NationStates Jolt Archive

Howdy! Hope all y'all doing alright out there.
Y'know, I haven't had a good ol' Confederate or Civil War debate in a good long while. So, I hereby invite anyone who has thoughts contrary to mine (posted below, and I'm sure there are lots of y'all) to telegram me and let us cross swords in a good ol' debate.

My (brief) beliefs on the Confederacy and American Civil War (reasons why excluded):
Was the Civil War fought over slavery?
A: No, though that was the main reason the South seceded. The War was fought over states' rights.
Which side was right?
A: Both sides had very honorable things they fought for, and both sides had rotten reasons to fight.
Are you [racist?
A: Absolutely not.
Is the Confederate Flag [racist?
A: Absolutely not.
What do you think of Lincoln?
A: He did what he thought was right and moral, but he started the war and killed 600,000 Americans almost single-handedly.
Was the Confederacy a [racist society?
A: Some parts were, like in the North, but on the whole were friendly to the black person, even after the war.
What do you think about Reconstruction?
A: Ok, this puts a fire under my feet every time. What the Radical Republicans tried to do to the South after the war was despicable, and nothing less. They left many scars in the Southern society and (unintentionally, I'll admit) were the cause of the [racism that plagued the South for the hundred years after the War.
Sherman?
A: Sherman=Devil. (I'm from South Carolina).

I try hard not to be biased when debating, and if I am let me know. Unless you are a complete idiot with no knowledge of the subject, I will treat you with respect as long as you treat me the same. Let's please talk over telegram, because nowadays I never come down to the forums. So send me a telegram! I'm looking forward to hearing from ya! :D

Not to be nitpicky, but the "War of Northern Aggression" (As I hear you Southrons like to call it) was fought over the expansion of slavery, not slavery itself.

I see NO indication that the South was EVER friendly to the black man, until the last few decades (where problems remain).

Lincoln? Yar, he had some issues. I didn't like his mucking about with the Constitution, but when you are faced with half the country saying "Hell no, we won't go (with the Union)" I can't help but feel he tried his best.
If you look at before-the-War pictures and after-the-war pictures, Lincoln is dramatically changed (beyond the whole death thing).
This makes me think he was truly agonizing over his decisions.

Lastly, Reconstruction, for all of its problems, did encourage black voting and black participation in gov't in a society that was inherently anti-black.
I think it coulda worked, but we also have to judge by intention , not just by result.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery?
A: No, though that was the main reason the South seceded. The War was fought over states' rights.


You're correct. The war was fought over states' rights: the right of a state to enslave and disenfranchise human beings.


What do you think of Lincoln?
A: He did what he thought was right and moral, but he started the war and killed 600,000 Americans almost single-handedly.


I thought the war was started due to the firing of cannons upon Fort Sumter.


Was the Confederacy a racist society?
A: Some parts were, like in the North, but on the whole were friendly to the black person, even after the war.


If by friendly you mean cross-burnings, lynchings, Jim Crow, and malaportionment, then I agree.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery?
A: No, though that was the main reason the South seceded. The War was fought over states' rights.

i'm afraid i don't buy it. the south's concern for states' rights began and ended with rights favoring slavery. the south wasn't too keen on defending the rights of northern states to not return runaway slaves, for example.

Hey y'all, howabout telegramming me with your wonderful thoughts, like I said in the topic. I don't visit these forums enough in order to reply to your posts.

Yerffej here.
Y'know what? Since my posts are too big for telegrams, I think I'm just gonna reply here. I'll get here as often as I can.
I'll get Anasthesia, since he seems a little arrogant, but that's all the time I got right now.

You said in a post:
"If by friendly you mean cross-burnings, lynchings, Jim Crow, and malaportionment, then I agree."
It was the harsh Republican gov't after the war that caused all these things to take place. First off, let's recognize the Radicals' reason for wanting a harsh Reconstruction:
Consolidate Republican power in the South, and therefore the country. This, of course, would have to be done by giving the African the vote. The only problem was, the vast majority of the black Southern was totally unready and unqualified to vote. Evidence:

With a Bureau officer who was stationed in the lowlands of South Carolina, I compared impressions as to the political qualifications and future of the Negro. 'In my district,' he said, 'the election was a farce. Very few of the freedmen had any idea of what they were doing or even how they could do it. They would vote into the post office or any hole they could find. Some of them carried home their ballots, greatly smitten with the red lettering and the head of Lincoln or supposing that they could use them as warrants for land. Others would give them to the first white man who offered to take care of them. One old fellow said to me, 'Lord, mars'r! do for Lord's sake tell me what dis yere's all about.' I explained to him that the election was to put the state back into the Union and make it stay there in peace. 'Lord bless you, mars'r! I'se might' be glad to un'erstan' it' he answered. 'I'se the only [ in this yere districk now that knows what he's up ter'"- John William De Forest, a Union Officer.
Jarrell, Hampton. 'Wade Hampton and the Negro'.
This comes from a reliable source, if you know anything about De Forest. And if you have done any in-depth studying of Reconstruction, you will also know that Republicans did everything in their power to limit Southern white votes (by outlawing any former Confederate officer or soldier voting, which was the majority of the male white population) and also everything they could to give unprepared blacks all the rights they could come up with. Contrary to popular belief, they weren't looking out for the African, they were looking out for their party, and the African just happened to be the one thing that would allow them to achieve their goal.
By placing the black man in a superior position over the white in the South for 12 years after a devastating war ended, Radical Republicans drove a deep chasm of [hatred between Southerners and Northerners and whites and blacks, that as you said traces of still exist today. Had it not been for upstanding Southern men like (former Confederate officer) Wade Hampton, a race war may have developed in the South during Reconstruction. What the Republicans did during that time was despicable, and nothing short of it. And by the way, if you think that's all the evidence I have on the subject, please ask for more. I just wrote a 12-page thesis paper on just this subject. Moving on.
You said "I thought the war was started due to the firing of [cannons upon Fort Sumter."
Yes, but Lincoln made the incredible folly of putting up a fight for the fort, and started the war. If you recall, the South Carolinians would never had fired on Sumter had Lincoln not sent in those supply ships. Actually, there is significant evidence that Lincoln intentionally started the war at Sumter, but I won't get into that, I'm still undecided on that issue.
All Lincoln would have had to do was surrender the fort (which, of course, he was under no obligation to do), and he would have avoided war. But, of course, if he would have done that, then the evil Southerners would have attacked just to kill the righteous surrendering Union soldiers and laughed over their graves, right? Sheesh.
And then, as if starting the war wasn't enough, he makes another colossal mistake, only several days after. He decides to declare the seceded states in 'open rebellion' and calls for 75,000 volunteers to put it down. Now, if you know anything about the general timeline of the war, this caused the more pro-union states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, along with the enormous populations (compared to the Deep South) and very good Generals (Virginia alone gave the South Lee, Jackson, Early, Johnston, Armistead, Ewell, Heth, Hill, Mosby, Pickett, and Stuart). Now, you cannot say that this did nothing for the South. Without these states, the war may have lasted a year, with an incredibly lower [death count. You still don't think he started the war?
You said "You're correct. The war was fought over states' rights: the right of a state to enslave and disenfranchise human beings."
Wrong again, sonny. If you think the war started because the evil South wanted to protect only slavery and the gallant North went in with swords and armor shining in order to defeat evil and give the blacks rights because they thought it was 'moral', then you are so full of Yankee and government propo[ganda that you are probably about to burst. As I said, slavery was, among other things, why the Deep South seceded, but the war was fought over whether states had the right to secede from the Union. It is very easy to tell that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only as a last ditch effort to stir up war support, since the South was kicking the Yankees tails all over Virginia. Lincoln turned it into a moral war, and that was the last nail for the Confederacy, since it thrust England and France out permenantly.
Don't think the states have a right to secede? Ask me about that. Please.
Well, I think I'm done now. Have a good day.

