NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey would you like to see the C.S.A. come back into power.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] When making a topic, it helps to have a title that's descriptive of the content. "Look at the Poll" is not descriptive. [/modedit]

Belongs in general, and no.

While I do think that anyone who wants an independant country should have one, military intervention is justified to stop human rights abuses.

Back then, the answer would have been to have the war, end slavery, and send them on their way and say good riddence. But today, it's been too long.

This is meant for General...

and hell no, no one in their right minds want the Confederacy to rise again. I doubt Southern politicians would want that even.

Besides, I think it's illegal now for you to secede from the Union. Willing to fight a war due to illegal actions?

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

The Confederacy only had %16 of them being slave owners. over %50 of the confederates even owned slaves. Maybe they are racist but you are sterotyping the whole Confederacy when you say that.
Another point is that only %8 percent of the white population owned more than 5 slaves and drove them really hard. The other half of the slave owners worked in the fields with the slaves and did not beat them.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.

it is illegal to secede from the Union. it wasn't clear that it was before the civil war, but the Northern government clarified the fact after they won.

all secession would do for any state right now is to take away the direct protection by the most powerful army in the world that they get, in return for civil freedoms that they already have.

The Confederacy only had %16 of them being slave owners. over %50 of the confederates even owned slaves. Maybe they are racist but you are sterotyping the whole Confederacy when you say that.
Another point is that only %8 percent of the white population owned more than 5 slaves and drove them really hard. The other half of the slave owners worked in the fields with the slaves and did not beat them.

Well, you can tell where this guy stands politically.

HFFH.
Just kidding. damn skins

The Confederacy only had %16 of them being slave owners. over %50 of the confederates even owned slaves. Maybe they are racist but you are sterotyping the whole Confederacy when you say that.
Another point is that only %8 percent of the white population owned more than 5 slaves and drove them really hard. The other half of the slave owners worked in the fields with the slaves and did not beat them.

Is anyone else wondering how these numbers add up? The other half of 8%? 16% were slave owners but over 50% owned slaves? And here I thought I was good at math and percentages...but I can't figure out those percentages.

/me changes the topic title and then votes "No".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I think (or like to think, anyway) that if the south 'came again' they wouldn't go right back into the slavery thing. I can't say they'd have the most progressive racial policies, but I really can't say what they'd do specificly because I've never been there. Hopefully there would be enough diversity to make it dificult to be too opressive.

I make this hedging because ideally, for me anyway, I'd like to see the whole US split into much smaller parts. Our size makes us cumbersome and more and more The US and Americans become seperate entities that not only can't conect, but are working at odds. Not that I'm crazy about the phrase 'President Arnold,' I'm super not crazy about the phrase "President Bush," sometimes you get a President you're not crazy about. If it's just California, then the amount of damage that person can do is mitigated.

But that's just me.

What benefit to anybody would a "risen" C.S.A. give?

Not unless they take the complete opposite turn of politics and become anarchist rather than a "democracy" with slavery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

NO!
I like the weather down here...but I can't say I agree with most southern politics...I'd hate to have to move up north

Who in there right mind would want to leave the union? I mean we have alot of political freedoms cival rights and are under the protection of the second largest army not to forget its the most advanced army this world has ever seen. The only people who normally flee america are doing so becuase they most likely broke the law besides that there is no oppression. Besides things could get messy if ameriac were to split in two :?

besides that there is no oppression.

Coughwagelaborcough

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

why do you want the CSA to rise again? so the north can crush you...again?
and my answer is "no", one civil war is enough. CSA you unfortunately personify a stereotype and put the south to shame. Your inability to let go of a war that you lost and that ended over 100 years ago is childish.

besides that there is no oppression.

Coughwagelaborcough



What's that you say Letila? I didn't quite hear you. :wink:

What's that you say Letila? I didn't quite hear you.

Wage labor. Selling your freedom to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What's that you say Letila? I didn't quite hear you.

Wage labor. Selling your freedom to survive.


Thanks. I just thought that needed some clarification.

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

Even though they aren't communist. I don't even think they qualify as Marxist. They aren't a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

i like you already. but dragons bay and ilham will hate you

it is illegal to secede from the Union. it wasn't clear that it was before the civil war, but the Northern government clarified the fact after they won.
Dead wrong. The Constitution says the states have the right, the Declaration of Independence says the states have the right, the Founding Fathers said the states have the right. Allow me to clarify.
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states "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." Now, we'll all agree that the Constitution says nothing about secession, so the Tenth Amendment gives the right to the States and people. Now lets all look at the logic of this: All the states voluntarily ratified the Constitution and entered the United States- does that not mean that they can voluntarily leave it? Apparently the states thought so. Three states-Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Looking at Virginia's act- "...the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression...". Now let's return the wording of the Constitution itself-it always calls the new country a Union, but never does it mention a 'nation'. And, looking at the Preamble, you can find the Founding Father's reasons for passing the Constitution. And it does not say anything about a permanent union. There is more evidence in the Constitution, but we'll pass for now.
Now let's go to the Declaration of Independence. I think we all agree that the Declaration was to be the base of the new nation, the reasons that it exists in the first place, right? In the DI, it states-“That they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;… and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” Now, it also says "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The North was trying to govern the South without their consent, period. [Following the above] “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government… that shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Exactly what the South did, correct? “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The sectional Republican Party, along with Lincoln, sought to make the South into little more than a colony of the North, for the North's profit. Want evidence for that too? Feel free to ask. Moving on.
The words of the Founding Fathers themselves must show their true beliefs, correct? Well let's have a look see. “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state had a right to peaceably withdraw.” (Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. 1883) “A secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1825. It is important to note that this book was widely accepted and used to teach cadets at West Point. “The powers of the General Government,” Mr. Madison states, “relate to external objects, and are but few.” (Davis, William C. A Fire-Eater Remembers. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) Patrick Henry said: “It [giving the National Gov't power over the states] would reduce the States to mere corporations, whose humble office it would be to repair highways and bridges, and take care of the poor.” (Rhett Bio, pg. 13) And what about Lincoln? "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.” –Abraham Lincoln, on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848.
And don't believe that secession is only a Southern thing. The very first drive for secession began in New England, early in the 19th century. In response to British hijacking of American ships, President Thomas Jefferson imposed an embargo on all shipping on December 22, 1807. The New England states, whose economy depended heavily on shipping, first ignored the embargo with massive smuggling and then formally nullified the federal embargo law… ." On February 5, 1809, both houses of the Massachusetts legislature nullified the embargo act by denouncing it as "unjust, oppressive, unconstitutional. While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of State government.” But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed. [Issued by Connecticut state assembly to keep from sending to fight in War of 1812] A number of Northern states also thumbed their collective noses at the federal government by passing "personal liberty laws" that nullified the two Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. These federal laws compelled the Northern states to devote time, money and resources to capturing runaway slaves and returning them to their owners. Slavery was constitutional, but these Northern states understood that it was their right to nullify the federal enforcement of it. And it wasn't just an early 1800's thing in the North. The legislature of Wisconsin adopted (1859) resolutions defending state sovereignty after the Supreme Court overruled the Wisconsin courts and upheld the conviction of an abolitionist editor for violating the fugitive slave law. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/statesri_AJustificationforSecession.asp) The New Jersey legislature found occasion as late as 1852 to declare… that the Constitution was “a compact between the several states” and that general government had been granted by the sovereign states only limited powers. (Schlesinger, Arthur. New Viewpoints in American History. New York: 1922).
And I have more information, I just didn't want to ramble on for TOO long. Ask for it if you want it.
So, I ask you- still think secession is illegal? Howabout doing a little research the next time you make a statement based on what little you know of history, and maybe you can get a little credit.
And, by the way, to go back on topic- I am a firm believer that the first Confederacy was right in seceding the first time to become free from oppression and despotism, and I believe the facts strongly back that up. But we shouldn't secede again. Southerners are very happy with the country they are in now, and they should be. However, the void between the liberal North and the conservative South is widening again. One day, most likely, it will become necessary for one group to secede from the other, and whether a second Civil War will occur is debatable. But as of right now, it ain't gonna happen, nor should it, nor in the near future.
God Bless,
Yerffej.

Oh- another thing. What do you mean, 'come back into power'?

Don't you mean, "Try to rise, then get grounded into the dirt again by the boots of the government"?

That would be more 'politically correct'.

To talk from a purely tactical standpoint, the South fought a brilliant war, since it was obvious from the beginning that they couldn't win, with their defensive stratagems. However, in the end, the South, even today, cannot compare with the production power of the North, and the Economical power that the North holds today (can anyone say NYSE?).

However, from a strategic standpoint, it was kind of stupid, because after the Civil War, the South allowed the Republicans full sway in government- not that that was a bad thing. Then again, they [the south] are democrats- that explains it all.

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

i like you already. but dragons bay and ilham will hate you

Who are they? Chinese from the mainland?

Now how many of you believe that America is completely free? Opression is still everywhere. No matter what people will be assholes.
If the South rose again it would prove that the federal government is too strong(as it already is). Look at everything that happens in politics. The federal government can just say to any state"Hey, we don't want you to do that so we're not gonna let you" then what happens. All the people in the state are angry but no one does anything about it.
(sorry about the numbers...i was writing very quickly)
And i am not putting the south to shame. The Confederacy was NOT a mistake. It was people expressing their right to live how they wanted. If someone came into your house and said you can not eat, whatever your favorite food is, what would you do. Many of you, including myself, would go out and eat that food. What the Confederacy did was an act of self-defense.
And although the Union was anti-slavery they didn't treat the freedmen like royalty. Just because the freedmen fought on the Union's side does not mean anything. The Union gave them separate brigades.

*Triple Post*

Double post.

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

You are obviously ignorant of this issue. The KMT are not the separatists. The separatists are the DPP. The KMT believes in eventual unification.

As for the security treaty, it was abrogated in 1979. Bush has recently backhanded Chen's separatist efforts. How is Taiwan a nation, it has no identity as one and its culture is the same as the Chinese. The separatists are those that do not believe Taiwan is a part of China (whether it be a China controlled by the CCP or the KMT), they are pigs that had been bastarded by the Japanese!

China is by all means more capitalist than the U.S., so how can it still be classed as communist?

As for the issue of unification Ein volk! Ein Reich! (one race, one state).

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

You are obviously ignorant of this issue. The KMT are not the separatists. The separatists are the DPP. The KMT believes in eventual unification.

