Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?

(Difference between revisions)Yes, because if the divine hand of God wanted the South to secede, he would not have let the North win. -- [[User talk:RobinHoodjr|RobinHoodjr]]Yes, the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding from the Union.  What is the point of having a government if any state can choose to leave whenever they feel like it?  Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery.  Slavery may have been the main issue the South seceded for, but the North went to war solely to preserve the Union.  That reason is as good as any to go to war.  Sure, slavery as an agricultural and economic base was outdated and on the way out, but slavery as a social structure was as strong as ever, as evidenced by the formation of white-supremecist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.  True, the Confederate States may have eventually rejoined the United States after slavery had run its course, but the Federal government can not afford to set the precedent of letting whoever wants to leave cease to be part of the Union.Yes, the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding from the Union.  What is the point of having a government if any state can choose to leave whenever they feel like it?  Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery.  Slavery may have been the main issue the South seceded for, but the North went to war solely to preserve the Union.  That reason is as good as any to go to war.  Sure, slavery as an agricultural and economic base was outdated and on the way out, but slavery as a social structure was as strong as ever, as evidenced by the formation of white-supremecist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.  True, the Confederate States may have eventually rejoined the United States after slavery had run its course, but the Federal government can not afford to set the precedent of letting whoever wants to leave cease to be part of the Union.

No, the South had the right to choose for themselves whether they should be American states or not. Yes, slavery was horrible but things were already changing and that was not the Union's choice to make. The goings on in Columbia, Nashville, Baton Rouge, and Austin were not the business of anyone in Washington, no matter if it's 1861 or 2007/ --Working for Him 20:48, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Excellent debate topic, and I see reasons to agree but on a different basis. Abraham Lincoln himself felt that the South could leave and the United States would inevitably reunite a few decades later (without slavery). Why push it and kill so many people just to avoid a few decades of separation? There are limits to what force can accomplish.--Aschlafly 21:01, 7 February 2007 (EST)

This is a tough issue; any other time i'd say no without a second thought, but it seems hard to justify turning the other way and allowing slavery to continue in the south. --BenjaminS 01:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I don’t believe Lincoln or others had a right to prevent secession. The only reason some States finally decided to sign the agreement to form a Union was because of their right to secede. From what I understand, the initial problem was the treatment of Southern states by Northern businessmen who used laws and government to cheat the South of fair trade and apply unfair taxation. If those issues were resolved, I doubt the South would have pursued secession. This debate is thoroughly addressed in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln”. The author also contends that slavery would most likely have been resolved in time by other means. --Maxygolf 11:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, because if the divine hand of God wanted the South to secede, he would not have let the North win. -- RobinHoodjr

Yes, the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding from the Union. What is the point of having a government if any state can choose to leave whenever they feel like it? Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery may have been the main issue the South seceded for, but the North went to war solely to preserve the Union. That reason is as good as any to go to war. Sure, slavery as an agricultural and economic base was outdated and on the way out, but slavery as a social structure was as strong as ever, as evidenced by the formation of white-supremecist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. True, the Confederate States may have eventually rejoined the United States after slavery had run its course, but the Federal government can not afford to set the precedent of letting whoever wants to leave cease to be part of the Union.

It is informative to see what Abraham Lincoln did as the Southern States seceded. He declared that the Federal Government would keep federal Armories, Forts and property. The Southerners then attacked those Federal Forts (Like Fort. Sumner.) The states were too intertwined with the Federal Government to allow secession. (unsigned entry)

Looking at this from the standpoint of geopolitics, I think Harry Turtledove has it right when he posits in his American Empire series that had the USA and CSA continued into the mid-twentieth century as independent countries, they would have taken opposite positions on all unavoidable international issues -- possibly including the fight against Nazism. This is too bad, because I would really like to be able to say that people in, for example, South Carolina are not required to be in the same country with people from California whose beliefs are totally opposite. It seems to be a case of pragmatism overruling principle. On the other hand, reunification does mean I got to move to Texas from Pennsylvania in 1983 and meet all the nice conservatives who have subsequently shaped me. Incidentally, why is there no article here on Christian Exodus? -- Amyz, 10:04, June 1, 2007 (EDT)