P.S. One other thing:
"we also have to judge by intention , not just by result."
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Good intentions get nothing done. Don't you think the South had good intentions when it seceded? You judge by result, because that's what matters.
Besides, I don't think they had good intentions at all (see above).

A: [Lincoln] did what he thought was right and moral, but he started the war and killed 600,000 Americans almost single-handedly.


It's true. It's a little known fact that Abraham Lincoln was secretly trained as a Samurai by the Shogun of Japan. None of the soldiers could hit crap with those old guns. He killed all 600,000 Americans single handedly with his bushido blade. Well, almost single handedly. Frederick Douglass was known to use his School of Five Pecks technique alongside him in battle on occasion. Oh, and he also used his Unitarian witchcraft mind control technique to force confederate troops to commit treason and attack their countrymen.

I said almost, smartguy.

Okay, this durn computer's not letting me load the durn page now, so I can't see any replies past my long post. Please TG them to me. Sorry y'all.

Right. Almost. It was him and Frederick Douglass who killed all 600,000 men, rebel and american alike.

Yeah, I see why you don't frequent the boards. These things are goldurn dadgum crasheddy. Dang ol' darn ol' error 404 man dang ol file not found.

I've got a better idea...why don't you debate me on the old "salted fish" flag of iceland?

The American Civil War was not fought over Slavery...that issue came later.
The war was to prevent the seccession of half the Union.
Half the Union, starting with South Carolina, said.."we dont want to be part of your country anymore..so were going to be our own country."

Thats not what our Constitution allows..thats not the way it was intended....thus.....it was dealt with at the cost of 600,000 lives.

I agree with most of what you said..except this.

A: He did what he thought was right and moral, but he started the war and killed 600,000 Americans almost single-handedly.

No....Lincioln did not single handedly kill those men.
He wasnt even halfway responsible...

That..can be laid at the door of those States..like South Carolina, who didnt want to folllow the rules, that their own forefathers set down four score years ago.
They decided to not play ball...and rebelled....thats what got them killed.
Pride and arrogance.
There was no way that the Confederacy could have won a prolonged militrary conflict, no matter how good thier military leaders were.
they simply didnt have the rescources.
They knew that....and didnt care.
Pride and arrogance.

This isnt to say that it was all the fault of the South....not at all....but...the reason for the war......just might be.

The American Civil War was not fought over Slavery...that issue came later.
The war was to prevent the seccession of half the Union.
Half the Union, starting with South Carolina, said.."we dont want to be part of your country anymore..so were going to be our own country."

Thats not what our Constitution allows..

Really? Where does it say that?

The fact of the matter is, no nation truly interested in freedom will care how much territory it has under its control. The South had every right to secede at any time, for whatever reason.

The fact of the matter is, no nation truly interested in freedom will care how much territory it has under its control. The South had every right to secede at any time, for whatever reason.

true. however, they still deserved a solid ass kicking, because quite frankly the southern elites hated freedom and just wanted to maintain their lives of privilege.

john brown was right.

I agree with Free Soviets, as a Southerner myself and a supporter of the Confederate Battle Flag, I do not understand how anyone believes the CSA was a good thing.

The reason the average Southerner, who couldn't afford a slave and didn't have a much better life than them anyway, fought was because they thought the Yankees were invading. The rich meanwhile took officer positions and sacrificed the lives of good Southern folk too protect their priviledged way of life.

Having said that, I believe the USA took a major hit from that war. Yankees who support big government won the war. While Southerners who have always favored limited government lost. Much of the growth of our Imperial Federal Goverment is a direct result of Reconstruction and The War Between the States.

Yerffej here.

You said in a post:
"If by friendly you mean cross-burnings, lynchings, Jim Crow, and malaportionment, then I agree."
It was the harsh Republican gov't after the war that caused all these things to take place. First off, let's recognize the Radicals' reason for wanting a harsh Reconstruction:
Consolidate Republican power in the South, and therefore the country. This, of course, would have to be done by giving the African the vote. The only problem was, the vast majority of the black Southern was totally unready and unqualified to vote. Evidence:

With a Bureau officer who was stationed in the lowlands of South Carolina, I compared impressions as to the political qualifications and future of the Negro. 'In my district,' he said, 'the election was a farce. Very few of the freedmen had any idea of what they were doing or even how they could do it. They would vote into the post office or any hole they could find. Some of them carried home their ballots, greatly smitten with the red lettering and the head of Lincoln or supposing that they could use them as warrants for land. Others would give them to the first white man who offered to take care of them. One old fellow said to me, 'Lord, mars'r! do for Lord's sake tell me what dis yere's all about.' I explained to him that the election was to put the state back into the Union and make it stay there in peace. 'Lord bless you, mars'r! I'se might' be glad to un'erstan' it' he answered. 'I'se the only [ in this yere districk now that knows what he's up ter'"- John William De Forest, a Union Officer.
Jarrell, Hampton. 'Wade Hampton and the Negro'.
This comes from a reliable source, if you know anything about De Forest. And if you have done any in-depth studying of Reconstruction, you will also know that Republicans did everything in their power to limit Southern white votes (by outlawing any former Confederate officer or soldier voting, which was the majority of the male white population) and also everything they could to give unprepared blacks all the rights they could come up with. Contrary to popular belief, they weren't looking out for the African, they were looking out for their party, and the African just happened to be the one thing that would allow them to achieve their goal.