As for the security treaty, it was abrogated in 1979. Bush has recently backhanded Chen's separatist efforts. How is Taiwan a nation, it has no identity as one and its culture is the same as the Chinese. The separatists are those that do not believe Taiwan is a part of China (whether it be a China controlled by the CCP or the KMT), the are pigs that had been bastarded by the Japanese!

And you, sir, are obviously one of those who believe that Taiwan should be reunified -or should I say conquered- by the Communist idiots.

True, the security treaty expired then, but how can you explain this:

In 1996, when China test-fired missiles and staged naval war games near Taiwan, the United States deployed parts of the US Seventh Fleet in the Taiwan Strait, which defused the crisis.

Bush may have backhanded President Chen Shui-Bien in his independence policy, but the overall picture is thus: contrary to the situation in Iraq, the people of the US will fight, along with the rest of the UN to help the Taiwanese people to fight to KEEP their freedom, not GAIN it.

The Taiwanese people WILL fight, and they WILL keep their freedom, and stay free under the TRUE Flag of the Republic of China, Taiwan (R.O.C.).

If one must be condemned as a pig bastardized by the Japanese in order to call for formal and acknowledged independence from the People's Republic, sir, then _I_ am one of your 'pigs'.

Now let's go to the Declaration of Independence. I think we all agree that the Declaration was to be the base of the new nation, the reasons that it exists in the first place, right? In the DI, it states-“That they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;… and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
But the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The words of the Founding Fathers themselves must show their true beliefs, correct? Well let's have a look see. “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state had a right to peaceably withdraw.” (Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. 1883) “A secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1825. It is important to note that this book was widely accepted and used to teach cadets at West Point. “The powers of the General Government,” Mr. Madison states, “relate to external objects, and are but few.” (Davis, William C. A Fire-Eater Remembers. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) Patrick Henry said: “It [giving the National Gov't power over the states] would reduce the States to mere corporations, whose humble office it would be to repair highways and bridges, and take care of the poor.” (Rhett Bio, pg. 13) And what about Lincoln? "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.” –Abraham Lincoln, on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848.
And their words also have no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. If their personal beliefs dictated the creation of the US, things would have been a lot different. You should know Alexander Hamilton's views towards democracy -- "Your people, sir, is a great beast." Talk is good, but in the end, it's what's written down that counts. So you better stick with the Constitution.

The Confederates were separatists like those in Taiwan. And they were slave-driving racists!

"Separatists"? Did I year you correctly?

The Taiwanese were not 'separatists', because they are the rightful rulers of Mainland China. The Nationalist Party merely lost power because after WW2, the US had completely ignored the situation in Nationalist China, and it resulted in the rise of the Communist Party.

Taiwan is the last bastion of former nationalist China that stands against the Communist Regieme.

And anyway, how can a 'separatist' movement be called a separatist movement if these so-called separatists are technologically 5-10 years ahead of Mainland, Communist China?

Oh, BTW: Even if China decides to attack a technologically superior nation like Taiwan (Yes, a NATION), the US has treaties with the Nationalist government dating back to WW2 and the Cold War that would automatically declare war on China. They'd die like the Communist Pigs that they are.

You are obviously ignorant of this issue. The KMT are not the separatists. The separatists are the DPP. The KMT believes in eventual unification.

As for the security treaty, it was abrogated in 1979. Bush has recently backhanded Chen's separatist efforts. How is Taiwan a nation, it has no identity as one and its culture is the same as the Chinese. The separatists are those that do not believe Taiwan is a part of China (whether it be a China controlled by the CCP or the KMT), the are pigs that had been bastarded by the Japanese!

And you, sir, are obviously one of those who believe that Taiwan should be reunified -or should I say conquered- by the Communist idiots.

True, the security treaty expired then, but how can you explain this:

In 1996, when China test-fired missiles and staged naval war games near Taiwan, the United States deployed parts of the US Seventh Fleet in the Taiwan Strait, which defused the crisis.

Bush may have backhanded President Chen Shui-Bien in his independence policy, but the overall picture is thus: contrary to the situation in Iraq, the people of the US will fight, along with the rest of the UN to help the Taiwanese people to fight to KEEP their freedom, not GAIN it.

The Taiwanese people WILL fight, and they WILL keep their freedom, and stay free under the TRUE Flag of the Republic of China, Taiwan (R.O.C.).

If one must be condemned as a pig bastardized by the Japanese in order to call for formal and acknowledged independence from the People's Republic, sir, then _I_ am one of your 'pigs'.

The U.S. will not risk war with China, a nation that can stand up to it. It will only use Taiwan as a market for its outdated military hardware.

In a real event of war, 25% of the KMT-minded personnel from ROCA will defect because they do not want to take orders from Japs under Chinese skin. I don't class the KMT as the enemy, I see the separatists are enemies from within, just like Lee Tun Hui and his cronies.

I may not be a Nazi, but "Ein volk! Ein Reich!" Nationalism is the only good political ideology that people can follow.

You do not brand me a communist, as a Chinese I admire Chiang Kai-shek for his nationalism.

Upon the day of the unification, both the PRC and ROC flags will fly high together in unison!

OOC: Damn! I sound like a Nazi...

"Come on boys, if you want a heap of fun and kill some Yankees!" - General Nathan Bedford Forrest

"Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!" - Gov. (and my uncle) George Wallace

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

it is illegal to secede from the Union. it wasn't clear that it was before the civil war, but the Northern government clarified the fact after they won.

all secession would do for any state right now is to take away the direct protection by the most powerful army in the world that they get, in return for civil freedoms that they already have.
You got your facts wrong. Secession is still legal.
For it to be illegal, they would have to change the constitution which was never done.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....

The American Civil War was not about slavery. Some statistics I picked up on the web: only 1 in 15 white southerners owned a slave. There were 350,000 slave owners in the south but 600,000 southerners fought for the Confederacy.

When some of the Southern States seceeded and fired on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ordered every state to supply militia to invade the secession states and put down the "rebellion." It was not until then that many southern states (including Virginia and Tennessee, the two states where most battles were fought) seceded as well.

What was everyone fighting for? A union soldier (and President Lincoln) would have said they were fighting to preserve the union, not to free slaves. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed no slaves at all. In it, Lincoln declares that all slaves in Confederate-held terrortories were free. However, these areas did not recognize his authority. He did not free slaves in the "border states" (slave states that did not secede) or in the areas of Confederate States that the Union controlled. Also, General Ulysses Grant (USA) owned slaves.

Southerners were fighting off an invasion from the North as well as for state's rights and independence. They wanted a loose federal government and for the states to have more control over themselves. To them, a president in Washington telling them what to do was no different than a king in England. Perhaps the best evidence that the south was not fighting for slavery is that there were some blacks that fought FOR the Confederate States. Why have you never heard this? History is written by the victors.

Let's be realistic. Even if the South had won, slavery would not have lasted much longer than it did anyways. The Slave Trade had been illegal since 1808 (meaning it was illegal to capture Africans and sell them here). Slavery would have been phased out in the CSA as it was in every other country that once had legal slavery.

If the Confederacy were to seperate again? Of course there would be no slavery and racism would not be any more prevalent than it is now. Let's not forget that many Northerners, both in the 1860s and now, are racists.

I live in the mid-south, and racism is far less prevelant now than it was even 40 or 50 years ago. It exists, yes, but it exists everywhere else in the world too. For evidence just look at the ethnic cleansings and genocides of the 20th century (Nazis, in Sudan, Turkish genocide of Armenians, etc).

Lastly, why would secession be illegal? The Declaration of Independence states, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." That is what the founding fathers believed they were doing, and that is what southerners in the Civil War believed they were doing as well.

I think (or like to think, anyway) that if the south 'came again' they wouldn't go right back into the slavery thing. I can't say they'd have the most progressive racial policies, but I really can't say what they'd do specificly because I've never been there. Hopefully there would be enough diversity to make it dificult to be too opressive.

I make this hedging because ideally, for me anyway, I'd like to see the whole US split into much smaller parts. Our size makes us cumbersome and more and more The US and Americans become seperate entities that not only can't conect, but are working at odds. Not that I'm crazy about the phrase 'President Arnold,' I'm super not crazy about the phrase "President Bush," sometimes you get a President you're not crazy about. If it's just California, then the amount of damage that person can do is mitigated.

But that's just me.
Actually, the modern south has racial policies that are close to being more progressive than the rest of the nation. They confronted segregation when the other states pretended it didnt' exist.

That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.I don't think so--there's more at stake now than there was in the 1860s as far as infrastructure is concerned. What the Civil War essentially dd was ensure the power of the Federal government as dominant over the state governments, and considering that people are far more mobile today and therefore have less loyalty to individual states and communities than they did in the 1860s, not only would there be less likelihood of a state even considering secession, there would be less of a chance of it succeeding.

You are correct that if what was traditionally the south seceded, there would be a huge change in the dynamic over that of the former Confederacy, but one thing would stay the same--it would still be economically inferior to the rest of the country.

Who in there right mind would want to leave the union? I mean we have alot of political freedoms cival rights and are under the protection of the second largest army not to forget its the most advanced army this world has ever seen. The only people who normally flee america are doing so becuase they most likely broke the law besides that there is no oppression. Besides things could get messy if ameriac were to split in two :?
There are no political freedoms in the USA, cause the fact is, that your local governments get away with passing laws and ordinances that take those freedoms away.

You don't have freedom when the federal government says you do
when the your city council passes a law that says you don't and then uses the police to enforce that law.

Now let's go to the Declaration of Independence. I think we all agree that the Declaration was to be the base of the new nation, the reasons that it exists in the first place, right? In the DI, it states-“That they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;… and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
But the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The words of the Founding Fathers themselves must show their true beliefs, correct? Well let's have a look see. “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state had a right to peaceably withdraw.” (Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. 1883) “A secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1825. It is important to note that this book was widely accepted and used to teach cadets at West Point. “The powers of the General Government,” Mr. Madison states, “relate to external objects, and are but few.” (Davis, William C. A Fire-Eater Remembers. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) Patrick Henry said: “It [giving the National Gov't power over the states] would reduce the States to mere corporations, whose humble office it would be to repair highways and bridges, and take care of the poor.” (Rhett Bio, pg. 13) And what about Lincoln? "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.” –Abraham Lincoln, on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848.
And their words also have no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. If their personal beliefs dictated the creation of the US, things would have been a lot different. You should know Alexander Hamilton's views towards democracy -- "Your people, sir, is a great beast." Talk is good, but in the end, it's what's written down that counts. So you better stick with the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence just happens to be part of the law of the land.
As for the Constitution, it does not deny the right of secession anywhere.
Except to say that state soverignty cannot be violated except with the express permission of the state. Hence, hinting states do have the right of secession.
And the constitution should interpreted according to the views of the people who wrote, not according to those who came after it was written.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.I don't think so--there's more at stake now than there was in the 1860s as far as infrastructure is concerned. What the Civil War essentially dd was ensure the power of the Federal government as dominant over the state governments, and considering that people are far more mobile today and therefore have less loyalty to individual states and communities than they did in the 1860s, not only would there be less likelihood of a state even considering secession, there would be less of a chance of it succeeding.