Many people think of this the wrong way. The United States did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation (and for that matter neither did many other nations, including Britain), thus the government treated the Southern Army as a rebel army, not a foreign one. So, legally the U.S. government had a right to put down this rebellion, as it had in the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion (although that is technically pre-Constitutional). Saying that putting a rebellion down is a governmental right is sticky as that implies that dictators can put down popular rebellions legally (which I am against). Also this goes against one of the major shapers of our Constitution (Locke, Hobbes, or Rosseau, can't remember which), who said that if the government does not serve the people as they desire, they have the right to rebel. This also brings up moral relativism, as slavery seemed alright to most Southerners and wrong to most Northerners, and who can say which side was right with any definitivness. In the end though, it all turned out alright, so it must have been fine. To put it generally, history is the greatest judge. --Snotbowst 14:25, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Well its my personal belief that there was a bigger thing going on. IF the US of A had not stayed together as one Union we would have lost both World War I AND World War II had we not been one nation. So I think the Lord motivated the North to try and save the Union. I however would have fought on the side of the South even though most of my people fought for the North from Iowa, Indiana and Illinois. --Wally 12:38, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

View the original article here

Military Leaders: Sequester Cuts Will Prevent Veterans From Accessing Mental Health Services

During a hearing before the House Military Personnel Subcommittee Wednesday, American civilian and military leaders issued lawmakers a stark warning: federal budget cutbacks under the so-called “sequester” will leave veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental illnesses without access to the health care that they desperately need.

The sequester cuts will force multiple governmental departments to cut back on programs or eliminate them entirely. Charged with taking care of the staggering percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans with PTSD, the Defense Department has had to increasingly rely on civilian mental health specialists to address the backlog. In fact, out of the 2,118 psychologists, 809 psychiatrists, and 2,533 social workers now employed by the military — a substantial increase over past years — over half are civilians. But under sequestration, the Department has been bracing for massive cuts to this civilian workforce, and is preparing to send notices to “more than 800,000 Defense Department civilian workers telling them that once-a-week unpaid furloughs will begin in April and continue for 22 weeks.”

As Military.com reports, that is particularly problematic for the military when it comes to these civilian mental health specialists because “they have options to seek employment elsewhere” and might be tempted to do so seeing as they are not exempt from the furloughs:

Lt. Gen. Patricia Horoho, the Army’s surgeon general, has lobbied to exempt the mental health specialists from furloughs to retain them for treating PTSD. The Pentagon has said that 20 percent of the civilian workforce will be exempt from furloughs. However, it did not look like the mental health specialists would receive that exemption, said Col. Rebecca Porter, the chief of Behavioral Health in Horoho’s office.

“We value these individuals greatly,” Porter said of the mental health workers. “If they start to go out the door, it’s going to take a lot longer for us to rebuild that” mental health workforce, Porter told a defense writers breakfast Tuesday.

“We have in the past offered retention bonuses, but that’s not specifically on the table now,” said Porter, a former military police officer and now a clinical psychologist whose main task is treating PTSD in the Army.

Her comments echoed those of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, who told a Senate hearing last month that “before sequestration, we allocated the dollars and positions to increase military and civilian mental health providers.”

“The problem is there are not enough out there,” Odierno said. “Now what’s going to happen is we’re going to have to reduce the number we already have.”

The officials’ testimony is a clear-cut demonstration of the real world consequences brought on by budget cuts that lawmakers and the media tend to discuss in rather shallow terms. Budget cuts to military health care programs are also particularly cruel considering the already-massive backlog of over 900,000 veterans’ benefit claims — a problem that will be exacerbated as more military personnel return home from the waning Afghan war. Those veterans will already be plagued by poverty and a bleak economic outlook when they return home — and under sequestration, their mental health care outlook is even worse.

View the original article here

Reid: More Funding Needed To Prevent ObamaCare From Becoming 'Train Wreck'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

“Max said unless we implement this properly it’s going to be a train wreck, and I agree with him,” Reid said, echoing a warning delivered last month by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Reid warned the federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to ObamaCare.

“Here’s what we have now, we have the menu but we don’t have any way to get to the menu,” Reid said.

Reid made his comments during an hour-long interview on "The Rusty Humphries Show" broadcast Wednesday afternoon from Las Vegas.

The shortage of funding to implement the law has forced President Obama to shift funds from other parts of the law.

