View single post by PvtClewell
 Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 02:16 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420

  back to top

Wow, what a thread. In way over my head (I'm speaking in rhyme and I LIKE IT). Feels like a discussion I might have enjoyed in a college history class if I hadn't been playing Ping Pong that day. Good job, all.

Never in my entire life did I read the Articles of Confederation until now. Had no reason to, because this conversation usually doesn't come up in the middle of football games. It does give you pause to wonder why secession was addressed in the AofC (that wouldn't be the Army of Connecticut, would it?), but not in the constitution.

Now watch me as I skillfully tie two current threads together:

I am quoting from that incredibly biased historian James M. McPherson from his collection of essays 'This Mighty Scourge,' in which McPherson is actually quoting an excerpt from James Buchanan's last message to Congress in Dec. 1860, where Buchanan said that the Union "was not a mere voluntary association of States to be dissolved at pleasure.' The founders of the nation 'never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution.' If secession was legitimate, said Buchanan, the Union became 'a rope of sand...The hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed...Or example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government."

Buchanan was a great American. Or could have been.

Is McPherson biased? The sub-title of this book is 'Perspectives on the Civil War.' If he is showing bias, at least he's up front about it. Perspectives indeed.

 Close Window