You are correct that if what was traditionally the south seceded, there would be a huge change in the dynamic over that of the former Confederacy, but one thing would stay the same--it would still be economically inferior to the rest of the country.
Infrastructure would not cause the Feds to invade the south. THe most that would happen is the seceders would be cut off from further federal support.
The feds would merely say: "If you want to be your own nation, go ahead. But you're going to have to support yourselves."

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

Are you BLIND? We wouldn't fight another civil war? I laugh at that. We are more civilized? I laugh at that, although less. Military would REFUSE ORDERS? I spit at such an idea!

You clearly have NO CLUE about this

"Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!" - Gov. (and my uncle) George Wallace

Your uncle is the evil George Wallace himself? Now that must stink.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

Are you BLIND? We wouldn't fight another civil war? I laugh at that. We are more civilized? I laugh at that, although less. Military would REFUSE ORDERS? I spit at such an idea!

You clearly have NO CLUE about this
nO you are the one who has no clue. How many states have you been to besides your own. And how many politicians or soldiers do you actually know. Even the corporations would pull out of the US if there was a civil war. That would cause the feds to lose most of their money and resources.
Another civil war is not realistic.
If someone like you were to try to start another civil war over a state seceding, it is most likely you would be put in jail and your name would become like Hitler's.
The military can refuse unlawful orders.
It is more likely that there will be civil war over abortion than over secession.

Infrastructure would not cause the Feds to invade the south. THe most that would happen is the seceders would be cut off from further federal support.
The feds would merely say: "If you want to be your own nation, go ahead. But you're going to have to support yourselves."What you're missing is that in order for a state to leave--just as was the case in the Civil War--that state would have to not only arm itself, but would have to take some sort of action to remove itself from the Union. Otherwise the Union would essentially laugh them off and continue to enforce federal law and collect federal taxes. And there's little chance of a state becoming so isolated from the federal government that that would happen.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

Are you BLIND? We wouldn't fight another civil war? I laugh at that. We are more civilized? I laugh at that, although less. Military would REFUSE ORDERS? I spit at such an idea!

You clearly have NO CLUE about this
nO you are the one who has no clue. How many states have you been to besides your own. And how many politicians or soldiers do you actually know. Even the corporations would pull out of the US if there was a civil war. That would cause the feds to lose most of their money and resources.
Another civil war is not realistic.
If someone like you were to try to start another civil war over a state seceding, it is most likely you would be put in jail and your name would become like Hitler's.
The military can refuse unlawful orders.
It is more likely that there will be civil war over abortion than over secession.
Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know you knew politicians and soldiers! </sarcasm>

Of course another civil war is not realistic, at least...not in the near future.

The military can refuse unlawful orders...but then you got a whole court marshall procedure to deal with it. And is it unlawful to attack a rebel? The British didn't think so.

Infrastructure would not cause the Feds to invade the south. THe most that would happen is the seceders would be cut off from further federal support.
The feds would merely say: "If you want to be your own nation, go ahead. But you're going to have to support yourselves."What you're missing is that in order for a state to leave--just as was the case in the Civil War--that state would have to not only arm itself, but would have to take some sort of action to remove itself from the Union. Otherwise the Union would essentially laugh them off and continue to enforce federal law and collect federal taxes. And there's little chance of a state becoming so isolated from the federal government that that would happen.
You are correct there. But the point I am making is that if a state were to make such moves, the feds would not launch an invasion of it.
But the move to seccession must be credible as atested by acts some of which you listed.
Now if joe smoe decides he want's his house to be a seperate nation, who on earth would take him seriously. Unless he has enough money to buy himself independence (you would have to be the CEO of a multinational corp. to be able to buy your independence).
but then he would be dependent on his neighbor for water, power, etc.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

Are you BLIND? We wouldn't fight another civil war? I laugh at that. We are more civilized? I laugh at that, although less. Military would REFUSE ORDERS? I spit at such an idea!

You clearly have NO CLUE about this
nO you are the one who has no clue. How many states have you been to besides your own. And how many politicians or soldiers do you actually know. Even the corporations would pull out of the US if there was a civil war. That would cause the feds to lose most of their money and resources.
Another civil war is not realistic.
If someone like you were to try to start another civil war over a state seceding, it is most likely you would be put in jail and your name would become like Hitler's.
The military can refuse unlawful orders.
It is more likely that there will be civil war over abortion than over secession.
Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know you knew politicians and soldiers! </sarcasm>

Of course another civil war is not realistic, at least...not in the near future.

The military can refuse unlawful orders...but then you got a whole court marshall procedure to deal with it. And is it unlawful to attack a rebel? The British didn't think so.
My dear sir, we are not the British. We are Americans.

Thank you for repling. All of you make a good argument but i side with the Confederacy should rise again.

What exactly is the point of the South rising again? Another war where everyone who dies is American? Pushing blacks into servitude (slavery or sharecropping, its the same thing)? The South is the most beautiful area in the US. I was born in Miami and also lived in Montgomery, AL a while. It'd be a shame to see social regression in such nice places.

It is not illegal for a state to secede from the Union. It is actually legal. But to answer your question if i would think that the illegal cause was just then i would definatly fight and even die.


Anyway thanks for the response.I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
That was a hundred years ago. Today, if the south seceded, the feds would probably let them go. Unless you had a president that was power hungry.
A modern Confederacy would not have the same personality or characteristic as the old one.
The new one would have more blacks in national office than the USA would have, for one difference.

Umm...no.

If the feds did that, we wouldn't have a United States of America. We'd have like 20 nations running around like mad.

And I doubt you have a crystal ball you can look into....
the fact is they would let the south go. Cause no american wants to fight another civil war. People would refuse to fight. Even those in law enforcement and the military would now refuse orders to invade and reconquer the south.
Back in those days of the civil war, no one cared about human life or human suffering. People are lot more humane and compassionate these days. Hence more civilized.

Are you BLIND? We wouldn't fight another civil war? I laugh at that. We are more civilized? I laugh at that, although less. Military would REFUSE ORDERS? I spit at such an idea!

You clearly have NO CLUE about this
nO you are the one who has no clue. How many states have you been to besides your own. And how many politicians or soldiers do you actually know. Even the corporations would pull out of the US if there was a civil war. That would cause the feds to lose most of their money and resources.
Another civil war is not realistic.
If someone like you were to try to start another civil war over a state seceding, it is most likely you would be put in jail and your name would become like Hitler's.
The military can refuse unlawful orders.
It is more likely that there will be civil war over abortion than over secession.
Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know you knew politicians and soldiers! </sarcasm>

Of course another civil war is not realistic, at least...not in the near future.

The military can refuse unlawful orders...but then you got a whole court marshall procedure to deal with it. And is it unlawful to attack a rebel? The British didn't think so.
My dear sir, we are not the British. We are Americans.

I was reffering to the Revolutionary War.

http://www.creativecyberspace.com/greetingcards/thumbs/halfstaff.gif

I would not object to the South seceeding. They are typically politically and socially more conservitive, and those tendancies tend to drag this country down as a whole.

So let them suceed, and then let everyone who wants their morals dictated to them by the preacher man... and who want to leave their economy unguarded by the government to be uplifted and then torn apart by the invisible forces of the marketplace.... let them all move to that new nation. I am sure they would be happier.

Of course, I see several different cultural areas in the U.S., and I think that some of those areas would be more successful as their own nation.

Of course, others wouldn't... but hey....

I've skimmed the thread and will take a shot here and there, where it suits my fancy.

Someone said why would we want to leave so the North would crush us again? Need I remind you that the Confederates won the first three years of that war? They just ran short on supplies at the end and things turned South. Literally. *wonders if that is actually where that phrase comes from*

Second... Slavery was being phased out before the 1860's and had Lee's battle plans not been discovered by the Union, Lincoln would probably not have made teh Emancipation Proclomation. He did it to ensure international support for the US, incase something cataclysmic happened.

Next... The Feds would NOT let us go. We have too much of their really, really, expensive stuff. Hell, Virginia contains the only shipyard in America that is able to refit nuclear carriers and subs, is the home base of a huge chunk of the fleet, contains the most famous US cemetary... then you have the boot camp for Marines is South Carolina... hell... the only good theing the US would get out of the CSA rising again, is that half the US Disney's would be gone.

The US military would be in shambles as infighting of who wanted out, who wanted to stay, which ships would go with the CSA, which would stay... Hell... who needs Osama? We'll trash the nation ourselves!

Oh and... we'd end up kicking all the old Yankees out of Florida and probably attack Cuba to get their smokes and rid the Western Hemisphere of organized Communism.

Need I remind you that the Confederates won the first three years of that war? They just ran short on supplies at the end and things turned South. Literally. *wonders if that is actually where that phrase comes from*
They were halting the Union offensives, but not really winning as in sucessfully attacking the Union, capturing Washington DC, Philadelphia, or any other large city, and of course thats just in the East, not in the West.

The Confederacy was fighting a defensive war which meant they didnt have to capture or attack the Union. The assaults of Antietam and Gettysburg were just to get European support. The Confederacy kicked the Yankees ass in the first three years. But then Jackson died and the Confederates lost at Gettysburg and Vicksburg fell. Had Jackson not died the battle of Gettysburg would have been a Confederate victory and then Britain may have helped.

The Confederacy was fighting a defensive war which meant they didnt have to capture or attack the Union. The assaults of Antietam and Gettysburg were just to get European support. The Confederacy kicked the Yankees ass in the first three years. But then Jackson died and the Confederates lost at Gettysburg and Vicksburg fell. Had Jackson not died the battle of Gettysburg would have been a Confederate victory and then Britain may have helped.

Why would Britain, which hated slavery with a religious zeal, and had no real need to help the CSA (cotton was simply grown in the Empire, and they needed cheap American corn/wheat more) have helped?

