Quote from: Werekoala;425800IMNSHO I don't care if it was about slavery or not - what it ended UP being about was the ability of supposedly soverign states who voluentarily entered into a Union not being able to leave said Union if they wanted to.

As I pointed out in my reply, the Articles of Confederation, generally considered to have created a much weaker union than the Constitution, specifically said that the Union was perpetual and there are various clauses in both documents that states, alone, could not simply leave.  The states were not fully "sovereign", even under the Articles of Confederation.  

If a state wanted to leave, it could always do what they did back in 1776 and fight a war for independence.  The South tried and lost and payed a pretty large price for it.

ADDED: You also may want to ask yourself why only one Confederate state supported a provision to guarantee the right to secession in their constitution.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

States aren't people and the United States isn't an organization.  And to be perfectly honest, there were plenty of governments, religions, and even organizations that would kill people who try to leave.  In fact, there are libertarians who persuasively argue that the enforcement of any law ultimately requires a government to be willing to bring force against individuals to force them to comply (e.g., If they give you a speeding ticket and you refuse to pay or stop speeding, then what?).  The Constitution provided for the suspension of habeas corpus during times of rebellion which means that they pretty much assumed that if people rebelled against the government, the government could arrest and imprison people without charging them with a crime.  And none other that George Washington was ready to march into Western Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  

Quote from: Werekoala;425800It is fairly well established (and mentioned earlier) that Lincoln didn't give a fig about the slaves, but you can't bring that up without being considered at best a closet racist. So carry on, I suppose.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of Lincoln.  At best, I think it can be said that some of his sentiments would be considered racist by modern standards but would probably not have seemed so racist in their day and that he was a pragmatist above all, who was willing to compromise even on slavery to keep the Union together.  But I don't think these are the words of a closet racist or even someone just trying to score political points, in my opinion:

Quote from: Abraham LincolnI am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800IMNSHO I don't care if it was about slavery or not - what it ended UP being about was the ability of supposedly soverign states who voluentarily entered into a Union not being able to leave said Union if they wanted to.

Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

Slave plantations.

The reason they wanted to leave was because they wanted to keep slavery and by extension, the political power it gave them over the rest of the nation. Boo hoo for them that they didn't win.

The Confederate Constitution actually gave states fewer rights within it than the regular one did. Read it sometime, it knocks the shit out of the "states' rights" argument. They were also no more friendly to states leaving the Confederacy than the Union was to states leaving it. They just had less ability to enforce their will in the matter because of the Union.

QuoteIt is fairly well established (and mentioned earlier) that Lincoln didn't give a fig about the slaves, but you can't bring that up without being considered at best a closet racist. So carry on, I suppose.

It's true Lincoln didn't give a fig about freeing the slaves at first (protip: his position changed over time) except insofar as it could be used to bolster the Union. So what? The end result was that the slaves were freed anyway. When it comes to politics, consequences beat intentions every time.

Quote from: Benoist;425795Do they? I haven't checked it out yet.

Yeah, it's well thought through and realised. The factions and ideological rules alone are awesome - you can proselytise others, rant unintentionally, and suffer crises of faith. Gets across the hysterical feeling of the times perfectly.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805The Confederate Constitution actually gave states fewer rights within it than the regular one did. Read it sometime, it knocks the shit out of the "states' rights" argument. They were also no more friendly to states leaving the Confederacy than the Union was to states leaving it. They just had less ability to enforce their will in the matter because of the Union.

Yes, reading the Confederate constitution is a real eye-opener.  I provided a link to it earlier in this thread.  For a country that wasn't about slavery, they sure do manage to mention it quite a bit in their Constitution.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

LOL! Oooh. Well played, Sir!

Quote from: Tetsubo;425775Including slavery isn't the issue. Handwaving it away as some minor detail is though. Deadlands says, 'Hey Black Folks, it's all good, the CSA wasn't that bad!' It's an insult to millions of people.

I think the most insulting bit is that it is relegated to a sidebar. If you're going to make a massive change to peoples asumptions of the history and culture of your setting at least have the decency to write it in the main body of the text.

Question to anyone who put the racism back in. Do you feel a little bit guilty that you're getting enjoyment out of using very offensive terminology and treating people like dirt? I know I do!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

You'd have a point - if slaves voluntarily joined the plantations. You did see the "once you join" part of what I wrote, right?

It doesn't matter if the Confederation restricted state's rights more or less than the US Constitution does/did - the point is that they should have had the right to leave the Union and not be forced back into it through a war. What they did after that point was up to them.

As the saying goes - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

But its a moot point, no minds will be changed, spilt milk, etc. etc.

Werekoala: I don't know of any nation that accepted the autonomy of one of its territory without external pressure, riots or bloodshed. It's part of the basic concept of nationalism as it appeared in the XIXth century. Why would have it been different for the US, just because it's a union of states?

On second thoughts Deadlands is no more offensive than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biy2kbqPqHY

Although I imagine when America does eventually tear itself to bits this will look pretty bad in hindsight.

Because it IS a Union of States - supposedly. Not one unified territory. Or it wasn't supposed to be. You know, a Republic? A voluentary assembly of mostly-self-governing assemblies who joined together for common cause and good, but not through some grand unifying war - until the Civil War, that is.

Realistically, today, there is no reason for "states" in this country anymore, they may as well just erase all the borders and redraw the map into administrative regions or something, since that's how we are governed anyway.

I guess you can blame the Brits for the whole States thing. The first 13 were the original 13 colonies.

Quote from: Werekoala;425915Because it IS a Union of States - supposedly. Not one unified territory. Or it wasn't supposed to be. You know, a Republic? A voluentary assembly of mostly-self-governing assemblies who joined together for common cause and good, but not through some grand unifying war - until the Civil War, that is.

That is an interesting interpretation of American politics prior to the Civil War. Not particularly accurate though. For one thing, the southern pro-slavery states and their representatives were often proponents of federal power because the 3/5ths principle gave them more of it proportionally than the anti-slave states. Strong federal power goes back to at least Andrew Jackson (who is the template for the South American caudillo) and his anti-First Nations policies.

QuoteRealistically, today, there is no reason for "states" in this country anymore, they may as well just erase all the borders and redraw the map into administrative regions or something, since that's how we are governed anyway.

I'm pretty cool with the idea that human rights should be consistent across individual regions of a polity. They are natural rights, after all. Blacks shouldn't stop being people just because you cross into Georgia.

Despite your efforts to make it so, State's Rights is not solely about slavery, and it never was. It is, however, a convenient blunt object to use to stop any rational discussion of the subject.

Quote from: Werekoala;425933Despite your efforts to make it so, State's Rights is not solely about slavery, and it never was. It is, however, a convenient blunt object to use to stop any rational discussion of the subject.

The right in question was just and only the right to keep slaves, bro. This is explicit in contemporary documents.

It's also obvious when you read the Confederate constitution, which actually grants states fewer rights than the original constitution did, but secures the institution of slavery from being abolished in any member state.

It's true though, the contemporary States' Rights position is mainly about being able to discriminate against other minorities than blacks (mainly gays, non-Christians, and women). But it's a shitty idea with a shitty pedigree.

Sure it is - its allll about discrimination, not self-determination. So again, let's just eliminate states altogether - why even bother if its all going to be dictated from Washington anyway? Why maintain the charade that we're anything but "Americans" any longer? Who are we trying to fool?