To be fair, in the wake of John Brown and Nat Turner, fear of slave revolt was perfectly justifiable. And while we could have let the Confederates leave, it hardly seems ethical, especially since they attacked Fort Sumpter instead of trying diplomatic means.
As an aside, I love that this is in the "current events" thread.
While in retrospect, it seems like letting the Confederate states leave may have resulted in a less broken political system in our modern day and age, the problem with doing that is that it would've set up a precedent where any state with a grievance with the federal government would be able to leave. The Confederate states weren't the only ones that had wished to leave the Union at various points in history -- they just happened to be the only ones that took up arms to do so.
It's entirely possible that if the Confederacy were allowed to leave, instead of having a Union of 50 states today, the United States could've ended up as dozens of smaller, separate countries as states and/or regions would secede any time they felt like the Feds were getting too annoying. I'm not sure what the ramifications of this would've been, but it certainly would've had a profound impact on world history afterwards. I mean, would the Allies have won WW1 or WW2 if they didn't have the singular industrial/manpower might of the unified United States on their side, for example?
Dozens of smaller countries probably would have led to a theatre of war similar to Europe within North America during the second World War. A unified United States caused a de facto peace.
Your making the classic mistake of assuming that the politics of the 80 years in between these two events would have been the same.
In the US, probably not. In Europe, well, I find it hard to believe that anything going on in the fractured backwater that would've been the divided former United States would matter at all in Europe.
While WW1 was a Europian affair if the US had not joined in after Germany upped its submarine game the war might not have ended with the conditions that directly led to WW2 and the rise of Hitler.
However, the consequences of a powerful, expansionist Germany that was ultimately victorious may have set the stage for another 50 years of old world geopolitics. World War I was a "great sobering" as to the infeasibility of the old regime in a general sense. One could argue that it ushered in the modern era.
While WW1 was a Europian affair if the US had not joined in after Germany upped its submarine game the war might not have ended with the conditions that directly led to WW2 and the rise of Hitler.
Germany was fucked the moment it stepped a foot into Belgium. Everything else was just details.
While WW1 was a Europian affair if the US had not joined in after Germany upped its submarine game the war might not have ended with the conditions that directly led to WW2 and the rise of Hitler.
Germany was fucked the moment it stepped a foot into Belgium. Everything else was just details.
They lost that war back in 1890 when the Kaiser refused to renew the alliance with Russia, but they would've been able to hold out significantly longer without US intervention.
Also, Steve, it wasn't the submarine game. It was the Zimmerman telegram that brought us into the war.
It was really the money game, I think: the Allies owed Americans shitloads more money than the Germans did. Had the war gone particularly badly for one side, some of those loans might have been invalidated.
To throw another iron in the fire. If the US had fractured then Europe would have started to play more of a role in its politics. Fractured small states were prime targets for colonial Europe especially ones that had broken free. It wouldn't be so hard to imagen the continental powers regaining some of thier lost control. Hell it wouldn't be to hard to see WWI proxied into the US.
Also speaking of civil war politcs being a current even. Scotlands desire to leave the union is a direct result of the English civil war, that is the Round Heads vs Cavaliers not all the other civil wars that weren't civil wars.
I have been reading articles about the recess appointment power of the President currently before SCOTUS and... The power allows the President to appoint people while the Senate is in recess and the appointment last until the end of the Senates next session. Can't the Senate just come back from a recess and declare its session over to force and end to all current recess appointments?
I have been looking for a good definition of what a Senate session is but all I get is links to Senator Sessions
Regardless I think SCOTUS will rule in the Senate's favor and state that only they can declare when they are in recess.
Note: an interesting question came up during the hearing, does the power only apply to appointments to positions that become vacant when the Senate is in recess or is it a power that can be used to fill all vacancies when the Senate is in recess.
I'm fine with recess appointments. I think congress has, of late, far too much power to basically block the appointment of anyone who might do something.