You can't win a war by just defending for 5 years in a situation like this. It was clear that Lincoln and the rest weren't going to give up, so slowly losing your numbers instead of capturing something important and forcing a surrender wouldn't work. In the end, even if Jackson hadn't died, they still would have had the Missippi under complete Union control and the whole rest of the South besides Virginia being ravaged.

They were halting the Union offensives, but not really winning as in sucessfully attacking the Union, capturing Washington DC, Philadelphia, or any other large city, and of course thats just in the East, not in the West.Yes, but they isolated DC. The army was occupied with the Union to take it and besides, it wasn't really posing a huge threat, with the Maryland army part of the Army of Northern Virginia.

And the British DID help. Where do you think the 'official' CS rifle came from? I put that in quotes because most just used what they had, including gun made in the 1760s.

The Confederates were on the offensive for three years until Gettysburg. Then began the slow Southward turn. They probably would have ended up capturing DC and a few other cities and forcing that surrender had they had the supplies, but that's not what the South wanted. They didn't want to turn the US into the CS. They wanted to form their own nation and be left alone. That would have happened diplomaticly had Fort Sumpter not happened. I sooo want to kick that guy for ordering that.

But the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
If you look at the reasons in the DI for withdrawing from the British Empire (which is the same thing the South wished to do, except from the United States), you will find that many, most, are exactly the same things the South was complaining of before they seceded. Let me elaborate:
From the DI- “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” If you know anything about the Civil War period, you can easily see that one of the main reasons the South seceded was because of taxes. The tariffs, which would help the Northern merchants and ruin Southern planters, were being passed with no support from the South, and with the Northern-elected Republican Party coming into power, it can be guessed what they would support. Did you know that Fort Sumter was a tariff-collecting fort? Why do you think Lincoln fought so hard for it?
“The tariff, a tax on foreign imports, they said, stimulated manufacturing but did nothing for farming. It stimulated American industry – which was almost entirely a Northern undertaking – and ignored the agricultural parts of the nation. Said Thomas Cooper, the president of South Carolina College: ‘Is it worth our while to continue in this Union of States, where the North demands to be our masters and we are required to be their tributaries?’ This government policy, the South pointed out, had created an imbalance in the country. The North grew rich and prosperous, while the South was becoming impoverished” because of the high tariffs imposed on the South by the government. “This was unfair, they said, because the national government should pursue policies that benefited all the state equally.” (Goode, Stephen. The New Federalism: States Rights in American History. New York: Franklin Watts, 1983.)
Now, back to the DI: “He [King George] has excited domestic insurrections against us…”
Several Northerners (John Brown) attempted to provoke slave uprisings in the South.
The DI again: “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The North was trying to control the South without their consent. Period.
Plus the other points mentioned in my above post, which you somehow failed to reply to....

And their words also have no bearing on whether or not secession is legal. If their personal beliefs dictated the creation of the US, things would have been a lot different. You should know Alexander Hamilton's views towards democracy -- "Your people, sir, is a great beast." Talk is good, but in the end, it's what's written down that counts. So you better stick with the Constitution.
Ok....where's your defense against the Tenth Amendment? I believe I gave several reasons in the above post why the Constitution made secession legal. Did you fail to read that?

I think if the Civil War outcome proved anything, it's that whether or not you claim secession is legal, the federal government says it isn't--and they won.
So might makes right now? Well, I guess bullies taking nerds' lunch money must be right then...

History is written by the victors.
I tip my hat to you, sir.

The Slave Trade had been illegal since 1808 (meaning it was illegal to capture Africans and sell them here).
Here's little-known fact for ya- the Confederate Constitution outlawed the international slave trade. Yep, sounds like [racists to me...

You clearly have NO CLUE about this
So, if you lived in the North, and some faraway state seceded, you would go fight just to make this state stay in the Union when it clearly had no wish to do so? Sounds a LOT like the Soviet Union, you know it? Here's a little tidbit- When the Soviet Union was collapsing, and Mikhail Gorbachev indicated a willingness to use force to hold it together, he cited Abraham Lincoln as justification for his doing so, because it is EXACTLY what Lincoln did...
Clearly, YOU have no clue about it.

Pushing blacks into servitude (slavery or sharecropping, its the same thing)?
Ignorance++

Need I remind you that the Confederates won the first three years of that war?
Kicked ASS is what I'm talking about!

Oh and... we'd end up kicking all the old Yankees out of Florida and probably attack Cuba to get their smokes and rid the Western Hemisphere of organized Communism.
Hurrah, sir! Brilliant!

Why would Britain, which d slavery with a religious zeal, and had no real need to help the CSA (cotton was simply grown in the Empire, and they needed cheap American corn/wheat more) have helped?
Because they realized that Lincoln's War was a war of conquest and money and nothing more. True, they [hatedd slavery, but the wasn't about slavery. The British realized this... (need more info for this, just ask, I don't feel like typing a whole lot more right now).

Well, just my two (or three...) cents in this debate.
God Bless,
Jeff.

The Confederates had one big offensive before Gettysburg, which was Antietam, and that was a draw for the Confederates at best (and would have been a big loss had not someone's corps come in at exactly the right moment). Compare that to a greater number of Union offensives that usually failed due to commander incompetence, and it shows that it was the Union who was on the offensive for almost the entire war, beggining to end, except for occasional Southern offensives.

The official CS rifle might have come from Britain. But as the South was under a strict blockade and couldn't get any big trade going, it dosen't matter. The fact that most people used their own guns shows this. British support in that matter would have been sending enough guns to make a difference in the war, not blockade runners getting guns with their fortunes.

The Confederates had one big offensive before Gettysburg, which was Antietam, and that was a draw for the Confederates at best
Yeah, at best, seeing as how McClellan had twice as many men as Lee...
and would have been a big loss had not someone's corps come in at exactly the right moment
And would have been a big victory had some officer not lost SO. 191...

The fact is, whenever Lee had the resources to take the fight out of Virginia, he did it. You act like Lee had every opportunity to go and just decided to once or twice. You forget that it would lengthen his starving army's supply lines, which meant vulnerability to attack, and that he would have to stockpile food and [ammunition. Not to mention taking the fight to unknown country, where now the enemy knows more about the land than Lee did...

Because they realized that Lincoln's War was a war of conquest and money and nothing more. True, they [hatedd slavery, but the wasn't about slavery. The British realized this... (need more info for this, just ask, I don't feel like typing a whole lot more right now).
No, the war was about the South seceding from the Union for reasons directly linked to slavery. The question of expansion of slavery to the Western territories was perhaps the biggest part of it, and the Dred Scott decision was of no help, as it totally destroyed all or parts of most of the careful compromises Congress (particularly the Senate) had made. Helping the South would be helping the perpetuation of slavery and advancing slavery's interests.

Here's little-known fact for ya- the Confederate Constitution outlawed the international slave trade. Yep, sounds like [racists to me...
That dosen't mean that the law wouldn't have been ignored. Most countries had signed agreements with Britain outlawing the slave trade, including the USA and Spain, and multiple other countries. The first two are interesting because of the Amistad slave ship case, in which the Spanish showed their willingness to not enforce the treaty except to please Britain, which is likely what the CSA would have done.

No, the war was about the South seceding from the Union for reasons directly linked to slavery. The question of expansion of slavery to the Western territories was perhaps the biggest part of it, and the Dred Scott decision was of no help, as it totally destroyed all or parts of most of the careful compromises Congress (particularly the Senate) had made. Helping the South would be helping the perpetuation of slavery and advancing slavery's interests.
As I have pointed out earlier in the debate, even Lincoln realized secession was legal. He used the 'Secession is illegal' platform to justify his war against the South- if you say that Lincoln made the war to destroy slavery, I will call you ignorant, but I don't think that's what you're saying. True, the reason they seceded was directly linked to slavery, but it was also directly linked to taxation and avoiding sectional despotism and upholding states' rights....
That dosen't mean that the law wouldn't have been ignored. Most countries had signed agreements with Britain outlawing the slave trade, including the USA and Spain, and multiple other countries. The first two are interesting because of the Amistad slave ship case, in which the Spanish showed their willingness to not enforce the treaty except to please Britain, which is likely what the CSA would have done.
Are you not aware that the vast majority of slaving vessels came from New England? It has been said that not a single Southerner owned a ship that got slaves from Africa- a bit of a stretch, but the vast majority came from the New England ports like Boston and New York. Even if the law was ignored, it's not like millions of slaves would have been pouring into the South from Africa- maybe a couple hundred a year. Besides, most planters regarded 'Americanized' slaves to be of much more value, as they considered newly imported blacks from Africa lazy savages.

The Confederates had one big offensive before Gettysburg, which was Antietam, and that was a draw for the Confederates at best
Yeah, at best, seeing as how McClellan had twice as many men as Lee...
and would have been a big loss had not someone's corps come in at exactly the right moment
And would have been a big victory had some officer not lost SO. 191...
There might not have even been and Antietam if their officer hadn't lost the order. More likely it would have been another bloody stalemate somewhere else, like most of the battles turned out to be, with one side or the other withdrawing due to a lack of supplies.

The fact is, whenever Lee had the resources to take the fight out of Virginia, he did it. You act like Lee had every opportunity to go and just decided to once or twice. You forget that it would lengthen his starving army's supply lines, which meant vulnerability to attack, and that he would have to stockpile food and [ammunition. Not to mention taking the fight to unknown country, where now the enemy knows more about the land than Lee did...
If Lee's army was in such dire straits, the whole Civil War seems ilke an expanded version of the Germans in Russia after the Summer of 1942. By that time, they were fighting a losing war. And they were going to lose. Their supply lines were overstretched and the Soviets were pounding them night and day. You can hardly call it a victory. In order to be "kicking ass" or "winning" a war, you have to be able to do something. If the Southerners had too many supply problems to be effective in the war, then the Union was winning due to its blockade and takeover of the West.

