former slaves joining the Union Army, a key issue, as there were troop shortages. Said shortages also led to the first draft, and the first draft riots. Rather than rioting because they did not want to fight against slavery, New Yorkers rioted because the draft exempted the rich (with a $300 opt-out fee), and forced the poor to fight for the rich (which they viewed as unjust).
Ultimately, though, Lincoln won the war, through means viewed by some as "unjust", and others "heroic", but it ended slavery, and prevented both the Union and the Confederacy from falling apart. Say what you will, but I would rather piss a few people off by fighting against slavery than let it continue, and expand (let it be said that Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery from the beginning of his presidential career).
You asked for me to name a country and I did, don't backpedal and say that it doesn't count just because it includes the Nords.
Also, if you actually read the whole article and even bothered to do follow up research, you would know that Sweden waspissedat Norway for what they pulled. Instead of going with what youthinkis right, why don't you go with whatisright.
I guess you don't understand humor...
If you look at the relationship between Sweden and Norway you'll notice that Sweden and Norway went to war with each other before this, but Sweden while more powerful did not have a powerful enough military to defeat Norway outright, both sides did not want to fight the war out to the last man, so Norway negotiated to have a "Personal Union" with Sweden, that pretty much just bound their foreign policy together but kept their constitution and institutions separate. (more like the articles of confederation) On top of that you are forgetting that this war was caused because Sweden was given Norway was part of a deal with Denmark but Norway wanted to be independent... So there already HAD been a war between the two powers in the period before this. The situation as you try to spin it was neither bloodless nor as peaceful as you would like to show it. Norway and Sweden were not "willing" partners, They were almost equal partners that in the end bound together for protection, when they decided that they no longer needed each other to be bound at the hip on a foreign policy level they separated... Just a tad bit different then any other situation during this time period.
The former nation of Czechoslovakia, India, Botswana, South Africa, Iceland... the list goes on and on. But I digress.
These are more modern examples, Czehoslavakia (1993), India (1947), Botswana (1966), South Africa (1961), Denmark (1918) usually during what most consider "modern times". Denmark of those being the only example that might be considered and in that case it was more of the case because Denmark power had fallen apart.
Ok, Other then the super awesome Nordic countries that are all awesome and cool with their awesomeness... The point is, that was nearly a unique situation, most people would be extremely pissed...
Yeah, and Norway was sovereign before the Unification. I think Mr. Cremlian was looking for examples from the time of peaceful secession that came from within a sovereign nation.
You asked for me to name a country and I did, don't backpedal and say that it doesn't count just because it includes the Nords.
Also, if you actually read the whole article and even bothered to do follow up research, you would know that Sweden waspissedat Norway for what they pulled. Instead of going with what youthinkis right, why don't you go with whatisright.
I guess you don't understand humor...
If you look at the relationship between Sweden and Norway you'll notice that Sweden and Norway went to war with each other before this, but Sweden while more powerful did not have a powerful enough military to defeat Norway outright, both sides did not want to fight the war out to the last man, so Norway negotiated to have a "Personal Union" with Sweden, that pretty much just bound their foreign policy together but kept their constitution and institutions separate. (more like the articles of confederation) On top of that you are forgetting that this war was caused because Sweden was given Norway was part of a deal with Denmark but Norway wanted to be independent... So there already HAD been a war between the two powers in the period before this. The situation as you try to spin it was neither bloodless nor as peaceful as you would like to show it. Norway and Sweden were not "willing" partners, They were almost equal partners that in the end bound together for protection, when they decided that they no longer needed each other to be bound at the hip on a foreign policy level they separated... Just a tad bit different then any other situation during this time period.
And your point is what, exactly? You asked for me to produce a country that peacefully seceded from another country and I did, all you are doing right now is attempting to prove that you are right and I am wrong. Again, if you bothered to due outside research you would know that Sweden was pissed at Norway for what they pulled. The nations almost went to war because of that, and it was only avoided because cooler heads prevailed, NOT because Sweden and Norway no longer wanted to be united.
Ok, Other then the super awesome Nordic countries that are all awesome and cool with their awesomeness... The point is, that was nearly a unique situation, most people would be extremely pissed...
Yeah, and Norway was sovereign before the Unification. I think Mr. Cremlian was looking for examples from the time of peaceful secession that came from within a sovereign nation.
Sweden-Norway was a sovereign nation, and if he wanted me to look for something specific then he should have set conditions when he issued the challenge.
The point is this situation does not correlate to a similar situation as what the U.S. was facing in that time period.
Since the discussion was whether it was of the mindset of the time to let peices of your country/empire break away without a fight. I then accepted that it was a example but showed that it was not a similar situation and therefore did not apply to lending evidence to the other view...
So while you named a country in that time period that got it's independence it did not move the discussion further because the example is too far removed from the topic at hand.