I'm fine with recess appointments. I think congress has, of late, far too much power to basically block the appointment of anyone who might do something.
Is that view based on trust in the office of President or a reflection on the current political climate? Because whatever SCOTUS decides will be the rules going forward for all future administrations.
I'm fine with recess appointments. I think congress has, of late, far too much power to basically block the appointment of anyone who might do something.
Is that view based on trust in the office of President or a reflection on the current political climate? Because whatever SCOTUS decides will be the rules going forward for all future administrations.
Maybe a little bit of both, at least in my case. However, recess appointments should probably be (if they aren't already) for a smaller time duration than appointments made through the proper Congressional process.
Recess appointments SHOULD be for emergency vacancies only. Congress SHOULD do its job and actually get things done instead of blocking approval for political capital.
Until Congress starts actually doing its job, I don't really think we can complain about the recess appointments. When you try to do things through official channels for years and nothing gets done, you turn to alternatives. It would be great if the SC would dress down Congress for being whiny little bitches. I doubt it'll happen, though.
The biggest BS concerning recess appointments concerns when either the House or Senate decides to "stay in session" by having one person there every few days. If you don't have enough people for a quorum, that should qualify as the chamber being in recess.
Historically recess appointments existed because 200 years ago when the Senate was not in session it was near impossible to get them in session if there was a vacancy while they were in recess. Think of a recess lasting MONTHS not weeks or days.
Historically there has always been an argument as to whether or not they can be used to fill positions that were open when the Senate was in session. In other words the intent was not for a President to leave a spot vacant and then fill it as soon as the Senate went into recess. One interpretation is that the power only exists to fill vacancies that actually occur while the Senate is in recess. The other interpretation is that any position that is vacant can be filled. Some of the early legal writings on the issue are suspect because they tend to involve people that do not like each other or people who were against the power from before the signing.
In today's modern world the recess appointment power is not really needed because the Senate can be easily called back into session. What is needed is something to force the Senate into acting on Presidential appointments where the nomination process happens while they are in session. Every nomination deserves an up or down vote in a timely fashion.
The biggest BS concerning recess appointments concerns when either the House or Senate decides to "stay in session" by having one person there every few days. If you don't have enough people for a quorum, that should qualify as the chamber being in recess.
Indeed... I'm not sure I'll be voting for any national office in the next election (state and local are not quite as bad), even I even bother to show up at all, given how disenchanted I am with the whole damned system.
It seems a bit over the top to revert to the electric chair because lethal drugs are "scarce".
You can kill a person or animal painlessly using many methods with many different drugs. If pentabarbitol became scarce the first industry to cause an uproar would be the Veterinary profession because you can literally go through bottles a week where a small bottle (450mls can get rid of 900-1350kg of bodies). I just checked on my suppliers site I can get a bottle (with the supplier's extra markup and tax for $160).
I'm personally against the death penalty but if a state wants to continue to do it then use the most humane method regardless of price.
This post is going to sound really gory, insane, and medieval. But it's something I thought about for awhile.
There is a way to kill someone instantly without any pain or suffering whatsoever. I completely oppose capital punishment, but if you're going to do it, do it this way.
Make a guillotine, but not one with some knife that chops at the neck. We all know why that is a bad idea. Make a similar mechanism with a humongous stone or block of iron. It should completely crush the person's entire skull into a pancake instantly. Don't just let it drop with the acceleration of gravity. Have a pile driver push it down even faster. Instant death. Once second they're alive. Less than a second later, splat.
Yes, it's ridiculously gory and horrifying for the people watching. I see that as a positive. You want someone to die, your punishment is that you have to watch. We shouldn't go making it easier for you to watch by using other methods. Then you should have to clean it up afterwards. That's your punishment, because you are also a murderer.
If we could somehow make this the only legal method, it might lead to the end of the death penalty all together.