“The president is taking money — I wish we had the money just to do this on its own, but he’s agreed, he’s determined he’s going to take money from some of the other things that he feels are less important in the healthcare bill and put it on letting you and others know what’s in the bill,” Reid told a caller to the show.

Reid defended the need for the law, which dramatically expanded federal healthcare subsidies for the uninsured.

“I believe that a country of our size, the only superpower left in the world — it’s not right that we have 50-60 million people … with no health insurance,” he said. “We have to have a program where health insurance shouldn’t go to people who are rich, people who are upper-middle class. I believe the middle class and people below the middle class deserve to go to the hospital when they’re sick.”

Reid said he was well familiar with the law, which spanned as long as 2,000 pages when it was a bill, before it passed.

“Of course I read it. I didn’t sit down on a Friday evening and read it. This legislation was drafted over a period of months and months,” he said. “I can pass a test on it. I knew the law pretty well.”

More from The Hill
• Six ways GOP can make Mass. Senate race competitive
• Paul Ryan supports 'concept' of Internet sales tax
• RNC ad with Obama, Newtown mother infuriates DNC
? DOJ to appeal court ruling on Plan B contraceptive
? Karl Rove: GOP can take Senate in 2014
? Reid defends remark likening Tea Party to 'anarchists'
? GOP revamps bill to prioritize federal debt payments

Many lawmakers were not familiar with its details when they voted on it, and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) famously declared that Congress needed to pass the law to find out what was in it.

Baucus sounded an alarm about the implementation of the healthcare law last week.

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," he told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet."

Many conservatives have criticized the law as a government takeover of the healthcare industry.

Reid disagrees with this view but he conceded Wednesday that the executive branch has grabbed too much power in Washington and suggested a requirement that all laws be allowed to expire after 10 years to give Congress an opportunity to reevaluate them.

“One of the things I pushed for many years is laws should sunset after ten years. That the only way  — that in fact I introduced legislation, after ten years you would have to reauthorize the legislation — we haven’t done that and think that’s something we should consider,” he said.

Reid noted that he and former Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) worked together on the Congressional Review Act, which empowers Congress to disapprove new federal regulations.

“The White House over the last 30 years, maybe more, has been taking away too much power from the legislative branch,” he said. “I’d be happy to talk about earmarks, which is one example — this is only a power-grab by the White House.”

Reid pledged to live under the rules of the Affordable Care Act that apply to ordinary citizens.

Reid acknowledged, however, that he is negotiating with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to alter the law’s treatment of congressional staff.

“Right now there’s a conflict, and we’re trying to work that out,” he said.

Updated at 6:41 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Utah School Realizes Book About Lesbian Family Helps Prevent Bullying

Last June, Utah’s Davis County School District caved to the complaints of 25 parents and removed the book In Our Mothers’ House by Patricia Polacco from general circulation in the elementary school library. The book, which features a family with two moms, was not outright banished, but was held behind the librarian’s desk such that students could not access it without first obtaining permission from their parents. The ACLU filed suit in November, and now the school has come to its senses and returned the book to general circulation. In a letter explaining the decision, the district’s assistant superintendent, Pamela Park, explains that a committee actually had positive things to say about In Our Mothers’ House, including that it will help prevent bullying:

I have considered the written summary and recommendations of the District Reconsideration Committee. I agree with and support the Committee’s conclusions regarding the book as follows:

“Removing the book completely is not a good option.”“We all know many non-traditional families” with students attending our schools.“It could help those children in same sex families see their family in a book.”“[T]his book teaches acceptance and tolerance.”“The book could help prevent bullying of kids from same sex families.”“It could be used by a family to discuss the issues . . .”

Parents can still restrict their children from checking out certain books, but that policy would not prevent students from reading the book in the library.

Another wrinkle in this situation is that Utah’s sex education law prevents the use of instructional materials that include “the advocacy of homosexuality.” However, the ACLU argued and the school agreed that library books not incorporated into a curriculum are not covered by the law.

The parents who complained about Polacco’s book may now have to deal with questions about same-sex families. It’s quite likely, however, that they may have already faced such questions given the existence of same-sex families in the school their kids attend. Now, those kids have one extra resource for understanding the diversity that surrounds them.

View the original article here