There might not have even been and Antietam if their officer hadn't lost the order. More likely it would have been another y stalemate somewhere else, like most of the battles turned out to be, with one side or the other withdrawing due to a lack of supplies.
How can you say it would more than likely been a stalemate? With officers like the Confederacy had and that blundering idiot McClellan the commanding officer for the Army of the Potomac, it most likely would have been a little more than a stalemate. I mean, McClellan had Lee's plan that showed where his divisions were going, when they were going to be there, which were going to be isolated at what time... and, with such a numbers advantage over Lee, was still only able to get a stalemate.
If Lee's army was in such dire straits, the whole Civil War seems ilke an expanded version of the Germans in Russia after the Summer of 1942. By that time, they were fighting a losing war. And they were going to lose.
Hindsight is always 20/20. The Confederacy, as they saw it, had two major ways of winning the Civil War- kill as many Union boys as it took until the Peace movement took hold of the whole North (it was already strong when the war started, and just got stronger as Union defeats mounted, and casualty lists grew), or win a major victory in Northern territory so they could get foreign recognition. Lee tried to both these things, and came very near accomplishing one or the other several times during the war (the most notable of which would be Lincoln's narrow victory in the 1864 election over peace-minded McClellan). Lee, by invading the North, was trying to bring the war to a close until the Confederacy's shortages caught up to it, which they finally did in 1865.
Their supply lines were overstretched and the Soviets were pounding them night and day. You can hardly call it a victory. In order to be "kicking ass" or "winning" a war, you have to be able to do something. If the Southerners had too many supply problems to be effective in the war, then the Union was winning due to its blockade and takeover of the West.
You got the Soviet analogy right except for the 'pounding them night and day' part. In most of the major engagements, Lee pounded his opponent. Gettysburg was the only major loss for him in the entire war (it's kinda ironic, the battle he needed to win the most was the one he screwed up on the most...). Even in the battles of 1864, on a normal basis Grant took twice as many casualties as Lee (and, on one occasion, Grant took ten times as many- Cold Harbor). The bottom line is that Lee won the part of the war he was in charge of- it was forces outside of his control that brought the Confederacy to defeat.

Are you not aware that the vast majority of slaving vessels came from New England? It has been said that not a single Southerner owned a ship that got slaves from Africa- a bit of a stretch, but the vast majority came from the New England ports like Boston and New York. Even if the law was ignored, it's not like millions of slaves would have been pouring into the South from Africa- maybe a couple hundred a year. Besides, most planters regarded 'Americanized' slaves to be of much more value, as they considered newly imported blacks from Africa lazy savages.
Multiple slaving vessels did come from New England, because the North was the industrial powerhouse. A lot of the ships that transported cotton, tobacco, indigo, and whatever other crops the South made were from the North, too. Without that, the South would have simply made its own fleet. There wasn't at any time millions of slaves being shipped directly to Charleston or any other Southern portion of the USA. More than a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand each year, but thats all that was needed to perpetuate slavery, and without it the slave market would have much more unstable. Most planters also regarded slaves from Africa to be good buys, because relying on your own slaves to have babies (or, as it often was, the master getting them pregnant) meant that you had to spend at least a decade feeding, housing, and spending money on a kid that couldn't contribute any reasonable amount of labor.

As I have pointed out earlier in the debate, even Lincoln realized secession was legal. He used the 'Secession is illegal' platform to justify his war against the South- if you say that Lincoln made the war to destroy slavery, I will call you ignorant, but I don't think that's what you're saying. True, the reason they seceded was directly linked to slavery, but it was also directly linked to taxation and avoiding sectional despotism and upholding states' rights....
Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without destroying slavery, he would do it. And if he could do it while destroying slaver, he would do that. He only brought in moral crusade against slavery later in the war when the border states were firmly on one side or the other and that they realized it was going to be a protracted war. I think we both know that last part.

Its not like the North totally dominated the government. The only part I can think of that the North dominated was the House of Representatives, and even then a good portion of Northern reps were Democrats. The Senate was split 50/50 between the North and South, with the Democrats holding the advantage because, although the Southerners would never elect a Republican, Northerners, especially in the Midwest, would elect a Democrat. The South would, before the Republican party was created, elect Whigs, especially in places like Missouri or Tennessee, though, which would make things variable, but hardly Northern dominated.

In the 2nd branch, the Executive branch, was dominated by Southerners up until the time of Lincoln, and would have easily continued to be dominated by Southerners/Democrats if they had not foolishly split their own party into two, with a 3rd splinter (that was made of both former conservative Whigs and liberal Dems) in the Constitutional Union party. The Free Soil party was too one-issue to be elected, and the Republicans were the first 'serious' party to take an anti-slavery stance. They continually got less votes than the Dems. There was a whole stretch of Pro-South Presidents going all the way back to John Quincy Adams whose last year was in 1829, meaning 30 year domination for Pro-Southern, or at worst neutral, Presidents.

That led to a domination of the 3rd branch of government, the Judicial, by Southerners as well, as it just took the President nominating Southern judges to a usually friendly senate and getting confirmed.

To say that the Southerners were in some way disenfranchised by US Government system is silly. The only reason Lincoln got elected in the first place was because of their own bad politicla leadership.

Without that, the South would have simply made its own fleet.
You make it sound so simple! Even with Gov't funding, the South barely had the capabilities to make a fleet, much less without it! No, the international slave trade would have slowed to a crawl. By the time the CSA got the capabilities to build an illegal slave fleet, slavery would have been long ended.
Most planters also regarded slaves from Africa to be good buys, because relying on your own slaves to have babies (or, as it often was, the master getting them pregnant) meant that you had to spend at least a decade feeding, housing, and spending money on a kid that couldn't contribute any reasonable amount of labor.
Nope. Wish I had the book on Southern slave-master relations with me, but it's up at the library. I really don't have any information to give you, so go ahead and believe that if you wish. I know it's wrong though.
Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without destroying slavery, he would do it. And if he could do it while destroying slaver, he would do that.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.' Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress.
Its not like the North totally ted the government. The only part I can think of that the North ted was the House of Representatives, and even then a good portion of Northern reps were Democrats. The Senate was split 50/50 between the North and South, with the Democrats holding the advantage because, although the Southerners would never elect a Republican, Northerners, especially in the Midwest, would elect a Democrat. The South would, before the Republican party was created, elect Whigs, especially in places like Missouri or Tennessee, though, which would make things variable, but hardly Northern ted.
Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern states in 1860, and still won. This, coupled with the totally sectional tariffs that, even when all Southerners were against it (I believe it got 1 vote out of a few hundred in the South, but I don't have a source on that), was enough evidence that the North, if the South stayed in the Union, ruled the South's future. If Southerners wanted to control their own destiny, the only option was to secede.
In the 2nd branch, the Executive branch, was ted by Southerners up until the time of Lincoln, and would have easily continued to be ted by Southerners/Democrats if they had not foolishly split their own party into two, with a 3rd splinter (that was made of both former conservative Whigs and liberal Dems) in the Constitutional Union party. The Free Soil party was too one-issue to be elected, and the Republicans were the first 'serious' party to take an anti-slavery stance. They continually got less votes than the Dems. There was a whole stretch of Pro-South Presidents going all the way back to John Quincy Adams whose last year was in 1829, meaning 30 year tion for Pro-Southern, or at worst neutral, Presidents.
You'll not find much evidence at all of Southern [domination of the North in US history. All Southern Presidents had to be elected by the Northern Democrats too, so they naturally had to appease North and South if Democrats were going to stay in power. With the rise of the sectional Republican Party, who were unquestionably pro-North, it was time for the South to leave.
To say that the Southerners were in some way disenfranchised by US Government system is silly. The only reason Lincoln got elected in the first place was because of their own bad politicla leadership.
Explain to me, then, how Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the South and the tariffs passed with no Southern support?

How can you say it would more than likely been a stalemate? With officers like the Confederacy had and that blundering idiot McClellan the commanding officer for the Army of the Potomac, it most likely would have been a little more than a stalemate. I mean, McClellan had Lee's plan that showed where his divisions were going, when they were going to be there, which were going to be isolated at what time... and, with such a numbers advantage over Lee, was still only able to get a stalemate.
Its not like McClellan used Lee's plan to the full advantage. McClellan, in typical fashion, decided to act somewhat timidly, thinkint it could be a trap. Officers like Longstreet and Jackson were good, but they can't make more men and supplies magically appear. Getting involved in a tough, 2 or 3-day battle would drain the Army of N. Virginia far beyond acceptable amounts of men and material to continue the offensive, wherever the battle was fought. Thats why it would likely be a bloody stalemate, or perhaps a battle in the fashion of Shiloh.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The Confederacy, as they saw it, had two major ways of winning the Civil War- kill as many Union boys as it took until the Peace movement took hold of the whole North (it was already strong when the war started, and just got stronger as Union defeats mounted, and casualty lists grew), or win a major victory in Northern territory so they could get foreign recognition. Lee tried to both these things, and came very near accomplishing one or the other several times during the war (the most notable of which would be Lincoln's narrow victory in the 1864 election over peace-minded McClellan). Lee, by invading the North, was trying to bring the war to a close until the Confederacy's shortages caught up to it, which they finally did in 1865.
What narrow victory in 1864? The electoral votes, the most important part of any election, were won by Lincoln in a landslide 212-21 victory. The popular vote was obviously, as normal, much closer, but it was still a 10% victory for Lincoln, which is far from a narrow election.

You got the Soviet analogy right except for the 'pounding them night and day' part. In most of the major engagements, Lee ted his opponent. Gettysburg was the only major loss for him in the entire war (it's kinda ironic, the battle he needed to win the most was the one he screwed up on the most...). Even in the battles of 1864, on a normal basis Grant took twice as many casualties as Lee (and, on one occasion, Grant took ten times as many- Cold Harbor). The bottom line is that Lee won the part of the war he was in charge of- it was forces outside of his control that brought the Confederacy to defeat.
Grant realized that all he needed to do was launch a war of attrition and repeated attacks against the Confederates to win. Battles like the Wilderness or Spotsylvania may have had thousands more Union casualties than Confederate, but the goal of turning back the Union offensive, and thus Lee, failed.

You make it sound so simple! Even with Gov't funding, the South barely had the capabilities to make a fleet, much less without it! No, the international slave trade would have slowed to a crawl. By the time the CSA got the capabilities to build an illegal slave fleet, slavery would have been long ended.
The market would dictate it. Capabilities would have been made. Simply to advance from an agricultural backwater of a nation, the South would need to develop industrial capabilities. Until that happened, slavery wouldn't end, because it would remain profitable. Ships would have been made, likely in Virginia, and used in the rest of the Confederacy. As it industrialized, slavery would likely be phased out slowly even in Alabama and Mississippi, but until slavery would be phased out, there would still be a demand for fresh slaves. If Virginia outlawed slavery and became an industrial state in the CSA, its seems pretty reasonable to think that they would produce the ships in their harbors that the other states would use.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.' Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress.
He must have changed his position over the next 12 years, then. It happens all the time with politicians.

Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern states in 1860, and still won. This, coupled with the totally sectional tariffs that, even when all Southerners were against it (I believe it got 1 vote out of a few hundred in the South, but I don't have a source on that), was enough evidence that the North, if the South stayed in the Union, ruled the South's future. If Southerners wanted to control their own destiny, the only option was to secede.
If the Southerns wanted to control their own destiny, then they easily could have. Lincoln got just under 40% of the vote, Stephen Douglas and John Breckinridge together got more than that. If they wanted to control their own destiny, they could have, just like they had been for the past 30 decades, and for most of the time since the founding of the USA. They could have even controlled, for much of the time, the North's destiny as well.

You'll not find much evidence at all of Southern [domination of the North in US history. All Southern Presidents had to be elected by the Northern Democrats too, so they naturally had to appease North and South if Democrats were going to stay in power. With the rise of the sectional Republican Party, who were unquestionably pro-North, it was time for the South to leave.
Northern Democrats were hardly too far off from Southern interests. Appeasing conservative N. Democrats in places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and elsewhere didn't take much variance from a 100% Southern position. The Republican party was still powerless in everywhere except for maybe the House, as they were regularly getting under 40% in Presidential elections.

Explain to me, then, how Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the South and the tariffs passed with no Southern support?
Because, the Southern leadership either didn't think or was too divided. They could have easily won had they not split the party in the convention.

Its not like McClellan used Lee's plan to the full advantage. McClellan, in typical fashion, decided to act somewhat timidly, thinkint it could be a trap.
You're missing my point, along with reinforcing it. If McClellan fought a stalemate with Lee's full orders, how would he have done without them? More timid, more cautious, more chance of major defeat. My point is that Antietam was by no means a sure stalemate or Confederate defeat with McClellan in charge.
Getting involved in a tough, 2 or 3-day battle would drain the Army of N. Virginia far beyond acceptable amounts of men and material to continue the offensive, wherever the battle was fought. Thats why it would likely be a y stalemate, or perhaps a battle in the fashion of Shiloh.
Look at Gettysburg. It was still very possible for Lee to win on day 3, if he had opted to go around the flank with Longstreet. He could have isolated the Army of the Potomac from Washington, or at the very least got them off those blasted hills. And this was Lee without Jackson, and with a much more competent Union commander, not to mention in Union territory.
What narrow victory in 1864? The electoral votes, the most important part of any election, were won by Lincoln in a landslide 212-21 victory. The popular vote was obviously, as normal, much closer, but it was still a 10% victory for Lincoln, which is far from a narrow election.
McClellan got 45% of the popular vote. This shows that 45% of the people of the North were against Lincoln, against the war, for peace. Now, without the critical victories, like Atlanta, before the election, Lincoln's election would have been much closer, and he had a very good chance of losing. I mean, 45% of the people were against the war! I would guess that Lee and the Confederacy, if not victorious in the end, came very close to winning in this respect.
Grant realized that all he needed to do was launch a war of attrition and repeated attacks against the Confederates to win. Battles like the Wilderness or Spotsylvania may have had thousands more Union casualties than Confederate, but the goal of turning back the Union offensive, and thus Lee, failed.
True, true. Grant's strategy was the only one that was gonna win the North the war, and he pulled it off brilliantly. But my point is that it was not Lee's fault. Forces outside of his control (lack of men and supplies) was what got him to defeat. He did his part of the job very well. Lee did not fail by any means. The mistakes of others, along with the manpower shortage in the South, was the only thing that kept him from victory.

The market would dictate it. Capabilities would have been made. Simply to advance from an agricultural backwater of a nation, the South would need to develop industrial capabilities. Until that happened, slavery wouldn't end, because it would remain profitable. Ships would have been made, likely in Virginia, and used in the rest of the Confederacy. As it industrialized, slavery would likely be phased out slowly even in Alabama and Mississippi, but until slavery would be phased out, there would still be a demand for fresh slaves. If Virginia outlawed slavery and became an industrial state in the CSA, its seems pretty reasonable to think that they would produce the ships in their harbors that the other states would use.
If there was such a great demand, why did Confederate leaders, the vast majority of which were slaveowners, create and ratify a Constitution that outlawed the import of these fresh slaves?

He must have changed his position over the next 12 years, then. It happens all the time with politicians.
It seems, especially with Lincoln, that he changes his position many times to suit what he may be doing at the moment. And some people think he's our greatest President. Ugh.

If the Southerns wanted to control their own destiny, then they easily could have. Lincoln got just under 40% of the vote, Stephen Douglas and John Breckinridge together got more than that. If they wanted to control their own destiny, they could have, just like they had been for the past 30 decades, and for most of the time since the founding of the USA. They could have even controlled, for much of the time, the North's destiny as well.
The rift in the Democratic Party between Northerners and Southerners was the only thing that prevented Democratic victory, true, but the South couldn't control that. Since even the Northern Democrats weren't supporting the Southern ones anymore, it was just another reason to leave. And there is no way they could have controlled the North's destiny. If this was the case, why didn't they stop the tariffs?
Northern Democrats were hardly too far off from Southern interests. Appeasing conservative N. Democrats in places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and elsewhere didn't take much variance from a 100% Southern position. The Republican party was still powerless in everywhere except for maybe the House, as they were regularly getting under 40% in Presidential elections.
All you're doing is reinforcing my points, do you not see? The Republican Party, which was solely a Northern Party, was capable of electing itself without support from the rest of the country. You said yourself that the only reason the Democrats didn't win is because it tore itself in two. The Northern Democrats went one way, the Southerners the other. The Southerners were clearly on their own.
Because, the Southern leadership either didn't think or was too divided. They could have easily won had they not split the party in the convention.
Didn't think? Too divided? Did you even read what I said? They didn't split the party, it was the Northerners that walked out, and got their own candidate. The South was a solid as can be expected. They formed together to do everything in their power to defeat Lincoln (this is shown by the not allowing Lincoln to even be on the ballot), and couldn't do it solely because of the power of the North. Period.

ok im too impatient to read to the end of this forum to post a reply, beside with the server that could take half an hour

not even taiwan pretends that taiwan is the legit govt of china anymore. now all they want is to be considered to be taiwan and NOT a province of mainland china. this is so upsetting to the mainland that they consider it as potential grounds for war.

what would a new csa look like? obviously no one wants slavery back, you wouldnt get any volunteers anyway. no one wants to run a cotton plantation, thats a quick road to bankruptcy these days. y'all are full of yankees *shudder* and what about FLORIDA??? thats just a northern state stuck down at the bottom of the country

You're missing my point, along with reinforcing it. If McClellan fought a stalemate with Lee's full orders, how would he have done without them? More timid, more cautious, more chance of major defeat. My point is that Antietam was by no means a sure stalemate or Confederate defeat with McClellan in charge.
It was barely a stalemate, almost a massive defeat for the Confederacy. Without the orders, it would have been somewhere else on another time in another place. Grant won spectacular victories in the West casualty wise, and in the East he continually lost thousands more than the opponent. It would have likely been a stalemate, I say, because thats what happened with most of the battles in the Civil War - even if the South inflicted more casualties, they withdrew from the field due to supplies, or even if the North took the field, they couldn't advance due to massive disorganization.

Look at Gettysburg. It was still very possible for Lee to win on day 3, if he had opted to go around the flank with Longstreet. He could have isolated the Army of the Potomac from Washington, or at the very least got them off those blasted hills. And this was Lee without Jackson, and with a much more competent Union commander, not to mention in Union territory.
Its unlikely that Lee could have won on day three. The Confederacy was only winning on day one, with day two a draw at best. Lee was running out of soldiers, guns, and supplies to deal with a more drawn-out battle, going into a fourth or even fifth day. The Union position in these things was, as usual better, however, they weren't exactly in the best of positions either. Is it possible the South could have won Gettysburg? Yes, but it would have been an extremely pyrrhic victory.

McClellan got 45% of the popular vote. This shows that 45% of the people of the North were against Lincoln, against the war, for peace. Now, without the critical victories, like Atlanta, before the election, Lincoln's election would have been much closer, and he had a very good chance of losing. I mean, 45% of the people were against the war! I would guess that Lee and the Confederacy, if not victorious in the end, came very close to winning in this respect.
It very well may have been. Victories like those in Atlanta were unlikely to have been reversed, seeing as they were in the Western theatre. Victories that happened in the East are a different story.

True, true. Grant's strategy was the only one that was gonna win the North the war, and he pulled it off brilliantly. But my point is that it was not Lee's fault. Forces outside of his control (lack of men and supplies) was what got him to defeat. He did his part of the job very well. Lee did not fail by any means. The mistakes of others, along with the manpower shortage in the South, was the only thing that kept him from victory.
Well, its debateable, because the Southern record on offense was marginal throughout the war. Its certainly a possibility had the circumstances been different, but they weren't.

If there was such a great demand, why did Confederate leaders, the vast majority of which were slaveowners, create and ratify a Constitution that outlawed the import of these fresh slaves?

To please the British. Britian, easily the most powerful country in the world, signed treaties like that with many countries all over the world. Countries like Spain signed them and flouted them.

The rest of the our debates comes down to one point, whether secession is legal or not, which can be debated endlessly. We agree that the Republicans won because the Democrats split themselves, and that because the Southern Democrats couldn't win on their own, the South couldn't determine their own destiny. Was then the South justified in seceding? Well, thats what it comes down to... :?

