States Rights - was the South justified in the American Civil War?

Quote: Nareed

BTW secession is rather common in the US, actually. It's not unheard of that a suburb or some other type of municipality will secede from a larger entity. Of course, this is more of an adminsitrative matter, and the resulting entity stays within the state and country.

There were three constitutional amendment passed after the civil war (13) emancipation of slaves, (14) native born are citizens, (15) right to vote regardless of race or previous status.

It is actually kind of interesting that there was no amendment passed which made it clear that secession was a federal offense.

Quote: Pacomartin

There is some activity in post WWII.

1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally.
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery.
1959: Slavery in Tibet is abolished by China after the Dalai Lama flees.
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003).
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery.
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery.
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery.
1970: Oman abolishes slavery.
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery.
2007: Mauritania makes it illegal to own slaves.
2012: A CNN report describes Mauritania as "Slavery's Last Stronghold".

I just read today that Egypt's new Constitution will not ban it, so depeneding on how they interpert law it maybe allowed. If they have "negative" law it would be allowed. The USA follows "negative law" or IOW if it is not banned it is allowed.

There is still slavery in Africa, though it is often "tribes owning tribes" than "American Style" where you could buy and sell slaves individually. The problem with a wholesale freeing of slaves is that the slaves have no idea how to survive otherwise. Some will make it, but others are as the "institution man" Morgan Freeman describes in "Shawshank Redemption." I have seen slave freedom papers and wills that freed slaves. In most cases they were given freedom after some medium period of service, 1-3 years or death of a surviving spouse of the male owner. My guess is the masters wanted to give some kind of transition period. To do otherwise is to throw an 18 year old out of the house on no notice.

On the above--was the UAE a nation-state in 1963? I thought they unified about 1970?

Quote: AZDuffman

I just read today that Egypt's new Constitution will not ban it, so depeneding on how they interpert law it maybe allowed. If they have "negative" law it would be allowed. The USA follows "negative law" or IOW if it is not banned it is allowed.

Will they have laws about freedom of movement, false imprisonment and the rest? Wouldn't that cover it?

Quote: TheCesspit

Will they have laws about freedom of movement, false imprisonment and the rest? Wouldn't that cover it?

Here is the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_CONSTITUTION_GLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-29-20-23-22

I doubt they have the freedoms you are describing. They are going sharia-law, not common-law as we have in the USA. Remember as well, the freedoms you describe are generally about a *government* and what it can do. If you are a slave, you are "property" and have no such rights from your master.

It is easy to forget that the parts of the world where government did not decend from, or has been influenced by post-enlightenment Europe, especially the Brits, can be a very, very mean place.

IMHO, I looked at the Pre-Civil War era in the USA as a time of Industrial (Revolution/Expansion) Economy in the North, and a largely Agrarian Economy in the South.
The North was inclined to remove slave-labor and replace it with a machine.
The South being Land-Based needed cheap labor for farming/harvesting purposes.

I guess the rub of it all lies in the South's non-acceptance of mechanization, and wanted to continue with Labor. Some of this reasonong lies in a reletive lack of water-power, that the North had enough of, and used widely since formation in the 1780's. After, all irrigation vs. water-powered industry meant the South would need more falling water.

In a nut-shell the underlying cause IMHO is water for Industry vs. water for Agriculture. Neither side had enough to do both.

By the 1880's this would be a moot point.

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_CONSTITUTION_GLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-29-20-23-22

I doubt they have the freedoms you are describing. They are going sharia-law, not common-law as we have in the USA. Remember as well, the freedoms you describe are generally about a *government* and what it can do. If you are a slave, you are "property" and have no such rights from your master.

It is easy to forget that the parts of the world where government did not decend from, or has been influenced by post-enlightenment Europe, especially the Brits, can be a very, very mean place.

Thanks for the link.