Comment Re:The South Deserved What Happend To It (Score 1) 1732
You're missing something important that I would like you to consider.
You've begun argueing that since secession was "illegal" under the Constitution (still very much open to contest), the South was "illegally rebelling", and therefore "deserved what it got"?
Trying to state that it is illegal to rebel, and therefore any entity that does so is deserving of whatever wrath is visited upon it, does not hold water in the United States of America. Rebellion is quite literally the cornerstone of this country. Technicalities cannot bear consequence against that fact.
"You done dug yerself a hole", as my grandfather would say.
I'll head down another road. If one felt the need to specify a reason for the North to force "preservation of the Union", what would you think about my suggesting the following:
The South, and any territories that might follow it into seccession, represented a potentially devestating loss of cheap raw materials for the juggernaught industrial might of the North.
You've begun argueing that since secession was "illegal" under the Constitution (still very much open to contest), the South was "illegally rebelling", and therefore "deserved what it got"?
Trying to state that it is illegal to rebel, and therefore any entity that does so is deserving of whatever wrath is visited upon it, does not hold water in the United States of America. Rebellion is quite literally the cornerstone of this country. Technicalities cannot bear consequence against that fact.
"You done dug yerself a hole", as my grandfather would say.
I'll head down another road. If one felt the need to specify a reason for the North to force "preservation of the Union", what would you think about my suggesting the following:
The South, and any territories that might follow it into seccession, represented a potentially devestating loss of cheap raw materials for the juggernaught industrial might of the North.