It was barely a stalemate, almost a massive defeat for the Confederacy.
It could have been, but thanks to McClellan, it wasn't. It was a clear-cut stalemate.
Without the orders, it would have been somewhere else on another time in another place.
Not if Lee had won. It would have been a giant step towards foreign recognition, not to mention opening the road to Washington itself.
It would have likely been a stalemate, I say, because thats what happened with most of the battles in the Civil War - even if the South inflicted more casualties, they withdrew from the field due to supplies, or even if the North took the field, they couldn't advance due to massive disorganization.
Yes, yes, that's all true, except with Lee- you can barely call First and Second Manassas, or Fredericksburg, or Chancellorsville stalemates (especially in the eyes of Europeans). If anyone was going to win a major victory in the North, it was Lee. But after Gettysburg (which you could call a stalemate), it is true even with Lee that most battles were stalemates.
Its unlikely that Lee could have won on day three. The Confederacy was only winning on day one, with day two a draw at best. Lee was running out of soldiers, guns, and supplies to deal with a more drawn-out battle, going into a fourth or even fifth day.
Yes, yes, true- but imagine this scenario. On day 3 of Gettysburg, Lee opts to go around the Union left flank, and slip past the Round Tops, like what Longstreet wanted to do. This would probably not have provoked a battle, it was just a maneuver. Now, the Union had two choices once Lee did this- either stay on the hills and let Lee get between them and Washington, or move off the hills and try to keep defending Washington. Either way, Lee gets some sort of advantage. Either Meade is no longer in that very strong position at Gettysburg, and Lee can force another battle another time, or if Meade stays on the hills and allows Lee to get between Meade and Washington, Meade must come down anyway and try to fight their way through Lee to get back to Washington. In the latter situation, AONV is fighting a defensive battle, like those it proved so adept at in Virginia, and in both situations Lee gets a chance to have a breather and get some supplies. The reason Lee wanted to do Pickett's Charge instead was that it had a better chance of routing the whole Union army, and giving Lee an easy road to Washington. If Lee had gone with the other option, victory was not only possible, it was highly likely.
It very well may have been. Victories like those in Atlanta were unlikely to have been reversed, seeing as they were in the Western theatre. Victories that happened in the East are a different story.
True, true.
Well, its debateable, because the Southern record on offense was marginal throughout the war. Its certainly a possibility had the circumstances been different, but they weren't.
Again, true. But under the circumstances, Lee used the best strategy for the South. It didn't work in the end, but he had no idea how it was going to turn out. Remember, hindsight is 20/20.
To please the British. Britian, easily the most powerful country in the world, signed treaties like that with many countries all over the world. Countries like Spain signed them and flouted them.
Possibly, possibly. But, you understand, Britain had ships all over the Atlantic looking for slavers, so if the Confederacy didn't obey this, they were either going to back down or go to war with Britain over slavery.
The rest of the our debates comes down to one point, whether secession is legal or not, which can be debated endlessly. We agree that the Republicans won because the Democrats split themselves, and that because the Southern Democrats couldn't win on their own, the South couldn't determine their own destiny. Was then the South justified in seceding? Well, thats what it comes down to...
According to the Declaration of Independence, I believe so. If I may, I'll quote it one more time: “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government… that shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
So, there you go.

Listen- I know that these debates can get pretty heated, and I apologize if I came over as a little too ticked off. I appreciate you discussing this intriguing period of our history with me, and it is readily apparent that you are very knowledgable about the Civil War period. You seem like a good guy. If, after this debate ends, you ever feel like discussing the Civil War with me, feel free to drop me a telegram, and I'd be happy to talk.

Yes, yes, that's all true, except with Lee- you can barely call First and Second Manassas, or Fredericksburg, or Chancellorsville stalemates (especially in the eyes of Europeans). If anyone was going to win a major victory in the North, it was Lee. But after Gettysburg (which you could call a stalemate), it is true even with Lee that most battles were stalemates.

Sure I can. Take the 1st Manassas/Bull Run for example. The Union was routed, but the Confederacy couldn't do anything with it, because they were far to disorganized. It was a defeat for the Union on the field (as many of the battles became) but in the overall strategic sense it was a stalemate, as neither side was able to develop anything afterwards. If your talking about the tactical battle-by-battle basis, then yes the Confederates won over and over in these battles. On the grander scheme, it was a stalemate. The situations at Gettysberg are endless. If the Union sees the Confederates moving onto the hills, do they attack them trying to drive them back? Do they launch a huge attack on the flank of the Confederates? I'll agree that there certainly are ways that the Confederates could have won. Longstreet's plan is probably the most agreed upon by historians as the one that gives the Confederates the most hope.

Secession is a tricky issue. It is neither explicitly denied nor agreed upon by the Constitution. Many of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison if they were President at the time, would have agreed with the Confederates, while others like Washington or Adams wouldn't have. Everything was twisted, Andrew Jackson, a staunch Southern supporter, sternly put down South Carolina's attempt to nullify laws and perhaps even secede, while James Buchanon, from Pennsylvania, might not have. Tough, tough legal debates, and the fact is secession is sort of a legal gray area that can't be decisively decided in one way or the other. The founding fathers wrote about how all men are created equal and then had slaves on their plantations.

can it be done? could it have been done? are there ways that history could have changed?

the quesiton was WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE DONE?

id need a benefits analysis before i could decide, i see no upsides to secession

Sure I can. Take the 1st Manassas/Bull Run for example. The Union was routed, but the Confederacy couldn't do anything with it, because they were far to disorganized. It was a defeat for the Union on the field (as many of the battles became) but in the overall strategic sense it was a stalemate, as neither side was able to develop anything afterwards. If your talking about the tactical battle-by-battle basis, then yes the Confederates won over and over in these battles. On the grander scheme, it was a stalemate.
Oh, ok, I see what you're saying now. Yes, you are correct there. But it wasn't exactly a stalemate, as with every CSA victory the North became a little more discouraged. The Confederates almost, almost had enough to push the North over, but almost don't count cept with horseshoes and hand-grenades. But yeah, you're correct there. It was the CSA's only option, though.
Secession is a tricky issue. It is neither explicitly denied nor agreed upon by the Constitution. Many of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison if they were President at the time, would have agreed with the Confederates, while others like Washington or Adams wouldn't have. Everything was twisted, Andrew Jackson, a staunch Southern supporter, sternly put down South Carolina's attempt to nullify laws and perhaps even secede, while James Buchanon, from Pennsylvania, might not have. Tough, tough legal debates, and the fact is secession is sort of a legal gray area that can't be decisively decided in one way or the other. The founding fathers wrote about how all men are created equal and then had slaves on their plantations.
And that, my friend, is why no one ever really wins Civil War debates of this type, and why I find this period of history so intriguing. There's just heaps of facts that support both sides, it's almost impossible to sort out who was right. I, of course, believe the Confederacy was right, though someone else may come to a different conclusion based on the same information. And that's another thing I find facinating.
Well, it seems this little debate has come to an end. It was great talking to you, stay in touch, don't be a stranger and all that.
Now, Rebel CSA, that we have dragged your thread off topic enough, we'll let you get back to your thing.

Because they realized that Lincoln's War was a war of conquest and money and nothing more. True, they [hatedd slavery, but the wasn't about slavery. The British realized this... (need more info for this, just ask, I don't feel like typing a whole lot more right now).
No, the war was about the South seceding from the Union for reasons directly linked to slavery. The question of expansion of slavery to the Western territories was perhaps the biggest part of it, and the Dred Scott decision was of no help, as it totally destroyed all or parts of most of the careful compromises Congress (particularly the Senate) had made. Helping the South would be helping the perpetuation of slavery and advancing slavery's interests.

Here's little-known fact for ya- the Confederate Constitution outlawed the international slave trade. Yep, sounds like [racists to me...
That dosen't mean that the law wouldn't have been ignored. Most countries had signed agreements with Britain outlawing the slave trade, including the USA and Spain, and multiple other countries. The first two are interesting because of the Amistad slave ship case, in which the Spanish showed their willingness to not enforce the treaty except to please Britain, which is likely what the CSA would have done.
No. The civil war never about slavery. It was about expanding federal powers and restricting constitutional freedoms. The world is in agreement that Abe Lincoln was a brutal dictator on par with Hitler and Stalin.
You may not know this, but he did have people killed just for writing newspaper articles criticising him. Nor did he believe that blacks and whites were equals. He didn't believe in free speech or free religion. Or any of the other rights in the bill of rights.
To him, freeing the slaves was a good way to take strategic resources from the south. He didn't give a hoot about their humanity.

Are you not aware that the vast majority of slaving vessels came from New England? It has been said that not a single Southerner owned a ship that got slaves from Africa- a bit of a stretch, but the vast majority came from the New England ports like Boston and New York. Even if the law was ignored, it's not like millions of slaves would have been pouring into the South from Africa- maybe a couple hundred a year. Besides, most planters regarded 'Americanized' slaves to be of much more value, as they considered newly imported blacks from Africa lazy savages.
Multiple slaving vessels did come from New England, because the North was the industrial powerhouse. A lot of the ships that transported cotton, tobacco, indigo, and whatever other crops the South made were from the North, too. Without that, the South would have simply made its own fleet. There wasn't at any time millions of slaves being shipped directly to Charleston or any other Southern portion of the USA. More than a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand each year, but thats all that was needed to perpetuate slavery, and without it the slave market would have much more unstable. Most planters also regarded slaves from Africa to be good buys, because relying on your own slaves to have babies (or, as it often was, the master getting them pregnant) meant that you had to spend at least a decade feeding, housing, and spending money on a kid that couldn't contribute any reasonable amount of labor.

As I have pointed out earlier in the debate, even Lincoln realized secession was legal. He used the 'Secession is illegal' platform to justify his war against the South- if you say that Lincoln made the war to destroy slavery, I will call you ignorant, but I don't think that's what you're saying. True, the reason they seceded was directly linked to slavery, but it was also directly linked to taxation and avoiding sectional despotism and upholding states' rights....
Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without destroying slavery, he would do it. And if he could do it while destroying slaver, he would do that. He only brought in moral crusade against slavery later in the war when the border states were firmly on one side or the other and that they realized it was going to be a protracted war. I think we both know that last part.

Its not like the North totally dominated the government. The only part I can think of that the North dominated was the House of Representatives, and even then a good portion of Northern reps were Democrats. The Senate was split 50/50 between the North and South, with the Democrats holding the advantage because, although the Southerners would never elect a Republican, Northerners, especially in the Midwest, would elect a Democrat. The South would, before the Republican party was created, elect Whigs, especially in places like Missouri or Tennessee, though, which would make things variable, but hardly Northern dominated.

In the 2nd branch, the Executive branch, was dominated by Southerners up until the time of Lincoln, and would have easily continued to be dominated by Southerners/Democrats if they had not foolishly split their own party into two, with a 3rd splinter (that was made of both former conservative Whigs and liberal Dems) in the Constitutional Union party. The Free Soil party was too one-issue to be elected, and the Republicans were the first 'serious' party to take an anti-slavery stance. They continually got less votes than the Dems. There was a whole stretch of Pro-South Presidents going all the way back to John Quincy Adams whose last year was in 1829, meaning 30 year domination for Pro-Southern, or at worst neutral, Presidents.

That led to a domination of the 3rd branch of government, the Judicial, by Southerners as well, as it just took the President nominating Southern judges to a usually friendly senate and getting confirmed.

To say that the Southerners were in some way disenfranchised by US Government system is silly. The only reason Lincoln got elected in the first place was because of their own bad politicla leadership.
You forget that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both from the south as well. So was John Adams Sr.

