fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5830 ]

[ SECRET POST #5830 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5830 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(I'm tired as fuck and going to bed right after I post this, so any arguments that pop up, I'm not involved. Sorry.)

While the South (US Civil War) was wrong about everything, they should have been allowed to peacefully secede. The Union was built on the idea that you have the right to leave and make your own country if you don't like the way yours is being run, and going to war with the Confederacy was hypocritical.

Not only an unpopular opinion, but a rather shitty one. The South just as easily could have peacefully freed enslaved people, but...

Edited 2022-12-23 03:00 (UTC)

My unpopular opinion (unpopular with the political side I'm on) is replacing "slaves" with "enslaved people" is not a hill anyone needs to die on. "Enslaved people" sounds like a euphemism to cover up the ugliness of slavery. Better to let the truth that they weren't considered people sink in every time someone says "slave."

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the people who want to gloss over the brutality of slavery were doing that before in their minds anyway.

Edited 2022-12-23 12:49 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that you don't know much about US political history between the revolutionary and civil wars

Also, the confederates announced their secession by mounting a military attack on Fort Sumter. "Peaceful" isn't how I would describe that maneuver

They would never have done it. That's not the southern culture. It's very much honor and violence based. To secede peacefully would have been shameful and dishonorable to them. (am from the southern US)

Also, you know, enslaved people deserved to be free.

I don't agree at all, sorry.

I mean, for starters, the South are the ones most to blame for the fact that they weren't allowed to peacefully secede - they're the ones who fired the first shots of the war, after all. I do believe that if part of a country wants to peacefully secede from the rest of the country, they do have some right to that.

But it's something that should ideally be carefully and peacefully negotiated with all parties. It's not something that you can do in a peremptory fashion. Look at the Scottish independence movement - if Scottish independence happens, it's going to be through a bunch of referenda and political laws being passed, and I think that's the right way to do it. And that's not what the South did, they just went and said they were gone now, and then they attacked Fort Sumter.

And I definitely don't think it's hypocritical either. The American Revolution wasn't about people generally just being able to tell their government to fuck off. There were specific grievances involved. That's the whole reason why they said that when people are trying to split off into a new country, or form a new government, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." And then they listed out all of the reasons they were rebelling.

In other words, they felt that they weren't just rebelling for the hell of it, and they thought it was necessary to convince everyone of that. That's because they thought that overthrowing the government was a very drastic measure to take, and it could only be justified based on the existing government being deeply abusive and oppressive. As the Declaration of Independence says:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Obviously, you can argue whether or not the American colonists actually were justified in rebelling. But the point is that they thought that a rebellion or secession could only be justified if the existing government was deeply oppressive and fucked-up and bad. So the same logic would apply to the Southern states who were trying to secede. And in the case of the Southern states, they had freely agreed to follow the Constitution, they were represented in and had often controlled the government, then as soon as Lincoln won the election, before he had even taken office, they revolted. And their primary complaint in all of this was that they wanted to maintain slavery. So they just absolutely weren't justified under the same standard that the American revolutionaries thought you had to look at.

+100

All of this!

Nah.

Stranger, imma need you to watch some Checkmte Linconite videos. I wish you well along your journey.

That's kind of how it seemed to me, too, when I was learning about the civil war in US history (in high school). "Should have been" really needs to take into account a lot of practical considerations, though, like the fact that countries that split into pieces over political or ethnic differences tend to get pulled back into the spheres of influence of the various empire-building powers with fewer scruples about violently repressing domestic unrest. I don't think the north or the south would have managed to maintain anything that could be called independence, if they'd tried to make it as separate countries: a successful southern cecession could have led to the Native Americans winning the Indian wars in the longer run, or to a number of foreign powers retaking North America (with predatory lending or troops or in various other ways). It certainly would have led to the disunited states having less resources to dedicate to their various military expeditions and land-annexation efforts. I don't think this should be a taboo idea, but I'm very skeptical of the way southerners tend to imagine history would have gone, if there was no civil war or they'd really been in a position to leave the union at the end of it.

a successful southern cecession could have led to the Native Americans winning the Indian wars in the longer run

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have happened.

I think the most likely outcome of a successful secession would have been a bloody and violent race for westward expansion and influence (the race was already happening) that would have turned into armed conflict anyway.

I mean, yes in essence this is true. I still don't think it was wrong for them to fight that war.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5830 ]

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Same anon

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions

Re: Unpopular opinions