 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 148 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
19bama46 wrote:
Blue,
I understand that you believe the reasons why the south went out were not enumerated well enough or not severe enough to warrant that extreme a measure. In hindsight I tend to agree with you, but I am trying to place myself and to try to find a way to understand..
Very admirable, Ed, if you can do it through 148 years of forced social and political separation.
Maybe an analogy,
OK.
Two people are married.. the wife has been growin gmore and more resentful of her husband.. and for reasons she might not even be able to articulate decides to divorce her husband.
Is she required to provide a detailed series of reasons she wants out, or can she just leave.. walk out and go her own way... get a divorce on the grounds of unreconcible differences..
I assume, Ed, by way of your analogy, the wife seeks a divorce, for whatever reasons, unarticulated or not, before a judge in a court of law?
No Blue, the idea of a judge and a court of law is putting a 21st century spin on things... she just walks out... lets pretend they not married, just voluntairly had come together to live. when it was over, she walked!
Now lets don't intertwine the war with the secession. They are two seperate events in my mind... but for the states to just walk out...
Sorry, Ed, but I can't buy into that. Secession and the war are all part of the same fuse that led to war. The spark is slavery, the fuse is secession, which led to the war. They are all intertwined, for without one of them missing from the equation/fuse, no war. IMO.
Blue, I am sorry, but we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.. they were seperate up until the firing on Sumpter... No Sumpter, no war..
Sincerely,
Unionblue
By the way, TD has done a much better job of explaining what I was trying to get at. Thanks TD
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"ED