Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
The right to stop people from leaving? No, I don't think anyone has that right, or should.

So the Southern states had the right to leave. And the rest of the states had the right to sit there and watch them take every bit of federal property they could get they hands on without compensation, walk away from obligations like the federal debt or international obligations, and cut off much of the country from access to the sea via the Mississippi. That doesn't seem fair to me. One side's rights are a lot more attractive than the other side's.

The right to demand reparations? To demand punishment for offenses against them? The right to use force in the Defense against or punishment of others who wronged them? Sure.

And the other side has no right to disagree that there were offenses against them or that the compact had been broken or anything in their own defense. Again, seems like one side has a whole lot better rights than the other side. Must suck to be them.

267 posted on 04/15/2015 4:55:13 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg

Apparently it wasn’t about fairness as much as it was about feeeeeeeeeelings.


269 posted on 04/15/2015 5:01:08 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg
So the Southern states had the right to leave. And the rest of the states had the right to sit there and watch them take every bit of federal property they could get they hands on without compensation, walk away from obligations like the federal debt or international obligations, and cut off much of the country from access to the sea via the Mississippi. That doesn't seem fair to me. One side's rights are a lot more attractive than the other side's.

My recollection is that they had sent a delegation to discuss these very issues. Lincoln changed his mind about meeting them and sent them away.

How are you going to negotiate terms if one side refuses to negotiate?

And the other side has no right to disagree that there were offenses against them or that the compact had been broken or anything in their own defense. Again, seems like one side has a whole lot better rights than the other side. Must suck to be them.

I think the issues you mentioned above should have been dealt with forthrightly, but again, It is my recollection that there was an attempt to do this, but Lincoln was having none of it.

You can't reject efforts to arrive at a fair cost and then blame people for not trying to pay it.

290 posted on 04/17/2015 7:55:03 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson