3 ms·

Was the North wrong in attacking the South in the American Civil War over slavery? By your logic, only the slaves have standing in the matter.

ModernMech 9mo ago
The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
- yes_really 9mo ago
  The North was obviously threatening to engage in war against the South over the slavery/secession issues. Whoever fired the first shot is immaterial.
  - ModernMech 9mo ago
    Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      There is not one word in the US constitution that bans secession.
    - stale2002 9mo ago
      Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
      - 8note 9mo ago
        the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union. you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet. there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
throwaway173738 9mo ago
You’re assuming that’s the only thing at issue here. When the US starts these wars for resources we always make statements about “spreading democracy” so we can hide behind that bailey. But Trump actually explained what it was really about in his speech: restoring access to cheap Venezuelan oil. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt here. He’s doing the sane thing George W Bush did.

ModernMech 9mo ago

The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.

yes_really 9mo ago
The North was obviously threatening to engage in war against the South over the slavery/secession issues. Whoever fired the first shot is immaterial.
- ModernMech 9mo ago
  Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    There is not one word in the US constitution that bans secession.
  - stale2002 9mo ago
    Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
    - 8note 9mo ago
      the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union. you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet. there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]

throwaway173738 9mo ago

You’re assuming that’s the only thing at issue here. When the US starts these wars for resources we always make statements about “spreading democracy” so we can hide behind that bailey. But Trump actually explained what it was really about in his speech: restoring access to cheap Venezuelan oil. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt here. He’s doing the sane thing George W Bush did.