I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying that example does not really fit for the purposes of the discussion.
I know at one point in history Belgium (and Luxembourg) were part of the Netherlands. Belgium rebelled, and was at one point granted being its own country. Don't know if there was much, if any fighting, since it's not that interesting compared to the V.O.C. and the eighty year war, and thus no time to talk about it in history class. Though I do think it's too late a time period, end 19th century. And Luxembourg got free because there was no heir iirc, they did not rebel, or complain afaik though.
Comments
You haven't had any sort of epiphany. You've merely traded one authority for another. You can expect that I'll be pretty critical of that.
I've since heard the same things my father said to me about 2 times more and both times I was extremely skeptical of it (they were from non-authoritarian sources by the way). It wasn't till I saw this thread, that I told myself to stop kidding myself and just stop holding onto something that isn't true, especially since Scrym (whom I'm pretty sure aren't a pair of shit talkers) posted pretty much the exact same information I've heard the last three times.
To cut to the chase, the post that you saw was that of me finally letting go of me lying to myself and finally coming out with it and accepting the cold hard truth.
Seriously, you've confirmed that you're just parroting back the last authority you hear.
Enjoy.
How do you destroy a giant stone Abraham Lincoln?
...A giant stone John Wilkes Booth?
Also, if you actually read the whole article and even bothered to do follow up research, you would know that Sweden was pissed at Norway for what they pulled. Instead of going with what you think is right, why don't you go with what is right.
Lincoln may have used some devious and/or underhanded tactics in order to get what he wanted, but look at the circumstances: a war between the North and the South was nigh inevitable regardless of Lincoln. Sectionalism created by the agrarian slave-dependent economies of the South in opposition to the urban industrial economy of the North, which drove the differences of opinion regarding slavery in the West, which drove conflict, both armed and unarmed, within the contested states. The string of compromises over slavery's boundaries was tenuous at best, and doomed to failure. The economy of the North was driven by Southern goods, and the economy of the South was driven by Northern demand; if either collapsed, it would mean economic chaos for both.
As president of the Union, Lincoln had a duty to do what he could to protect Union citizens, and to try and win the war or end the conflict. The South had already attacked, so the possibility of avoiding conflict altogether was already right out. In order to prevent the Union from collapsing, Lincoln was forced to fight.
In order to protect the Union, he had to raise an army, which he did. However, the creed of "Preserving the Union" was rather flimsy, and the South had a solid ideal they were fighting for; in addition, it looked like European powers were going to step in on the side of the Confederacy (their biggest supplier of cotton and other products). Thus, Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation, in order to keep Europe out of the conflict and to give the Union soldiers a common ideal to fight for. In order to keep the Union slave states on his side, in order to win the war, he exempted them.
The liberation of slaves in the Confederacy (when Union armies got to them) also led to former slaves joining the Union Army, a key issue, as there were troop shortages. Said shortages also led to the first draft, and the first draft riots. Rather than rioting because they did not want to fight against slavery, New Yorkers rioted because the draft exempted the rich (with a $300 opt-out fee), and forced the poor to fight for the rich (which they viewed as unjust).
Ultimately, though, Lincoln won the war, through means viewed by some as "unjust", and others "heroic", but it ended slavery, and prevented both the Union and the Confederacy from falling apart. Say what you will, but I would rather piss a few people off by fighting against slavery than let it continue, and expand (let it be said that Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery from the beginning of his presidential career).
If you look at the relationship between Sweden and Norway you'll notice that Sweden and Norway went to war with each other before this, but Sweden while more powerful did not have a powerful enough military to defeat Norway outright, both sides did not want to fight the war out to the last man, so Norway negotiated to have a "Personal Union" with Sweden, that pretty much just bound their foreign policy together but kept their constitution and institutions separate. (more like the articles of confederation) On top of that you are forgetting that this war was caused because Sweden was given Norway was part of a deal with Denmark but Norway wanted to be independent... So there already HAD been a war between the two powers in the period before this. The situation as you try to spin it was neither bloodless nor as peaceful as you would like to show it. Norway and Sweden were not "willing" partners, They were almost equal partners that in the end bound together for protection, when they decided that they no longer needed each other to be bound at the hip on a foreign policy level they separated... Just a tad bit different then any other situation during this time period.
Sweden-Norway was a sovereign nation, and if he wanted me to look for something specific then he should have set conditions when he issued the challenge.
The point is this situation does not correlate to a similar situation as what the U.S. was facing in that time period.
Since the discussion was whether it was of the mindset of the time to let peices of your country/empire break away without a fight. I then accepted that it was a example but showed that it was not a similar situation and therefore did not apply to lending evidence to the other view...
So while you named a country in that time period that got it's independence it did not move the discussion further because the example is too far removed from the topic at hand.
I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying that example does not really fit for the purposes of the discussion.