Are you not aware that the vast majority of slaving vessels came from New England? It has been said that not a single Southerner owned a ship that got slaves from Africa- a bit of a stretch, but the vast majority came from the New England ports like Boston and New York. Even if the law was ignored, it's not like millions of slaves would have been pouring into the South from Africa- maybe a couple hundred a year. Besides, most planters regarded 'Americanized' slaves to be of much more value, as they considered newly imported blacks from Africa lazy savages.
Multiple slaving vessels did come from New England, because the North was the industrial powerhouse. A lot of the ships that transported cotton, tobacco, indigo, and whatever other crops the South made were from the North, too. Without that, the South would have simply made its own fleet. There wasn't at any time millions of slaves being shipped directly to Charleston or any other Southern portion of the USA. More than a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand each year, but thats all that was needed to perpetuate slavery, and without it the slave market would have much more unstable. Most planters also regarded slaves from Africa to be good buys, because relying on your own slaves to have babies (or, as it often was, the master getting them pregnant) meant that you had to spend at least a decade feeding, housing, and spending money on a kid that couldn't contribute any reasonable amount of labor.

As I have pointed out earlier in the debate, even Lincoln realized secession was legal. He used the 'Secession is illegal' platform to justify his war against the South- if you say that Lincoln made the war to destroy slavery, I will call you ignorant, but I don't think that's what you're saying. True, the reason they seceded was directly linked to slavery, but it was also directly linked to taxation and avoiding sectional despotism and upholding states' rights....
Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without destroying slavery, he would do it. And if he could do it while destroying slaver, he would do that. He only brought in moral crusade against slavery later in the war when the border states were firmly on one side or the other and that they realized it was going to be a protracted war. I think we both know that last part.

Its not like the North totally dominated the government. The only part I can think of that the North dominated was the House of Representatives, and even then a good portion of Northern reps were Democrats. The Senate was split 50/50 between the North and South, with the Democrats holding the advantage because, although the Southerners would never elect a Republican, Northerners, especially in the Midwest, would elect a Democrat. The South would, before the Republican party was created, elect Whigs, especially in places like Missouri or Tennessee, though, which would make things variable, but hardly Northern dominated.

In the 2nd branch, the Executive branch, was dominated by Southerners up until the time of Lincoln, and would have easily continued to be dominated by Southerners/Democrats if they had not foolishly split their own party into two, with a 3rd splinter (that was made of both former conservative Whigs and liberal Dems) in the Constitutional Union party. The Free Soil party was too one-issue to be elected, and the Republicans were the first 'serious' party to take an anti-slavery stance. They continually got less votes than the Dems. There was a whole stretch of Pro-South Presidents going all the way back to John Quincy Adams whose last year was in 1829, meaning 30 year domination for Pro-Southern, or at worst neutral, Presidents.

That led to a domination of the 3rd branch of government, the Judicial, by Southerners as well, as it just took the President nominating Southern judges to a usually friendly senate and getting confirmed.

To say that the Southerners were in some way disenfranchised by US Government system is silly. The only reason Lincoln got elected in the first place was because of their own bad politicla leadership.
You forget that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both from the south as well. So was John Adams Sr.

You may not know this, but he did have people killed just for writing newspaper articles criticising him.
To my knowledge, he never had anyone killed, but he did imprison something like 10,000 people because they criticized the war. Everything else you said was true. He was a real tyrant.

Oh and... we'd end up kicking all the old Yankees out of Florida...

So you'd round up property owners who have been living there peacefully for years, paying their taxes (city and state as well as Federal) and obeying the law, dispossess them, and send them packing?

Nice.

Oh and... we'd end up kicking all the old Yankees out of Florida...

So you'd round up property owners who have been living there peacefully for years, paying their taxes (city and state as well as Federal) and obeying the law, dispossess them, and send them packing?

Nice.
Good to see you that you knew he was serious and all.

Nice.

You forget that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both from the south as well. So was John Adams Sr.
So? George Washington showed his willingness to put down rebellions many times during his term, for example Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Both had used logic similar to the Confederates. John Adams Sr. was a staunch federalist and his tolerance of dissention was fairly well shown by the Alien and, more to the point, Seditions acts. Thomas Jefferson, as I said in another post somewhere in this thread, likely would have sided with the Confederates.

No. The civil war never about slavery. It was about expanding federal powers and restricting constitutional freedoms. The world is in agreement that Abe Lincoln was a brutal dictator on par with Hitler and Stalin.
Do you have any more trolling to do? Comparing the elected leader to two of the most brutal dictators ever on the face of the earth? Were freedoms curtailed during the war? Yes. They were during most wars, until maybe Korea in which things became open. Woodrow Wilson imprisoned a journalist for being against WW1, and of course the Japanese internment camps speak for themselves in WW2. Both FDR and Wilson are far cris from Hitler and Stalin, though.

You may not know this, but he did have people killed just for writing newspaper articles criticising him. Nor did he believe that blacks and whites were equals. He didn't believe in free speech or free religion. Or any of the other rights in the bill of rights.
To him, freeing the slaves was a good way to take strategic resources from the south. He didn't give a hoot about their humanity.
Lincoln had nothing against the South. He was far more Pro-Southern than any of the Radical Republicans or most of the reconstruction presidents. He believed in reconciliation, not punishment. Of course, he was assassinated before we could see what he actually did, but from what he said at the time, we have an idea of what he would have done. To say that he didn't believe in any of the rights, though, is false again. He simply believed that the need to win the war superceeded these rights. Was he correct? Its up to debate.

Lincoln had nothing against the South. He was far more Pro-Southern than any of the Radical Republicans or most of the reconstruction presidents. He believed in reconciliation, not punishment. Of course, he was assassinated before we could see what he actually did, but from what he said at the time, we have an idea of what he would have done. To say that he didn't believe in any of the rights, though, is false again. He simply believed that the need to win the war superceeded these rights. Was he correct? Its up to debate.
I agree with everything Kwangistar said, and I have something to add here: if Lincoln had lived into Reconstruction, the South probably would have had a much better time of it. Lincoln knew what to do to patch up the differences, unlike the Radicals who severely mishandled Reconstruction and left scars that can be seen today. John Wilkes Booth should be the enemy of Southerners everywhere.
True, Lincoln was a tyrant during the war, but he had a chance to redeem himself during Reconstruction. And he would have, given the chance.

This is meant for General...

and hell no, no one in their right minds want the Confederacy to rise again. I doubt Southern politicians would want that even.

Besides, I think it's illegal now for you to secede from the Union. Willing to fight a war due to illegal actions?

Some states might have prohibitions on leaving the nation, but as far as I know, Virginia doesn't, and New Hampshire don't. NH even has in their State Constitution the "right to revolution" which is pretty bold.

Economically, Socially and in many other ways it would be stupid to leave America unless something drastic happened, legally many states could leave, but some of the states out West (Utah comes to mind) have specific clauses in their State Const. forbidding leaving the Union. Texas I think still has a section on leaving the States if it wanted to.

We here in the South don't have to seceed, since many of the people in the Blue states have been moving to the South and West out of the North East Blue area. Instead of leaving America the best thing would be to work within the framework of America: lower taxes, get gov't out of our lives as much as possible, in other words, be like Nevada, or New Hampshire in terms of thinking. Let the sheep in NY, NJ and California wither away in a more restrictive government, while the rest of us have it easier.

why do you want the CSA to rise again? so the north can crush you...again?
and my answer is "no", one civil war is enough. CSA you unfortunately personify a stereotype and put the south to shame. Your inability to let go of a war that you lost and that ended over 100 years ago is childish.

This was a question, not a sweeping generalisation. As a Virginian in real life, I admire the government of the CSA, not the slavery aspect (which the North also had slaves, and had them after the CSA was disbanded, might I add.), I like their idea of smaller government, not a sweeping Federal level government that regulates nearly all things between private parties. If you don't believe me, think of three things that any level of government does not tax or regulate (as in make illegal, or legal).


People study the American War for Indepence, World War One and Two, would they be "childish" in your mind also, since they can't get a battle out of their minds? If a person wishes that things were different, that's his own perogative, if that same person takes up arms against his neighbor for his beliefs, then he's crossed the line from thoughts to actions.

-Free Virginia

You forget that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both from the south as well. So was John Adams Sr.
So? George Washington showed his willingness to put down rebellions many times during his term, for example Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Both had used logic similar to the Confederates. John Adams Sr. was a staunch federalist and his tolerance of dissention was fairly well shown by the Alien and, more to the point, Seditions acts. Thomas Jefferson, as I said in another post somewhere in this thread, likely would have sided with the Confederates.

No. The civil war never about slavery. It was about expanding federal powers and restricting constitutional freedoms. The world is in agreement that Abe Lincoln was a brutal dictator on par with Hitler and Stalin.
Do you have any more trolling to do? Comparing the elected leader to two of the most brutal dictators ever on the face of the earth? Were freedoms curtailed during the war? Yes. They were during most wars, until maybe Korea in which things became open. Woodrow Wilson imprisoned a journalist for being against WW1, and of course the Japanese internment camps speak for themselves in WW2. Both FDR and Wilson are far cris from Hitler and Stalin, though.

You may not know this, but he did have people killed just for writing newspaper articles criticising him. Nor did he believe that blacks and whites were equals. He didn't believe in free speech or free religion. Or any of the other rights in the bill of rights.
To him, freeing the slaves was a good way to take strategic resources from the south. He didn't give a hoot about their humanity.
Lincoln had nothing against the South. He was far more Pro-Southern than any of the Radical Republicans or most of the reconstruction presidents. He believed in reconciliation, not punishment. Of course, he was assassinated before we could see what he actually did, but from what he said at the time, we have an idea of what he would have done. To say that he didn't believe in any of the rights, though, is false again. He simply believed that the need to win the war superceeded these rights. Was he correct? Its up to debate.
1. I agree with your first point.
2. I say something you don't agree with and you call it trolling? People who can't back their arguments often resort to name calling. It is unfortunate that you do that here. The whole world is in agreement and historical documents show that Lincoln was a ruthless dictator. Yes he was as evil as Hitler and Saddam Hussien. Just becuase he was elected does not mean he wasn't a ruthless dictator. Winning popularity contests does not make one a good leader. There have been several nonelected national leaders thoughout human history whose humanitarian policies would put America's presidents to shame.
3. This is not about if he like the south or not. Its about him being a power hungry maniac. And that is why he was like Hitler. He even supported genocide against the indians.

WTF is this stupid ass shit? The Civil War ended 140 years ago! Get over it, it's been decided. The CSA is never going to rise again, so put your energies into something productive.