Did the South have the right to secede?

[jotabe]

Christianism, Judaism and Islam, these tree are easy.

Taoism: Among the several deities, they created the world. The Jade Emperor created the man Himself, and made the Earth livable for mankind. Also, the Tao is the creating principle, and the principle of evolution of the nature. It has a morality, the principle of harmony, yet it's not personified. There is afterlife, because death and life both are part of Tao (Taoism is quite complex, and i don't fully grasp it). There is possibility of reincarnation, or being one with the Tao, because even if you die, your essence only turns to non-existence, but later might go to take part of either.

Hinduism: Vishnu created the world in a very Old Testament fashion. There is a moral system, that basically consists in obeying the law and society rules, and seeking happiness. There is the karma (the moral principle of action-reaction), that dictates what will come to us in our life, but more importantly, what will come to us in future, reincarnated lives.

With that, i think we have covered most Theistic believers in the world.

[Reticent]

Don't you just love it when people forget basic US History, Nick?

Though correct, I find that comment to be inconsiderate, rude and tacky. I am not one who usually jumps in on these types of discussions (for this very reason). I politely ask that should I continue to discuss anything here, or any other thread such as this, please politely correct me, and I will have no problem listening and reviewing my own thoughts. Is that ok?

[puppets]

I'm glad they failed, but they did have every right. After a straight, down the middle vote, all the south states for one presidential candidate, all the north states for another, and they still lost. Does seem a bit unfair. Then again, today's United States isn't divided by north and south. So I can only make guesses as to whether they really did have the right.

[hive_king]

That is the worst reason to justify their secession I ever heard. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the presidency without a single southern state. Would they be justified then? Thats not justification, thats being a sore loser.

[puppets]

True enough, but the issues then were over the souths livelihood, which granted, was slavery. The northerners wanted to abolish that, if they did immediatly, the south would have been in shambles, and they were after the civil war anyways. Now I don't condone what they did, slavery and seceding, but it all falls down to them trying to protect their livelihood. If I was placed in their situation, where my livelihood and family and security was at risk, I most likely would have tried my best to protect it. And as I said, I don't condone what they did, I just see their reasoning behind it.

[hive_king]

Puppet, please from now on check your facts before you post here. None of the major Republican canidates wanted to abolish slavery. What Lincoln wanted to do was prohibit slavery in the territories. Shortly before the war, congress even suggested a constitutional amendment to gaurentee slavery in the states where it already existed. I think I've even mentioned as much in this very thread. Care to try again, with facts this time?

[puppets]

*shrugs* you win then?

[hive_king]

Sorry if I'm being a bit rude, its just that people misrepresenting history is a bit of a pet peeve.

[puppets]

I understand, I was majoring in history but switched to film media arts instead. I know I didn't base anything off of fact, ahah but, I honestly think if you were from the south back at that time period, you would have believed the northerners would have abolished slavery, iI'm trying to look at this from the south's side. But you are correct in saying no facts supports this, it is entirely my opinion.

Earlier I just had a headache so i didn't feel like typing at the time, I get snippy sometimes.

[hive_king]

Its all good.