No, this doesn't make any sense. Why would the South secede from the Union if they were already trying to phase out slavery? I know that narratives downplaying the role of slavery in the pre-war South are popular, but I'd argue that that's a product of the Daughters of the Confederacy spreading misinformation and propaganda after the war in order to save face for the South.
Slavery was perfectly legal. The South did not create slavery. They did refuse to move at the same pace as the North. But again, the government of America was fine with slavery for a long time. So was basically every other country. I am VERY glad that it is over.
There was more to it than just Slavery (States Rights vs. Federal Power for the main example*), though it was a large issue, certainly. However, there was a growing movement to get rid of it in various Southern states. Feel free to disagree, it does depend on who you ask. But I would caution against accepting "Northern" Propaganda and misinformation that mis-characterizes the South of that era. Though the truth is likely somewhere between. *EDIT: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ars-of-misunderstanding-the-civil-war/277022/ Of course, for many "States Rights" was merely a means to protect their desire to expand Slavery, but I cannot believe that all who fought in the name of States Rights felt that way, particularly the many that did not, and did not wish to, own slaves who still fought for the South. And, more to the point of the conversation, it still took over a century since the start of that war for Blacks to actually get proper Rights.
I live in the South. What I'm saying isn't something that's coming from the North. It just comes from reading the statements of secession and reading about the pre-war economy of the South. The States' Rights thing, as far as I can tell, arises from the contention of the South that their rights weren't respected once Northern states started to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, but that can be viewed in another light as disregarding the rights of the Northern states. I'm not saying that the South would never have given up slavery, but I am saying that I think the legal precedent of having slavery outlawed forced the change in a way that would not have happened naturally for a long time.
Here's a direct quote from the Texas Ordinance of Secession (which you can read here: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Texas). She/her refer to the state of Texas. "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
I'm not saying there weren't a lot in favor of Slavery... especially those in positions of power (the Slave owners held most of the economic and political power in the South at the time). I am saying that putting it as: "They wanted to keep their Slaves" is a gross oversimplification. And again, more importantly, that the law of the Emancipation Proclomation did not, in my view, have nearly as large an effect on affecting the shift in culture in the South as people tend to think. Yes, it legally ended the practice, but not the desire, not the entitlement, not the rift between North, South, and West, etc. And again, you're free to disagree. EDIT: In my view, the reason there wasn't a Second Civil War, was because there were "moderates" and people in the South that were happy to see Slavery go (and I'm not talking about the Slaves here, though obviously the vast, vast majority of them were happy about it as well, as they should be). If it weren't for that cultural push from within, there's a reasonable possibility that the South would have rebuilt and tried again, similar to how Germany had responded to the conclusion of the "Great War."
Ohmin continues to impress. Bellagion is doing well. Both are genuine legit. Topic remains most interesting.
Meh. I'm repeating myself more than I probably should or need to. Also, we've gotten largely off-topic, not quite entirely, but largely. To tie it back to the topic... and to try and bring Boozha back into this when they get around to it: "What laws would you pass to reduce the number of overall homicides in a nation?" Or, alternatively (additionally?): "What cultural shifts are necessary within the US, from your perspective, in order to reduce the number of homicides in the US?" Finally, something we can both agree on: "What laws could be passed to indirectly try to influence culture/statistics in order to reduce homicides?"
I would recommend to keep two things apart: 1. things you can do to prevent a mass shooting. 2. things you can do to make ordinary crimes less lethal. For the first point: You cannot prevent such a mass shooting entirely by restricting weapons, as it will happen if and only if the aggressor is willing to commit such a horrible act and has a suitable weapon. It can be made less likely to occur, though, by making it harder to access weapons. In this kind of scenario, disarming civilians seems implausible, since there is -- by definition -- a heavily armed aggressor involved, who is willing to kill everyone. Nonetheless, disarming the general public would result in a drastically reduced chance that such a shooting can occur. The second point is about ordinary crimes: I have made my point before (see post #48). In a society with few weapons that may not be carried around in public, restriction weapons is the best way to go. In a society where most people do have weapons, however, having no weapon is may be a serious disadvantage. In such a society, restricting weapon possession for some but not for all will not work well. Mass disarming would be the way to go, but disarming civilians in the U.S. seems complicated. There is the 2nd amendment, then there is the very powerful gun lobby and then there is the U.S. gun culture. And then there is the (faulty) argument that the only reliable way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Isn't the police capable or trustworthy enough to guarantee protection? Is this because many civilians distrust the government?
For that you'd have to look at the reasons people kill each other for. Reducing the amount of guns reduces the chance that someone who intends or speculates with killing someone finds the possibility to do so, but it does not directly reduce the motivations. Are people killing others to rob them because of their own poverty? Then more sustenance for the poor is required, otherwise they'll do what they must to survive. Are people killing others because of criminal affiliations? Crush the criminal organizations. Perhaps easier said than done, but I haven't gotten the impression that the US is trying to really stop gangs from existing. Supporting the poor and disadvantaged would also help this issue. Are people killing others because of ideology? They aren't in a relevant number. Are people killing others out of fear? Fewer guns would mean that you wouldn't have to fear your opponent having a gun as much. Are people killing (themselves) out of outbursts of passion (I do think mass shootings have a part in here)? Delaying or preventing access to firearms gives hot heads time to cool down. It has been shown that the more hoops a person has to jump through to commit suicide, the more likely they are to reconsider. For a mass shooter there'd also more time to come to his aid, or at least a dampening of the effects of his attack. Are people killing others due to, in part, mental illnesses? A better healthcare system with less poor people that actually learn how to use it in school would be great, but htat one's complicated. The main thing that US citizens need to learn is that a gun is not there to defend them. It can't. It is a tool for injuring or killing people. If someone shoots you in the back it does nothing to defend you. It is a better defense for the other guy to not have a gun than for you to have a gun.
Well I've had my say. Now I'll just watch with interest while you guys work out what rules I should follow when defending my family.
I am going to assume you are talking about something barbaric like the death penalty, don't worry, death penalties don't walk the street. and guns do not defend against them.
Virginia executed a serial killer/rapist. He treated many innocents in a barbaric fashion. Another barbaric practice is to unnaturally terminate innocent life by the 100s of thousands per year. The death penalty is great compared to those sad truths. If one of the victims had killed the scumbag in self defense, it would have been best. Lives saved. Rapes prevented. Millions and millions of clams available for good instead of punishing evil. And no waiting 25 years plus, for justice. One gun, in the hands of a law abiding citizen, could have accomplished all of the above.