True enough, that the Republicans wanted to consolidate their power. All political parties do. This doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans were simply uber-political beasts who were only looking out for themselves. No - the abolitionist influence was still there. Ever hear of a man named William Lloyd Garrison? He (and other Abolitionists) continued to work as best they could to help the status of blacks in the U.S (by which I include the C.S.A.).

On the ignorance of black voters - well, what were you expecting? After centuries of oppression and slavery with little to no access to any form of education, they were destined to make mistakes! Besides, if the war had become a moral issue at that point (ignoring reasons for starting it), you can't NOT give blacks the vote.

Lastly, in regards to the Confederate officers - frankly, the South was an occupied region. Giving them the vote would be like allowing the Nazis to vote for the Nazi party in WWII (i.e. in this case, the Democratic Party, which is faaaar off from Nazism). Giving former Confederates the vote would merely result in the undoing of all the Union had done for the blacks at that point.

By placing the black man in a superior position over the white in the South for 12 years after a devastating war ended, Radical Republicans drove a deep chasm of [hatred between Southerners and Northerners and whites and blacks, that as you said traces of still exist today. Had it not been for upstanding Southern men like (former Confederate officer) Wade Hampton, a race war may have developed in the South during Reconstruction. What the Republicans did during that time was despicable, and nothing short of it. And by the way, if you think that's all the evidence I have on the subject, please ask for more. I just wrote a 12-page thesis paper on just this subject. Moving on.
You said "I thought the war was started due to the firing of [cannons upon Fort Sumter."
Yes, but Lincoln made the incredible folly of putting up a fight for the fort, and started the war. If you recall, the South Carolinians would never had fired on Sumter had Lincoln not sent in those supply ships. Actually, there is significant evidence that Lincoln intentionally started the war at Sumter, but I won't get into that, I'm still undecided on that issue.
All Lincoln would have had to do was surrender the fort (which, of course, he was under no obligation to do), and he would have avoided war. But, of course, if he would have done that, then the evil Southerners would have attacked just to kill the righteous surrendering Union soldiers and laughed over their graves, right? Sheesh.
And then, as if starting the war wasn't enough, he makes another colossal mistake, only several days after. He decides to declare the seceded states in 'open rebellion' and calls for 75,000 volunteers to put it down. Now, if you know anything about the general timeline of the war, this caused the more pro-union states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, along with the enormous populations (compared to the Deep South) and very good Generals (Virginia alone gave the South Lee, Jackson, Early, Johnston, Armistead, Ewell, Heth, Hill, Mosby, Pickett, and Stuart).
This caused them to..... dance a happy jig? What? Secede?

Reconstruction was an experiment . There is no doubt that it exacerbated much of the ALREADY PRESENT racial tensions, but some experiments work, and some fail.

Regarding Fort Sumter - Lincoln had to do something. Otherwise, the Union soldiers would starve. That would look pretty, wouldn't it? "Confederates Starve Out Union Soldiers!" Yes, perhaps the intention was political, perhaps Lincoln actually did NOT intend to let half of the nation go their own way, whatever. Those soldiers would have died otherwise, or be forced to surrender to a nation that was not recognized.

Now, you cannot say that this did nothing for the South. Without these states, the war may have lasted a year, with an incredibly lower [death count. You still don't think he started the war?
You said "You're correct. The war was fought over states' rights: the right of a state to enslave and disenfranchise human beings."
Wrong again, sonny. If you think the war started because the evil South wanted to protect only slavery and the gallant North went in with swords and armor shining in order to defeat evil and give the blacks rights because they thought it was 'moral', then you are so full of Yankee and government propo[ganda that you are probably about to burst. As I said, slavery was, among other things, why the Deep South seceded, but the war was fought over whether states had the right to secede from the Union. It is very easy to tell that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only as a last ditch effort to stir up war support, since the South was kicking the Yankees tails all over Virginia. Lincoln turned it into a moral war, and that was the last nail for the Confederacy, since it thrust England and France out permenantly.
Don't think the states have a right to secede? Ask me about that. Please.
Well, I think I'm done now. Have a good day.

P.S. One other thing:
"we also have to judge by intention , not just by result."
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Good intentions get nothing done. Don't you think the South had good intentions when it seceded? You judge by result, because that's what matters.
Besides, I don't think they had good intentions at all (see above).

I actually do think states have/had the right to secede, but I'll bite: why can a state secede?
England and France would have supported the CSA for no other reason than to stop a growing American (USA) power. It's not as if they supported slavery (i.e. Britain having abolished slavery decades earlier).

Anyways, a question: Are you a member of the League of the South? Or do you just enjoy these debates?

Double....

No, triple!

Ahhh... Quadruple Post.

For the fourteen hundredth time, please telegram me your replies. For some reason, I cannot load this page, and besides, I rarely have time to visit these forums.

The North won, the South lost. In this world, that's ALL that counts. Does it really matter what the moral reasons for the war were? Not really. If you don't believe me, just ask the Confederates or Carthaginians.

This is what I wrote last night- sorry, I don't have time to reply to new posts right this second.
BackwoodsSquatches:"Thats not what our Constitution allows..thats not the way it was intended....thus.....it was dealt with at the cost of 600,000 lives."

Ok, I'll get into my secession was legal argument now. If the Constitution doesn't allow states to secede from the Union, why not just say so? I mean, the Founding Fathers weren't idiots. I quote the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
And, if memory serves, nowhere in the entire Constitution does it even mention secession. It was not delegated to the United States government, nor prohibited to the state governments. There it is, in plain black and white. Secession was legal by the Constitution. And, did you know that in the entire Constitution, the term 'union' is always used to describe the 13 states, and 'nation' is not mentioned a single time? Hmm...
And, if I may quote the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. "The wording of these rights cannot be twisted to deny rights kept by the people." So, if the Founding Fathers really meant for secession to be illegal, why did they put in this little dandy, along with the 10th Amendment, and not mention secession at all? Huh, they must be really forgetful...

BackwoodsSquatches"That..can be laid at the door of those States..like South Carolina, who didnt want to folllow the rules, that their own forefathers set down four score years ago."

Well, that sounds a whole lot like the American Revolution, now, doesn't it? Didn't want to follow the rules? If I need to remind you, New England threatened many times to secede during the War of 1812, and I'll bet you money that no one up there then declared secession illegal. And, were the colonies wrong for fighting Britain? After all, they just 'didn't want to follow the rules' (taxation without representation). No, they fought because their rights were being trampled, much like the Southern states in 1850's-60's.

BackwoodsSquatches"There was no way that the Confederacy could have won a prolonged militrary conflict, no matter how good thier military leaders were."
Wrong, my boy. Need I remind you that, had a little set of orders not be aly dropped in a small Maryland town in 1862, Lee could have won at Sharpsburg (uh, Antietam, sorry), and thus brought Britain and France into the war? With the high crest the Confederacy was riding at that time, and with two powerful nations backing them fully, it wouldn't have been long, my friend.