The reason why nobody is campaigning for more human killing is that inhumane killing is seen as a better reason to eliminate the death penalty completely.
Comments
I have to reread my history on Ft Sumter.
It's entirely possible that if the Confederacy were allowed to leave, instead of having a Union of 50 states today, the United States could've ended up as dozens of smaller, separate countries as states and/or regions would secede any time they felt like the Feds were getting too annoying. I'm not sure what the ramifications of this would've been, but it certainly would've had a profound impact on world history afterwards. I mean, would the Allies have won WW1 or WW2 if they didn't have the singular industrial/manpower might of the unified United States on their side, for example?
Also, Steve, it wasn't the submarine game. It was the Zimmerman telegram that brought us into the war.
Edit: in our fictional universe the USA mainland would be at least two countries so the impact of the telegram could have been very different.
Also speaking of civil war politcs being a current even. Scotlands desire to leave the union is a direct result of the English civil war, that is the Round Heads vs Cavaliers not all the other civil wars that weren't civil wars.
I have been reading articles about the recess appointment power of the President currently before SCOTUS and... The power allows the President to appoint people while the Senate is in recess and the appointment last until the end of the Senates next session. Can't the Senate just come back from a recess and declare its session over to force and end to all current recess appointments?
I have been looking for a good definition of what a Senate session is but all I get is links to Senator Sessions
Regardless I think SCOTUS will rule in the Senate's favor and state that only they can declare when they are in recess.
Note: an interesting question came up during the hearing, does the power only apply to appointments to positions that become vacant when the Senate is in recess or is it a power that can be used to fill all vacancies when the Senate is in recess.
Until Congress starts actually doing its job, I don't really think we can complain about the recess appointments. When you try to do things through official channels for years and nothing gets done, you turn to alternatives. It would be great if the SC would dress down Congress for being whiny little bitches. I doubt it'll happen, though.
Historically there has always been an argument as to whether or not they can be used to fill positions that were open when the Senate was in session. In other words the intent was not for a President to leave a spot vacant and then fill it as soon as the Senate went into recess. One interpretation is that the power only exists to fill vacancies that actually occur while the Senate is in recess. The other interpretation is that any position that is vacant can be filled. Some of the early legal writings on the issue are suspect because they tend to involve people that do not like each other or people who were against the power from before the signing.
In today's modern world the recess appointment power is not really needed because the Senate can be easily called back into session. What is needed is something to force the Senate into acting on Presidential appointments where the nomination process happens while they are in session. Every nomination deserves an up or down vote in a timely fashion. You can thank the Democrats for that one.
It seems a bit over the top to revert to the electric chair because lethal drugs are "scarce".
You can kill a person or animal painlessly using many methods with many different drugs. If pentabarbitol became scarce the first industry to cause an uproar would be the Veterinary profession because you can literally go through bottles a week where a small bottle (450mls can get rid of 900-1350kg of bodies). I just checked on my suppliers site I can get a bottle (with the supplier's extra markup and tax for $160).
I'm personally against the death penalty but if a state wants to continue to do it then use the most humane method regardless of price.
Greed never ceases to amaze.
There is a way to kill someone instantly without any pain or suffering whatsoever. I completely oppose capital punishment, but if you're going to do it, do it this way.
Make a guillotine, but not one with some knife that chops at the neck. We all know why that is a bad idea. Make a similar mechanism with a humongous stone or block of iron. It should completely crush the person's entire skull into a pancake instantly. Don't just let it drop with the acceleration of gravity. Have a pile driver push it down even faster. Instant death. Once second they're alive. Less than a second later, splat.
Yes, it's ridiculously gory and horrifying for the people watching. I see that as a positive. You want someone to die, your punishment is that you have to watch. We shouldn't go making it easier for you to watch by using other methods. Then you should have to clean it up afterwards. That's your punishment, because you are also a murderer.
If we could somehow make this the only legal method, it might lead to the end of the death penalty all together.