BackwoodsSquatches"They knew that....and didnt care."

Of course! They knew they were going to lose, and fought anyway! I mean, they all knew they were going to lose, especially after Manassas 1 and 2, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and all those miniscule victories, right?
Are you even listening to what you're saying?

Free Soviets"true. however, they still deserved a solid ass kicking, because quite frankly the southern elites d freedom and just wanted to maintain their lives of privilege."

So the North was justified in invading a country in which less than 10% of the total population were slave holders, [killing hundreds of thousands of her sons, destroying the land and cities (regardless of wealth), and punishing all 6 million of their people, because of that 10%? Think, people. That wasn't why they fought.
And, besides that, the North had very little moral authority to criticize the South. The vast majority of slaves first passed through places like Boston and New York, before being sold by Northern merchants to Southern planters. It is very fair to say that, had Northern merchants not been so greedy and just refused to buy slaves from Africa and sell them to planters early, then slavery in America would have withered and died. Did you know that the last slave ship to leave the US was the Nightingale from Massachusetts in 1861? She secured a cargo of 900 Africans before being captured by the British after Ft. Sumter. The reason New Englanders allowed captured Africans to go through their ports was for wealth, and that's it. Money makes the world go round. So, before you go condemning the planters because they're wanted more wealth, look at the facts, son. And if you condemn because they were [racist-
Did you know that in Ohio in the mid-19th century Negroes were only permitted to vote if they had more white The Easily DIstracted"the abolitionist influence was still there. Ever hear of a man named William Lloyd Garrison? He (and other Abolitionists) continued to work as best they could to help the status of blacks in the U.S (by which I include the C.S.A.)."

Yes, of course, of course. I didn't mean that all Radical Republicans were bad people. I completely acknowledge that there were very decent and moral people that truly wanted to see the black elevated to the same status as the white for good and moral reasons. If people like that ran the Republican Party then, then the nation would truly be a better place today. But they didn't, and it's not.

The Easily DIstracted"On the ignorance of black voters - well, what were you expecting? After centuries of oppression and slavery with little to no access to any form of education, they were destined to make mistakes! Besides, if the war had become a moral issue at that point (ignoring reasons for starting it), you can't NOT give blacks the vote."

There needed to be a transition period. That was the Black Codes that many Southern states enacted soon after the Civil War. Yes, these are the same Black Codes that most Americans believe were invented by the evil, malicious, [racist Southerners to keep the blacks in a servile state. That is wrong. The Black Codes were meant to regulate the lives of freedmen, and provide that transition period that was needed. They were made by Southern men who saw the needs of the freedmen, and addressed them in a way that was best for all Southerners, black and white. Labor was a major problem in the South after the War, and they gave much needed power to employers over employees, because blacks just couldn't be trusted after the war (and again, you can't blame them, but the Southerners were doing their best to make the best of the situation. This is not at all a knock on blacks of today, who are a lot of times more civilized than whites) Vagrancy and [adultery were running rampant among the black race, and the Black Codes provided laws limiting this. Also, blacks were frequently running away from contracts to labor. They believed that freedom meant no more work (who can blame them?), and they were unwilling to carry their weight in society (I am just describing the majority, certainly not all blacks). The Black Codes gave more power the employers to enforce their labor contracts (which were signed voluntarily, by the way). Of course, this system is a little susceptible to immoral whites taking advantage of it, but I truly believe it was the best system offered during Reconstruction. It provided the transition period that was needed from slave to citizen, only it didn't help the Radicals, who wanted control of the states, so they quickly got rid of them. Putting their own interests in front of the freemen's. Most Southerners truly wanted the two races to exist in harmony. I quote Wade Hampton, former Confederate officer: "As a slave he was faithful to us; as a freedman let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly, justly, kindly, and my word for it he will reciprocate your kindness, clinging to his old home, his own country, and his former master." The Radicals simply would not let this happen, because it didn't suit their politcal agenda. Despicable. Sorry to ramble, but I've just finished a thesis paper on the subject. I have more points, but I think I've talked enough on that.

The Easily DIstracted"Lastly, in regards to the Confederate officers - frankly, the South was an occupied region. Giving them the vote would be like allowing the s to vote for the party in WWII (i.e. in this case, the Democratic Party, which is faaaar off from sm). Giving former Confederates the vote would merely result in the undoing of all the Union had done for the blacks at that point."

Very possible, and I'm sure many Northerners had good reasons like this one for passing the law. But, the main goal was to eliminate white Southern votes, and keep their party in power through unconstitutional means.

[b]The Easily DIstracted[/b"]Reconstruction was an experiment . There is no doubt that it exacerbated much of the ALREADY PRESENT racial tensions, but some experiments work, and some fail."

So, it's ok, because it was just an experiment. On 9 MILLION PEOPLE. And they badly screwed this one up. Badly. [Hitler: "Oh, it was just an experiment!!" Allies: "Oh, that's ok then." Sorry, but no.

The Easily DIstracted"Regarding Fort Sumter - Lincoln had to do something. Otherwise, the Union soldiers would starve. That would look pretty, wouldn't it? "Confederates Starve Out Union Soldiers!" Yes, perhaps the intention was political, perhaps Lincoln actually did NOT intend to let half of the nation go their own way, whatever. Those soldiers would have died otherwise, or be forced to surrender to a nation that was not recognized."

Why didn't he evacuate? The Confederates were willing to let them do this. Why not?

The Easily DIstracted"It's not as if they supported slavery (i.e. Britain having abolished slavery decades earlier)."

That's why I (think I) said that after the Emancipation Proc., they weren't coming in.

The Easily DIstracted"Anyways, a question: Are you a member of the League of the South? Or do you just enjoy these debates?"

I'm only 15, too young for any organizations. But I plan to be in SCV (two relatives in 2nd South Carolina). And I really enjoy these debates.

Ah, I'm tired now.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Oooh Ooooh one of my favorite topics to argue on! I think the rascism sucked, slavery sucked, but as a Southerner born, bred, and still living in the South I have pride in the CSA. And no, the Confederate Flag (Southern Cross) is not racist, but the KKK is. And the KKK are losers. Anyway, there was this story about the KKK tried to adopt a highway, but then the state changed the name of the highway to the Rosa Parks highway, which is funny, and proves that at least some pols have a sense of humor. Anyway, I frequently lament the bad things about the ACW, like that the South lost, the North won, and that Reconstruction F****d up the South for years to come. And also the other day, I saw this billboard for the New England Coffee Company, and it said, "We've packed our bags and headed south". The first thing came into my mind was CARPETBAGGERS!. I cannot beleive that any company would be that stupid to come to the south and advertise like that. What yankees.

If it means anything to you, I'm from Massachusetts and I've never even heard of the New England Coffee Company. Maybe the reason they're advertizing in the South is because we ignored them right out of New England.

the whole point of the civil war was beyond slavery. It was about the rights of a state. The southern states thought, in general, that they joined the union strictly for security and commercial reasons. Just to serve their own perpases. In their minds, the southern interests where not being served. So, they thought they could leave of their own free will, just as they had joined. The war WAS NOT about slavery, untill Abe Lincoln made the emancipation proclimation.

(Wow, first post in a long time, good to be back)

Ok, I'll get into my secession was legal argument now. If the Constitution doesn't allow states to secede from the Union, why not just say so? I mean, the Founding Fathers weren't idiots. I quote the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
And, if memory serves, nowhere in the entire Constitution does it even mention secession. It was not delegated to the United States government, nor prohibited to the state governments. There it is, in plain black and white. Secession was legal by the Constitution. And, did you know that in the entire Constitution, the term 'union' is always used to describe the 13 states, and 'nation' is not mentioned a single time? Hmm...
And, if I may quote the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. "The wording of these rights cannot be twisted to deny rights kept by the people." So, if the Founding Fathers really meant for secession to be illegal, why did they put in this little dandy, along with the 10th Amendment, and not mention secession at all? Huh, they must be really forgetful...

Ok... Classic argument for secession, and true. I won't refute it.

BackwoodsSquatches"That..can be laid at the door of those States..like South Carolina, who didnt want to folllow the rules, that their own forefathers set down four score years ago."

Well, that sounds a whole lot like the American Revolution, now, doesn't it? Didn't want to follow the rules? If I need to remind you, New England threatened many times to secede during the War of 1812, and I'll bet you money that no one up there then declared secession illegal. And, were the colonies wrong for fighting Britain? After all, they just 'didn't want to follow the rules' (taxation without representation). No, they fought because their rights were being trampled, much like the Southern states in 1850's-60's.
Many times? Methinks not. The only real threat of secession was the Hartford Convention, held December 1814-January 1815, by the Federalist Party, who had its power base in New England. It was an embarrassing debacle, as the U.S. had just closed the war and the Treaty of Ghent had been signed. The convention was essentially a sham, a last desparate gasp by the Federalists to hold on to their quickly waning influence.
Tramples rights? Pfffffft. Stop exaggerating. The U.S. had completely valid reasons for going to war in 1812, with British ships impressing U.S. sailors and the British forts (which Britain had promised to remove) that were inciting Native Americans in the Ohio Valley.


Free Soviets"true. however, they still deserved a solid ass kicking, because quite frankly the southern elites d freedom and just wanted to maintain their lives of privilege."

So the North was justified in invading a country in which less than 10% of the total population were slave holders, [killing hundreds of thousands of her sons, destroying the land and cities (regardless of wealth), and punishing all 6 million of their people, because of that 10%? Think, people. That wasn't why they fought.
And, besides that, the North had very little moral authority to criticize the South. The vast majority of slaves first passed through places like Boston and New York, before being sold by Northern merchants to Southern planters. It is very fair to say that, had Northern merchants not been so greedy and just refused to buy slaves from Africa and sell them to planters early, then slavery in America would have withered and died. Did you know that the last slave ship to leave the US was the Nightingale from Massachusetts in 1861? She secured a cargo of 900 Africans before being captured by the British after Ft. Sumter. The reason New Englanders allowed captured Africans to go through their ports was for wealth, and that's it. Money makes the world go round. So, before you go condemning the planters because they're wanted more wealth, look at the facts, son. And if you condemn because they were [racist-
Did you know that in Ohio in the mid-19th century Negroes were only permitted to vote if they had more white [blood than colored [blood?
And did you know that voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites?
The Indiana constitutional convention of 1851 adopted a provision forbidding black migration into the state. This supplemented the state's laws barring blacks already there from voting, serving on juries or in the [militia, testifying against whites in court, marrying whites, or going to school with whites. Iowa and Illinois had similar laws on the books and banned black immigration by statute in 1851 and 1853 respectively. These measures reflected the [racist sentiments of most whites in those states.
And that's not all. Ask for more if you want it.
I think it's time to rethink your position.
True enough, much of this. Racism was still a rampant problem in society. HOWEVER - the Northern states had generally abolished slavery through their state constitutions, which was a hell of a lot more progress than the South had made, a South where slavery was completely entrenched into every facet of the economy and the society.
As for whether the North was justified in invading the South (I'll give you that the south was invaded, though after the North was) the fact remained that millions of blacks remained in slavery. I mean, I *guess* we weren't justified in the invasion of Nazi Germany, considering that the Jewish people were only killed by the few people in the Death camps who were gassing them and cremating them alive...


There needed to be a transition period. That was the Black Codes that many Southern states enacted soon after the Civil War. Yes, these are the same Black Codes that most Americans believe were invented by the evil, malicious, [racist Southerners to keep the blacks in a servile state. That is wrong. The Black Codes were meant to regulate the lives of freedmen, and provide that transition period that was needed. They were made by Southern men who saw the needs of the freedmen, and addressed them in a way that was best for all Southerners, black and white. Labor was a major problem in the South after the War, and they gave much needed power to employers over employees, because blacks just couldn't be trusted after the war (and again, you can't blame them, but the Southerners were doing their best to make the best of the situation. This is not at all a knock on blacks of today, who are a lot of times more civilized than whites) Vagrancy and [adultery were running rampant among the black race, and the Black Codes provided laws limiting this. Also, blacks were frequently running away from contracts to labor. They believed that freedom meant no more work (who can blame them?), and they were unwilling to carry their weight in society (I am just describing the majority, certainly not all blacks). The Black Codes gave more power the employers to enforce their labor contracts (which were signed voluntarily, by the way). Of course, this system is a little susceptible to immoral whites taking advantage of it, but I truly believe it was the best system offered during Reconstruction. It provided the transition period that was needed from slave to citizen, only it didn't help the Radicals, who wanted control of the states, so they quickly got rid of them. Putting their own interests in front of the freemen's. Most Southerners truly wanted the two races to exist in harmony. I quote Wade Hampton, former Confederate officer: "As a slave he was faithful to us; as a freedman let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly, justly, kindly, and my word for it he will reciprocate your kindness, clinging to his old home, his own country, and his former master." The Radicals simply would not let this happen, because it didn't suit their politcal agenda. Despicable. Sorry to ramble, but I've just finished a thesis paper on the subject. I have more points, but I think I've talked enough on that.
*ERK* The Black Codes?!!!! That... is ludicrous. The Black Codes were little more than a thinly veiled attempt by a defeated Southern society to try and reinstitutionalize slavery without actually enslaving the blacks! While you claim that this was meant to be a "transition" period, the transition period that already existed in history lasted another 100 years into the 1960's!!! If the Black Codes were accepted, we'd probably be fighting the Second Civil War today, vying for the rights of blacks who suffered under the Southern tyranny of the codes!
Examples:
Section 7 of the Mississippi black codes: Every civil officer shall, and every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman, free negro, or mulatto who shall have quit the service of his or her employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without good cause; and said officer and person shall be entitled to receive for arresting and carrying back every deserting employee aforesaid the sum of five dollars, and ten cents per mile from the place of arrest to the place of delivery; and the same shall be paid by the employer...(snip)
Whom do you think judges what is "good cause?" The black employee? Pft.

Section 2 of "An Act to Amend the Vagrant Laws of the State" (same state): ection 2. All freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in this State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or found unlawful assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time, and all white persons assembling themselves with freedmen, Free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, on terms of equality, or living in adultery or fornication with a freed woman, freed negro or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants...
Ahhhh...... so if a black man is out of a job, or is getting together with buddies, suddenly he's a vagrant and can be arrested? Niiiiice..... No chance for abuse there!

Some black codes from S.C. (your state, Yeffrej):
-No person of color shall migrate into and reside in this state, unless, within twenty days after his arrival within the same, he shall enter into a bond with two freeholders as sureties”
-Servants shall not be absent from the premises without the permission of the master”
-Servants must assist their masters “in the defense of his own person, family, premises, or property”

Mmmm... sounds sooooo.... transitory. Not at all like a previous institution in the South, doesn't at all sound permanent. Nope! Good job, lawmakers!


Why didn't he evacuate? The Confederates were willing to let them do this. Why not?

I never heard about this... I'll look into it. My best guess is that Lincoln didn't want to evacuate a fort to a state in open rebellion :P

I mean, really - black codes are a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea.
Yea, the North had issues, but nowhere near those of the South's.

The Easily DIstracted"Ok... Classic argument for secession, and true. I won't refute it."

Good, good. A man of reason.

The Easily DIstracted"Many times? inks not. The only real threat of secession was the Hartford Convention, held December 1814-January 1815, by the Federalist Party, who had its power base in New England. It was an embarrassing debacle, as the U.S. had just closed the war and the Treaty of Ghent had been signed. The convention was essentially a sham, a last desparate gasp by the Federalists to hold on to their quickly waning influence.
Tramples rights? Pfffffft. Stop exaggerating. The U.S. had completely valid reasons for going to war in 1812, with British ships impressing U.S. sailors and the British forts (which Britain had promised to remove) that were inciting Native Americans in the Ohio Valley."
True, true. I wasn't too clear. They did threaten several times. And I meant that the colonists believed Britain was trampling rights in 1760's-70's.

The Easily DIstracted"True enough, much of this. was still a rampant problem in society. HOWEVER - the Northern states had generally abolished slavery through their state constitutions, which was a hell of a lot more progress than the South had made, a South where slavery was completely entrenched into every facet of the economy and the society."

Which is true. But the South couldn't just give up slavery because they felt like it wasn't moral. A sudden doing away of slavery would have brought ruin to both the Southern whites and blacks, which is shown by the widespread poverty that lasted for years after the war, and traces of which you can see today ( rednecks, if you permit me to be blunt). Slavery was sown into Southern society so deeply that it wasn't coming out willingly anytime soon. It wasn't only because whites wanted to feel 'superior'. Economy played a very large part in slavery persisting in the South.
Emancipation in the North? Bah! All this consisted of was selling all of the slaves off to Southern planters, whilst still leaving the black on a lower level of society (evidence provided in above post). And the Northern states only began emancipating slaves once they were no longer profitable. It's all about money, remember. Morals play a minor role in politics. The South kept slavery because it was profitable. The North got rid of it because it wasn't.
And need I remind you that without Northern merchants slavery would have had a tough time surviving? Moneymoneymoneymoney. So don't pull any of this 'holier than thou' crap on me.
The Easily DIstracted"As for whether the North was justified in invading the South (I'll give you that the south was invaded, though after the North was) the fact remained that millions of blacks remained in slavery. I mean, I *guess* we weren't justified in the invasion of Germany, considering that the Jewish people were only killed by the few people in the camps who were gassing them and cremating them alive..."

First of all, that wasn't why the North invaded the South, nor why the US invaded Germany. The North invaded the South on the principal that states have no right to secede from the Union, which YOU agreed was wrong. So how can you say that the North was justified in war?

The Easily DIstractedSection 7 of the Mississippi black codes: Every civil officer shall, and every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman, free negro, or mulatto who shall have quit the service of his or her employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without good cause; and said officer and person shall be entitled to receive for arresting and carrying back every deserting employee aforesaid the sum of five dollars, and ten cents per mile from the place of arrest to the place of delivery; and the same shall be paid by the employer...(snip)
Whom do you think judges what is "good cause?" The black employee? Pft."

Need I remind you that this took effect only after a contract was voluntarily signed by said negro? And they didn't have to run away from their [jobs! You want money, you work for it. This law was only passed when blacks began frequently ignoring labor contracts and running off. I quote Bowers: "One day a South Carolina woman wrote in her diary that 'negroes are seen in the fields plowing and hoeing corn' and a month later that 'the negroes have flocked to the Yankee squad...The first evidence that outside influences had been at work upon the freedmen was furnished in their bizarre notions of labor, that under freedom all system ceased. At all hours of the day they could be seen laying down their implements and sauntering singing from the fields. If freedom did not mean surcease from labor, where was the boon?...Very soon they were eschewing labor and flocking to army camps to be fed...When military orders drove them from the camps, they flocked to villages, towns, and cities, where, in the summer of 1865, they lived in idleness and squalor, huddled together in shacks, and collecting in gangs at street corners and crossroads..." And he goes on. For a Southern view of Reconstruction, I recommend The Tragic Era, by Claude Bowers. Now, by this description you can see that some means of keeping the negro at work was desperately needed in the South. The Radicals didn't like the Codes because they prevented Negro suffrage, and so they painted a picture of them to be bad and [racist, a 'reincarnation' of slavery, when they didn't even live in the South to see what laws would truly be best for the blacks or the South in general.

The Easily DIstracted"Section 2 of "An Act to Amend the Vagrant Laws of the State" (same state): ection 2. All freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in this State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful or business, or found unlawful assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time, and all white persons assembling themselves with freedmen, Free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, on terms of equality, or living in ery or fornication with a freed woman, freed negro or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants...
Ahhhh...... so if a black man is out of a job, or is getting together with buddies, suddenly he's a vagrant and can be arrested? Niiiiice..... No chance for abuse there!"
As I said before, there needed to be some way of keeping blacks in work. And, also as I said before, their were chances for abuse, but it was the best the South had; certainly better than what the Radicals had in mind, which was nothing less than Negro [supremacy...race war, anyone?

The Easily DIstracted"-No person of color shall migrate into and reside in this state, unless, within twenty days after his arrival within the same, he shall enter into a bond with two freeholders as sureties”
-Servants shall not be absent from the premises without the permission of the master”
-Servants must assist their masters “in the defense of his own person, family, premises, or property”

Mmmm... sounds sooooo.... transitory. Not at all like a previous institution in the South, doesn't at all sound permanent. Nope! Good job, lawmakers!"

See points above. Not perfect, but the best at hand.

The Easily DIstracted"I never heard about this... I'll look into it. My best guess is that Lincoln didn't want to evacuate a fort to a state in open rebellion"

Already did that several times; Sumter wasn't the only Federal fort in the South, y'know.

The Easily DIstracted"I mean, really - black codes are a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea.
Yea, the North had issues, but nowhere near those of the South's."

Sorry, but other way around.

Oh yeah, this is Yerffej.

Okay then, let me see if I can sum up your points here:
1) North was no more moral than the South, only emancipated for money, no "holier-than-thou" crap.
2) South needed black codes because their economy depended on slavery and free labor, and black codes provided this. Supposedly, this would be a transitory stage to a better society, and at the time was best for both whites and blacks - only the damnyankees interfered.

If that's right, I'll refute those if you confirm them.

On the invasion thingummy - by the end of the war, the moral justification had become an issue, whether or not it was what started it, just as the Allies felt even more morally justified by learning they were liberating Jews from death camps, which was kinda the point I was trying to make.

And regardless of how dirtily the North rid itself of slavery, it DID rid itself of slavery. Worse things have been done for money. :evil:

Finally, with the black codes, how would you *ever* move away from a free labor system without having a period of economic downturn and chaos? The Southerners were never going to willingly watch as they inched toward equality with a "lower race."
You might as well have just caused the economic chaos by moving away from a free labor system that occurred while you were rebuilding everything else, and get it over with, rather than postponing it and returning to the same system that caused the war!!

On whether secession is legal in the USA or not :

Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 and 3 :
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

You can claim that secession itself isn't illegal, these only apply to states in the Union. However, seeing as a few Southern States (Virginia, Tennesse, North Carolina, and Arkansas if I'm not mistake, although I easily could be) defected, joining the Confederation which at that time had its capital in Birmingham, I think. Of course, is leaving the Union first is not illegal, than these clauses do not apply to the states - seeing if they left first, then joined the Confederacy, it would surely not be illegal.

On the subject of the Founding Fathers not being stupid, your right, they weren't stupid. Many of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison, were for things like nullification. They never would have voted for a thing that explicitly outlawed it. You do have people like George Washington putting down things like the Whiskey rebellion, a true indicator of what one of the more important Founding Fathers thought.

Also, a look at Article 3 Section 3 clearly states treason as :
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Most of the Southern leaders and the volunteers for its army are directly labeled as treasonous, from this clause. The punishment for treason is death. Since the Southern states were unwilling to turn themselves over to have their rebellious members shot in the back of the head, the Union had to do it by force.




Wrong, my boy. Need I remind you that, had a little set of orders not be aly dropped in a small Maryland town in 1862, Lee could have won at Sharpsburg (uh, Antietam, sorry), and thus brought Britain and France into the war? With the high crest the Confederacy was riding at that time, and with two powerful nations backing them fully, it wouldn't have been long, my friend.
And McClellan didn't do much with it. He could have exploited the orders much more than he did, rather instead what he did was simply bring his troops to the battle, knowing that there was a decent chance Confederates would be there, and attacked. Britain, with its own crusade against slavery, was unlikely to support the South. The Union was also more popular along the common man in Britian, and at a time when the right to vote there was slowly expanding, that became more and more important. France was more likely to intervene, however it is unlikely that France would have been able to do much, seeing as how the Union navy was one of the largest in the world, and operating in coastal waters while the French navy would be sailing across the Atlantic with mainly wooden ships. The big cotton boom pre-war kept stockpiles high in both countries, and also actually allowed Britain to discover how places like Egypt and India could easily replace the South as cotton producing centers.

The fact of the matter is, the South really had no chance. They were so outnumbered in men and industry it was hopeless. Both of Lee's offensives were major failures. The west had few military victories for the South at all. Barring foreign intervention of Great Britain, victory was highly unlikely, especially after Jackson died. (Lee in himself wasn't a great general).

Of course, the South denied Eastern Tennessee, a Union stronghold, the "right" to secede, too.

A lot of people like to point to the South being twice only one victory away from Foreign Intervention (Antietam and Gettysburg), but this is somewhat far from the truth, the South was no closer to getting foreign military aid in 1863 then they were in 1861, and perhaps even closer in 1865. First, let's look at the major powers of the world the Confederacy could look to. Russia, despite it's long history of serfdom, was rabidly anti-slavery, the small states of Germany and the larger two Austria and Prussia were to busy with infighting to be of any help.

South America was impotent compared to the USA, so all the South could really look to for help was France and Great Britain. France was clearly in no mood to fight the US (As demonstrated by it's evacuation of Mexico under US pressure), it was tied up in Mexico by the ACW, and with Italy's wars for unification under way they weren't going to move a large force so far away. And on a final note, though Napoleon III always talked about how great France was compared to Britain, he always sat back and waited for Britains response to any situation concerning the ACW. So France is not going to attack the United States in favor of the Confederacy at this time, and if it does, there is little it can do.

Now onto Britain, the world's greatest power at the time, but was it ever really as close to joining the Confederacy against the USA. The answer is simply no, disastrous crop yields in Britain in 1859-1861, and a boom in Indian cotton, meant Britain needed the North's grain far more then it needed the South's cotton. Britain was also very anti-slavery (Having abolished it in the Empire shortly before), and the Royal Navy's rabid anti-slavery patrols off Africa attest to this. Now after I've explained all this, does it still look like Britain will join the war?

The Easily DIstracted"Okay then, let me see if I can sum up your points here:
1) North was no more moral than the South, only emancipated for money, no "holier-than-thou" crap." (end quote)

"There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, 'They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.' Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there." (John Franklin and Alfred Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185. Incidentally, Franklin and Moss are African-American scholars.)

". . . Lincoln also knew how deep and widespread racial prejudice was in the North. 'The colored man throughout this country was a despised man, a d man,' he admitted. Even many fervent opponents of slavery detested Negroes. 'You loathe them as you would a snake or a toad, yet you are indignant at their wrongs,' a southerner accused his New England cousin in Uncle Tom's Cabin. 'You would not have them abused; but you don't want to have anything to do with them yourselves.' A reporter in Washington once heard Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, a leading antislavery radical, railing about too many 'n-' cooks in the capital; Wade complained that he had eaten meals 'cooked by n- until I can smell and taste the n- all over.'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 53)

"For all the good intentions of many early white abolitionists, blacks were not especially welcome in the free states of America. Several territories and states, such as Ohio, not only refused to allow slavery but also had passed laws specifically limiting or excluding any blacks from entering its territory or owning property." (Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War, p. 54)

"So pervasive was [racism in many parts of the North that no party could win if it endorsed full racial equality." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 81)

". . . Republicans ruefully admitted that large parts of the North were infected with . 'Our people [hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275)

". . . discouragement was deepened by the outcome of three Northern state referendums in the fall of 1865. The legislatures of Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota placed on the ballot constitutional amendments to enfranchise [allow to vote] the few black men in those states. Everyone recognized that, in some measure, the popular vote on these amendments would serve as a barometer of Northern opinion on black suffrage. . . . Republican leaders worked for passage of the amendments but fell short of success in all three states. . . . the defeat of the amendments could be seen as a mandate against black suffrage by a majority of Northern voters." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 501)

"Numerous [Union] army officials who advocated the use of black troops viewed Negroes as little more than [cannon fodder. 'For my part,' announced an officer stationed in South Carolina, 'I make bold to say that I am not so fastidious as to object to a negro being food for powder and I would arm every man of them.' Governor Israel Washburn of Maine agreed. 'Why have our rulers so little regard for the true and brave white men of the north?' asked Washburn. 'Will they continue to sacrifice them? Why will they refuse to save them by employing black men? . . . Why are our leaders unwilling that Sambo should save white boys?'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 93)

"The contrabands [escaped slaves] crowded into improvised camps, where exposure and disease took a fearful toll. Yankee soldiers sometimes 'confiscated' the meager worldly goods the blacks had managed to bring with them." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 394)

Hmm... I don't know about you, but what I gather from these is that those 'moral upstanding Yankees' still [hated then negro, many with a passion, and wished for them to remain an inferior race. Did you know that Ulysses S. Grant said "If this war was started to end slavery, I would throw down my sword and resign immediately." (sorry, I don't have a source, but I wouldn't lie to you). And during Reconstruction the only reason Republicans wanted the Southern black to become equals to Southern whites was for political purposes. You never hear anything about them promoting Negro equality in their own homes, now do you? Yep, so upstanding.
You said, "At least it DID rid itself of slavery." For moral reasons! Bah? Very few slaves were actually freed, just sold south. It's because it wasn't profitable! Do you not think that the South would've got rid of slavery as soon as it became no longer profitable? Oh yeah, they were all evil [racist rednecks, right? Get over yourself.

The Easily DIstracted"Finally, with the black codes, how would you *ever* move away from a free labor system without having a period of economic downturn and chaos? The Southerners were never going to willingly watch as they inched toward equality with a "lower race.""

Yes they were. There were good men in the outh, believe it or not. The general population may have been largely against this, but men like Wade Hampton of South Carolina sprung up all over the South, honest men who really worked hard to bring harmony between the races. They would have suceeded had the Republicans not intervened, and spread lies among the negroes in order to keep their votes. Study Wade Hampton in depth and you will understand. By the end of Reconstruction he had the entire white South Carolina populaion on his side, along with more than half of the Negroes! Had he been able to stay in power, things would have been better for the negro all over the South. But the Radicals screamed that they had intimidated negroes into voting Democrat, when in all reality there are more cases of the Radicals trying to do that in the late Reconstruction years than the Democrats. Reconstruction is one of my specialties, and I truly believe that had the Radicals not interfered on such a large scale, [racism would have slowly died out by the early 20th century at the most.

The Easily DIstracted"You might as well have just caused the economic chaos by moving away from a free labor system that occurred while you were rebuilding everything else, and get it over with, rather than postponing it and returning to the same system that caused the war!!"[/b]

So, you're saying that the Radical's plan was better, right? Well, obviously not, seeing as how that plan lasted for 12 years and for the hundred years after the Civil War [racism was rampant in the South. It makes my face get red thinking about it, how they screwed us over so royally and then blamed everything on us.

Kwangistar"You can claim that secession itself isn't illegal, these only apply to states in the Union. However, seeing as a few Southern States (Virginia, Tennesse, North Carolina, and Arkansas if I'm not mistake, although I easily could be) defected, joining the Confederation which at that time had its capital in Birmingham, I think. Of course, is leaving the Union first is not illegal, than these clauses do not apply to the states - seeing if they left first, then joined the Confederacy, it would surely not be illegal."

That is my stance.

Kwangistar"Most of the Southern leaders and the volunteers for its army are directly labeled as treasonous, from this clause. The punishment for treason is . Since the Southern states were unwilling to turn themselves over to have their rebellious members shot in the back of the head, the Union had to do it by force."

It would have been treason only if secession was illegal. If all Southerners were traitors, why didn't the government try a single Confederate for treason after the war? The reason: they knew they would lose.

Kwangistar"The fact of the matter is, the South really had no chance. They were so outnumbered in men and industry it was hopeless. Both of Lee's offensives were major failures. The west had few military victories for the South at all. Barring foreign intervention of Great Britain, victory was highly unlikely, especially after Jackson died. (Lee in himself wasn't a great general)."

But my original argument was that the South didn't go into the war sure they would lose, as some guy was saying. That is utterly ridiculous.

Kwangistar"Of course, the South denied Eastern Tennessee, a Union stronghold, the "right" to secede, too."

Yes, but do we need to get into the North's hypocrisy too?

And I'll admit that I haven't really studied in depth the likelehood of foreign intervention, so I'll give that one to y'all. Just don't claim the South went to war knowing they would lose.

It would have been treason only if secession was illegal. If all Southerners were traitors, why didn't the government try a single Confederate for treason after the war? The reason: they knew they would lose.
No, the reason they didn't is because Lincoln (and Johnson too, I think) gave amnesty to them and I know Lincoln himself took a personal stand against this, not because they would lose but because they knew it would more likely turn into a Post-Versilles type thing.

It would have been treason only if secession was illegal. If all Southerners were traitors, why didn't the government try a single Confederate for treason after the war? The reason: they knew they would lose.
No, the reason they didn't is because Lincoln (and Johnson too, I think) gave amnesty to them and I know Lincoln himself took a tand against this, not because they would lose but because they knew it would more likely turn into a Post-Versilles type thing.

Johnston's Presidential power was severly limited by the Radicals during Reconstruction, as I'm sure you know. They could have tried them if they wanted to.
I quote: "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion." Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.