NationStates Jolt Archive

The confederacy

The confederacy

Why?


I'd be fighting for the North, if simply because that's where I lived so that's where I'd get conscripted. And I like their ideology- y'know, what with slavery vs no slavery.

Why?


I'd be fighting for the North, if simply because that's where I lived so that's where I'd get conscripted. And I like their ideology- y'know, what with slavery vs no slavery.


That's not the reason, so please apologize. I don't like being accused of supporting things like that. I just don't think I could stomach fighting for that warmonger tyrant Lincoln. Plus, one of my heroes, Robert E. Lee (who opposed slavery, mind you) led the Confederate army.

Okay, here- I'm sorry. You need to be clear, especially when the Confederacy is the practical symbol of slavery. It's like supporting the Soviet Union but not Communism and then being outraged when one calls you a Commie.

But if you're going to support the Confederacy, you do realize that's one of the main points of the civil war? That the confederacy was for the continuation of slavery?

Warmongering Tyrant? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part before where the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter. Did the Union attack the nonexistant confederacy before Sumter?

I'd be one of the people smuggling slaves into Canada. :D

Neither, but as European i'd be making and selling weapons and ammo to the South :D

Okay, herere- I'm sorry. You need to be clear, especially when the Confederacy is the practical symbol of slavery. It's like supporting the Soviet Union but not Communism and then being outraged when one calls you a Commie.

But if you're going to support the Confederacy, you do realize that's one of the main points of the civil war? That the confederacy was for the continuation of slavery?

Warmongering Tyrant? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part before where the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter. Did the Union attack the nonexistant confederacy before Sumter?

Dude, it's cool. Don't worry about it. Apology accepted. As for warmongering tyrant, you're better off asking another NS player. Many of them are far wiser men/women than I.

For me the issue was easy....the Cherokee Nation had entered into a treaty with the Confederacy that upon defeat of the Union, the State of Tennessee would be returned to the Cherokee and granted sovereign nation status, a dream held since the Cherokee were forcibly removed from that region by President Andrew Jackson 30 yrs previously. Chief Stand Watie became Confederate General Stand Watie and lead 3 Regiments of Lite Calvary against the Union, and was in actuality the last Confederate General to surrender to Union forces.

hrmn yeah, um, pretty simple. I don't hate black people, I hate close minded pricks, so I guess I'd be shootin me some rebels.

hrmn yeah, um, pretty simple. I don't hate black people, I hate close minded pricks, so I guess I'd be shootin me some rebels.
Agreed.

I'd like to hear this about Lincoln being a 'warmongering tyrant'. I seem to remember the rebels firing the first shot in the war.

Agreed.

I'd like to hear this about Lincoln being a 'warmongering tyrant'.

Again, there are many NS players far wiser and more knowledgeable about the subject than I.

Agreed.

I'd like to hear this about Lincoln being a 'warmongering tyrant'. I seem to remember the rebels firing the first shot in the war.

he was a tyrant, he did suspend people's civil rights, but definetly not a warmonger. Besides, he was a republican, I thought you southerners loved your 'publicans.
;)

he was a tyrant, he did suspend people's civil rights, but definetly not a warmonger. Besides, he was a republican, I thought you southerners loved your 'publicans.
;)
Oh, he suspended rights temporarily in areas that were rioting. Honestly, everyone does that now.

Roach - Way to go, pass the buck.

hrmn yeah, um, pretty simple. I don't hate black people, I hate close minded pricks, so I guess I'd be shootin me some rebels.

As I just stated in my response, not all southerners hated blacks or were close minded pricks....only 10% of the South owned slaves, place like West Virginia and Kentucky were not conducive to slave-operated plantations. And before you get on your high horse..just how do you think those slaves got to ports like Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah?...On Yankee ships they did...New England captains got rich off the slave trade. And, your average Union soldier didn't care much for blacks themselves, as is obvious from their treatment of the Massachusetts 54th, the US Cavalry 9th and 10th regiments, all black troops....so let's have no delusions that the average Yankee cared either for blacks..they may not have wanted slaves, but they sure as hell didn't want them living next to them either.

im the only person that said "there was a civil war?"
cause as far as I know we never had one in Australia

i wish i could go back in time and help the Confederacy leave the Union. those states are the worst educated in the US, and drain tax dollars from other states. they ban gays, push for religious legislation, and whine whenever somebody suggests that a symbol of racism might not be a good thing to hang from the back of your pick up. i know there are good southerners (i'm very good friends with one), but i think the US would be better off without having to carry the states themselves.

As I just stated in my response, not all southerners hated blacks or were close minded pricks....only 10% of the South owned slaves, place like West Virginia and Kentucky were not conducive to slave-operated plantations. And before you get on your high horse..just how do you think those slaves got to ports like Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah?...On Yankee ships they did...New England captains got rich off the slave trade. And, your average Union soldier didn't care much for blacks themselves, as is obvious from their treatment of the Massachusetts 54th, the US Cavalry 9th and 10th regiments, all black troops....so let's have no delusions that the average Yankee cared either for blacks..they may not have wanted slaves, but they sure as hell didn't want them living next to them either.
The reason why the war was fought was to preserve the racist institution of slavery.

i wish i could go back in time and help the Confederacy leave the Union. those states are the worst educated in the US, and drain tax dollars from other states. they ban gays, push for religious legislation, and whine whenever somebody suggests that a symbol of racism might not be a good thing to hang from the back of your pick up. i know there are good southerners (i'm very good friends with one), but i think the US would be better off without having to carry the states themselves.

Funny..that's exactly the thinking the Southern States thought themselves, that they'd be better off without the Yankees...

The reason why the war was fought was to preserve the racist institution of slavery.

Really..to an illiterate farmer in Georgia I'm pretty much sure he didn't have an opinion on the slavery issue, but he sure as hell didn't want a Yankee telling him how to live.

And my tribe, along with a few others fought the Union for different reasons.

Really..to an illiterate farmer in Georgia I'm pretty much sure he didn't have an opinion on the slavery issue, but he sure as hell didn't want a Yankee telling him how to live.

And my tribe, along with a few others fought the Union for different reasons.
Irrelevent. Look at the leadership, they sure as hell wanted to keep slavery alive, and peasants (which is a not so nice word for illiterate farmer) will do whatever the hell the leaders tell them to do.

For me the issue was easy....the Cherokee Nation had entered into a treaty with the Confederacy that upon defeat of the Union, the State of Tennessee would be returned to the Cherokee and granted sovereign nation status, a dream held since the Cherokee were forcibly removed from that region by President Andrew Jackson 30 yrs previously. Chief Stand Watie became Confederate General Stand Watie and lead 3 Regiments of Lite Calvary against the Union, and was in actuality the last Confederate General to surrender to Union forces.

Hehehehe, silly indians, didn't they ever learn that they couldn't trust whitey?

Funny..that's exactly the thinking the Southern States thought themselves, that they'd be better off without the Yankees...

Hehehehe, that's funny too. The south would still be a fuckin cotton field if it weren't of "yankee" industrialization efforts.

As I just stated in my response, not all southerners hated blacks or were close minded pricks....only 10% of the South owned slaves, place like West Virginia and Kentucky were not conducive to slave-operated plantations. And before you get on your high horse..just how do you think those slaves got to ports like Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah?...On Yankee ships they did...New England captains got rich off the slave trade. And, your average Union soldier didn't care much for blacks themselves, as is obvious from their treatment of the Massachusetts 54th, the US Cavalry 9th and 10th regiments, all black troops....so let's have no delusions that the average Yankee cared either for blacks..they may not have wanted slaves, but they sure as hell didn't want them living next to them either.

Well chief, I don't really care what the people stood for, but their government stood for it and since they're the representatives of their government I guess they get the bullets, huh? Besides i hate mindless sheep, too. Yeah I'll give you the fact that there was some discrimination in the north, but guess what, there was another 100 years of segregation in the south post-war, so don't even get me started. And in terms of Yankee ships carrying slaves, I can't confirm nor deny that, however I will say this, if I remember my american history as well as I think I may the slave traders didn't really have much of a nationality, they were just traders, mercinaries even.

Hehehehe, silly indians, didn't they ever learn that they couldn't trust whitey?



Hehehehe, that's funny too. The south would still be a fuckin cotton field if it weren't of "yankee" industrialization efforts.



Well chief, I don't really care what the people stood for, but their government stood for it and since they're the representatives of their government I guess they get the bullets, huh? Besides i hate midless sheep, too. Yeah I'll give you the fact that there was some discrimination in the north, but guess what, there was another 100 years of segregation in the south post-war, so don't even get me started. And in terms of Yankee ships carrying slaves, I can't confirm nor deny that, however I will say this, if I remember my american history as well as I think I may the slave traders didn't really have much of a nationality, they were just traders, mercinaries even.

First of..don't call me chief...I'm not..it's very steretypical...second..I can confirm for you that various maritime companies out of New England, specifically around the Boston area were the primary means of transport of Slaves. and as for "some" discrimination you'd best reevaluate that aspect, there was a whole LOT of discrimination up north as well.

First of..don't call me chief...I'm not..it's very steretypical...second..I can confirm for you that various maritime companies out of New England, specifically around the Boston area were the primary means of transport of Slaves. and as for "some" discrimination you'd best reevaluate that aspect, there was a whole LOT of discrimination up north as well.

:o yeah sorry about the chief thing, that was completely unintentional. And eh, yeah so that transported a few, tell ya what, if I was back in the day, I'd kill them too. And lets not get into the levels of discrimination, they didn't wear chains, so get off that subject.

First of..don't call me chief...I'm not..it's very steretypical...second..I can confirm for you that various maritime companies out of New England, specifically around the Boston area were the primary means of transport of Slaves. and as for "some" discrimination you'd best reevaluate that aspect, there was a whole LOT of discrimination up north as well.
Would have been quite a trick considering that the slave trade was banned back in the early 1800's

Would have been quite a trick considering that the slave trade was banned back in the early 1800's

Oh hey, i forgot about that, and you're right. The slave trade was banned across the country by the time the civil war started. Slave sleeing was based on breeding slave alone by then. So you can drop your yankees shipped em argument.

I would figth for the CSA because of:
Bobby Lee did it.
My only relative/ancestor living America then, lived in Texas.
Bobby Lee did it.
I like the idea states rigth, wich was the main reason for the war. At least we learned that in school here in Norway. (The Republicans wanted no new slave states, and they did not wish to free the slaves.)
Bobby Lee did it.
The Confederacy had better looking Uniforms (The ones that actually had uniforms that is).
Did I mention because Bobby Lee did it.

Traian

I would figth for the CSA because of:
Bobby Lee did it.
My only relative/ancestor living America then, lived in Texas.
Bobby Lee did it.
I like the idea states rigth, wich was the main reason for the war. At least we learned that in school here in Norway. (The Republicans wanted no new slave states, and they did not wish to free the slaves.)
Bobby Lee did it.
The Confederacy had better looking Uniforms (The ones that actually had uniforms that is).
Did I mention because Bobby Lee did it.

Traian
Slavery was the only state's right in question, and something tells me that should be a human right, not a state right.

I'd have gone with Charles, so I guess that makes me a Northerner - sure the parlimentarians had some good points but . . . Union is North right?

I'd have gone with Charles, so I guess that makes me a Northerner - sure the parlimentarians had some good points but . . . Union is North right?
Pfft, Charles was a moron who had it coming.

Would have been quite a trick considering that the slave trade was banned back in the early 1800's

Yes..but by then..the vast majority of slaves had already long since been transported here...so banning it was moot.

Yes..but by then..the vast majority of slaves had already long since been transported here...so banning it was moot.


Well, obviously, becase we banned the pratice of shipping slaves here. You are aware that most of the north had banned slavery before the civil war, right?

Yes..but by then..the vast majority of slaves had already long since been transported here...so banning it was moot.

Hrmn, moot, just like your point about northerners trading slaves in a time when NORTHERNERS STILL HAD SLAVES THEMSELVES. Are you really that dense?

I'm actually related to Robert E. Lee (this according to mom) however, I would be fight with the North though back then, I couldn't fight because I'm a girl.

Slavery was on its way out the door anyway. It couldn't have survived much longer in the south so the cause of war being about slavery is false, never truely was about slavery.

Pfft, Charles was a moron who had it coming.Yes, but he was king and parliment was getting too big for it britches. Don't get me wrong, I would have been holding my nose the entire time, but I would have had to support Charles. In retrospect I think its better in totality that the South won, but I still would have gone to Charles' side.

I'm actually related to Robert E. Lee (this according to mom) however, I would be fight with the North though back then, I couldn't fight because I'm a girl.

Slavery was on its way out the door anyway. It couldn't have survived much longer in the south so the cause of war being about slavery is false, never truely was about slavery.
Formal, thanks for showing up. I take it you concede the point in the other thread?

Formal, thanks for showing up. I take it you concede the point in the other thread?

nope I didn't now get back on topic! but if you really must know, the senate website only goes back to 1989!

now we return to the topic at hand!

Yes, but he was king and parliment was getting too big for it britches. Don't get me wrong, I would have been holding my nose the entire time, but I would have had to support Charles. In retrospect I think its better in totality that the South won, but I still would have gone to Charles' side.
Well, thats your right.

Slavery was on its way out the door anyway. It couldn't have survived much longer in the south so the cause of war being about slavery is false, never truely was about slavery.

Proof formal dances?

nope I didn't now get back on topic! but if you really must know, the senate website only goes back to 1989!

now we return to the topic at hand!
Formal, the thread about homeschooling...

Well, thats your right.
Well, actually it was Charles' right that decided it for me. You cannot just up and decide to abandon your king and your oaths because you don't like him.

BTW, what's all this talk about slavery?

Confederacy mainly because of my state. And that my great great grandfather was a Colonel in it.

Hrmn, moot, just like your point about northerners trading slaves in a time when NORTHERNERS STILL HAD SLAVES THEMSELVES. Are you really that dense?

I'm sorry but this post made no sense at all...please rephrase so I can answer it.

Well, thats your right.



Proof formal dances?


Read up on the Civil War! Any student of History can tell you the whole War wasn't about Slavery.

Fort Sumter was fired upon by people in SOUTH CAROLINA because Lincoln 1) resupplied it and 2) reinforced it thus violating an agreement he had with the people there! Fort Sumter was then Promptly Fired up. It had nothing to do with Slavery.

Now to the proof that it was out the door. They wouldn't be able to maintain it! Odds are that Britian and France would have them do away with it if they wanted their support! The South would've had to have an industry to compete with the rest of the world. That means that they would have to move away from farming towards industry. Slavery then would have to be modified to a point where it would be virtually non-existent in the South!

Well, actually it was Charles' right that decided it for me. You cannot just up and decide to abandon your king and your oaths because you don't like him.

BTW, what's all this talk about slavery?

Yes, but they ended up winning, and history is written by the winners, so even though they were traitors...they pulled it off.

Something about the rebellious colonies who had that backwards institution of slavery.

Damn. I am a 2nd generation from Italia. How the hell would i be in it? I came here a few years ago unfortunately! I should have put neither. I loathe america anyway ;) heh. Activism is a beautiful thing huh?

I would have went out west lol.

The reason why the war was fought was to preserve the racist institution of slavery.

Glad to see your great "charter" school taught you some history. (sarcasm)Open a book pencil neck.

Read up on the Civil War! Any student of History can tell you the whole War wasn't about Slavery.

Fort Sumter was fired upon by people in SOUTH CAROLINA because Lincoln 1) resupplied it and 2) reinforced it thus violating an agreement he had with the people there! Fort Sumter was then Promptly Fired up. It had nothing to do with Slavery.

Now to the proof that it was out the door. They wouldn't be able to maintain it! Odds are that Britian and France would have them do away with it if they wanted their support! The South would've had to have an industry to compete with the rest of the world. That means that they would have to move away from farming towards industry. Slavery then would have to be modified to a point where it would be virtually non-existent in the South!
Once again, you don't answer my posts. Do you concede the point in the homeschooling thread, yes or no.

Sorry? Most students on the civil war would agree with me, that slavery was the root cause of the civil war. What is your answer then formal?

Fort Sumter is federal property and the union can do whatever they wish to it, including resupply it. The rebels fired upon it, which is an act of treason against the United States, and that started the war.

So you mean that a rebellious south would have had to eventually give up the institution of slavery, which I find hard to swallow, considering that they didn't do it during the war, and slavery is a right protected in their traitorous constitution.

I'm sorry but this post made no sense at all...please rephrase so I can answer it.

Your point about northerners in the slave trade is irrelevant to the discussion because the trade had halted before slavery had even ended in the north. The was and the northern headed slave trade are mutually exclusive events. And by "you are dense", I mean you can't seem to grasp tese facts.

Glad to see your great "charter" school taught you some history. (sarcasm)Open a book pencil neck.
Care to make a point or will you just sit on the sidelines making baseless attacks?

Once again, you don't answer my posts. Do you concede the point in the homeschooling thread, yes or no.

Sorry? Most students on the civil war would agree with me, that slavery was the root cause of the civil war. What is your answer then formal?

Fort Sumter is federal property and the union can do whatever they wish to it, including resupply it. The rebels fired upon it, which is an act of treason against the United States, and that started the war.

So you mean that a rebellious south would have had to eventually give up the institution of slavery, which I find hard to swallow, considering that they didn't do it during the war, and slavery is a right protected in their traitorous constitution.

if you want to get into technicality the war was started to "preserve the union", however as it went on it became apparent that abolishing slavery would have to be done. But the separation was cause by states rights and slavery but more slavery than states rights. The wealthy slave owners of the south wanted it because of the institution of slavery so the packaged it to the uneducated masses as a war over states rights in the south.

Yes, but they ended up winning, and history is written by the winners, so even though they were traitors...they pulled it off. Right. I was just answering the question as asked.
Something about the rebellious colonies who had that backwards institution of slavery. Oh, they had a civil war too? Or are you refering to what they call "The War of Independance"?

Your point about northerners in the slave trade is irrelevant to the discussion because the trade had halted before slavery had even ended in the north. The was and the northern headed slave trade are mutually exclusive events. And by "you are dense", I mean you can't seem to grasp tese facts.

No I can grasp facts just fine...My point was that while slave owning was not practiced up North of the Maxon-Dixon line...the means of transporting those slaves did come from the New England area til such time as the slave trade was banned...by that time though, the vast amount of slaves had already reached these shores...the slave trade had been practiced for over a century, more then enough to make the practice banned moot by the time it was banned....there were already enough slaves...

But the point I was trying to make was that on the other end of that Southerner's seller's purse was a Yankee.

Damn. I am a 2nd generation from Italia. How the hell would i be in it? I came here a few years ago unfortunately! I should have put neither. I loathe america anyway ;) heh. Activism is a beautiful thing huh?

Then go back to Italy! Why don't you pack up your calzone and move on?

if you want to get into technicality the war was started to "preserve the union", however as it went on it became apparent that abolishing slavery would have to be done. But the separation was cause by states rights and slavery but more slavery than states rights. The wealthy slave owners of the south wanted it because of the institution of slavery so the packaged it to the uneducated masses as a war over states rights in the south.

The war really didn't start until the south fired upon the forts owned by the Federal Government, from what I remember, there were still some people who didn't want to go to war, right up until the south forced the north's hand by attacking federal property.

What states right?

No I can grasp facts just fine...My point was that while slave owning was not practiced up North of the Maxon-Dixon line...the means of transporting those slaves did come from the New England area til such time as the slave trade was banned...by that time though, the vast amount of slaves had already reached these shores...the slave trade had been practiced for over a century, more then enough to make the practice banned moot by the time it was banned....there were already enough slaves...

But the point I was trying to make was that on the other end of that Southerner's seller's purse was a Yankee.

No, by that time a southern seller's purse was that southern seller's own slaves who made babies. You're grasping at straws from a different era of american history.

Then go back to Italy! Why don't you pack up your calzone and move on?

Hannibal, have something relevant to contribute to this discussion?

The war really didn't start until the south fired upon the forts owned by the Federal Government, from what I remember, there were still some people who didn't want to go to war, right up until the south forced the north's hand by attacking federal property.

What states right?

Well for one...the State's right to secede from the Union...there is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a State can not dissolve it's association with the United States. This was the most hotly debated, and still is aspect of the Northern War of Agression....can any State have the authority to secede from the Union?..For the Southern States there was no dissent that it was indeed their right to leave the Union.

Okay, here- I'm sorry. You need to be clear, especially when the Confederacy is the practical symbol of slavery. It's like supporting the Soviet Union but not Communism and then being outraged when one calls you a Commie.
While it did have slavery, slavery wasn't the main or only reason for the war/secession. The reasons were mostly economic (tariffs, taxes, etc.)

But if you're going to support the Confederacy, you do realize that's one of the main points of the civil war? That the confederacy was for the continuation of slavery?
It's mostly the only point in school history books, but when you study it you find that slavery was, in fact, dying and wasn't the prime concern.

Warmongering Tyrant? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part before where the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter. Did the Union attack the nonexistant confederacy before Sumter?
Economically, yes.

Know what the first thing shelled on Fort Sumter was? The customs (tariff collection) house!

http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:GOTzr7vyllsJ:www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ostrowksi.pdf+Fort&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Well for one...the State's right to secede from the Union...there is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a State can not dissolve it's association with the United States. This was the most hotly debated, and still is aspect of the Northern War of Agression....can any State have the authority to secede from the Union?..For the Southern States there was no dissent that it was indeed their right to leave the Union.
No one goes to war to prove a legal point.

And no, under the USSC ruling Texas v. White, no state or individual has the right to cede from the Union.

The war really didn't start until the south fired upon the forts owned by the Federal Government, from what I remember, there were still some people who didn't want to go to war, right up until the south forced the north's hand by attacking federal property.

What states right?

True, the war didn't start till then, but I'm talking in terms of mobilization in the south to get the whole confederacy movement started.

And states rights is a complicated animal to explain. Basically, as best I can remember (it's been a couple years since my AP US History class), the states wanted to make their own decisions about trade and law and order and things like that. Case in point, the concept of nullification. Some southern states wanted to be able to basically ignore federal laws, IE: the ban on the slave trade (can't really remember anything more specific, not even sure they took issue with that).

(edit)

Better example of an act they wanted to nullify, the Hawley-Smoot tariff act. Made it hard for the south cause it raised prices on foreign goods and since they imported a lot of their clothing where as the north created a lot of theirs it wasn't exactly in the best interests of the south.

While it did have slavery, slavery wasn't the main or only reason for the war/secession. The reasons were mostly economic (tariffs, taxes, etc.)


It's mostly the only point in school history books, but when you study it you find that slavery was, in fact, dying and wasn't the prime concern.


Economically, yes.

Know what the first thing shelled on Fort Sumter was? The customs (tariff collection) house!

http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:GOTzr7vyllsJ:www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ostrowksi.pdf+Fort&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Baawa, then why are there guarantees in the confederate constitution keeping slavery alive for a very long time (until they get amended), and why do most of the documents of secession point out slavery as the reason why they left..

Gentlemen,

Here is a link of the declarations made for sucession.

There seems to be several references to slavery.....

Note: some are rather long! ;)


http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

True, the war didn't start till then, but I'm talking in terms of mobilization in the south to get the whole confederacy movement started.

And states rights is a complicated animal to explain. Basically, as best I can remember (it's been a couple years since my AP US History class), the states wanted to make their own decisions about trade and law and order and things like that. Case in point, the concept of nullification. Some southern states wanted to be able to basically ignore federal laws, IE: the ban on the slave trade (can't really remember anything more specific, not even sure they took issue with that).
Which they can't do under the constitution. They should know that.

actually I would have to say that you didn't learn history!

The south did split mostly for states rights! They were afraid that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery. I don't believe this. He wanted to preserve the Union. As to the war being about preserving the Union, that was true however the CSA started the Civil War or as some call it the War Between the States or the 2nd Revolution. However, the South had disadvantages. Industry and Manpower. As the war progressed, the Union's technology and manpower started to Overwelm the South. The South needed to end the war quickly to preserve the their Independence. That didn't happen. Instead it dragged on for Four years. In the end, the South was Obliterated and demoralized. Their fighting spirit was good however, ammunition and supplies basically ran out for the South. When Richmond fell, it was the last straw. Shortly, Lee (whom I'm related too) surrendered to Grant at Appomatox!

actually I would have to say that you didn't learn history!

The south did split mostly for states rights! They were afraid that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery. I don't believe this. He wanted to preserve the Union. As to the war being about preserving the Union, that was true however the CSA started the Civil War or as some call it the War Between the States or the 2nd Revolution. However, the South had disadvantages. Industry and Manpower. As the war progressed, the Union's technology and manpower started to Overwelm the South. The South needed to end the war quickly to preserve the their Independence. That didn't happen. Instead it dragged on for Four years. In the end, the South was Obliterated and demoralized. Their fighting spirit was good however, ammunition and supplies basically ran out for the South. When Richmond fell, it was the last straw. Shortly, Lee (whom I'm related too) surrendered to Grant at Appomatox!
Formal, I have a very long memory, do you concede the point in the homeschooling thread or not. I can keep this up for a long time, if need be. Yes or no.

What states right? Does it begin with an S?

actually I would have to say that you didn't learn history!

The south did split mostly for states rights! They were afraid that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery. I don't believe this. He wanted to preserve the Union. As to the war being about preserving the Union, that was true however the CSA started the Civil War or as some call it the War Between the States or the 2nd Revolution. However, the South had disadvantages. Industry and Manpower. As the war progressed, the Union's technology and manpower started to Overwelm the South. The South needed to end the war quickly to preserve the their Independence. That didn't happen. Instead it dragged on for Four years. In the end, the South was Obliterated and demoralized. Their fighting spirit was good however, ammunition and supplies basically ran out for the South. When Richmond fell, it was the last straw. Shortly, Lee (whom I'm related too) surrendered to Grant at Appomatox!

If Lee would have waited on Jeb Stuart and his cavalry the Union would have lost the war because Pickets charge would not have happened and the Union army would be chrushed leaving Washington open for attack.

No one goes to war to prove a legal point.

And no, under the USSC ruling Texas v. White, no state or individual has the right to cede from the Union.

But that was a Supreme Court Ruling, judges who may or may not be biased. In our Constitution...I say again..in the document that is our blueprint for this country you will find nothingthat states a State can not secede, if you can find such a clause in our Constitution I've not seen it.

If Lee would have waited on Jeb Stuart and his cavalry the Union would have lost the war because Pickets charge would not have happened and the Union army would be chrushed leaving Washington open for attack.


As I said quick! You are right though but that was like in 1863 that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought! You are right that if he did, the South probably would've won the war. The fact was, he couldn't wait. Picketts Charge took place like on the 2nd or 3rd day of the battle. Once it was over, that basically turned the tide of war against the Confederacy.

Yeah, the south pretty much got their asses handed to them. You can't fight against an industrialized nation when you're an agricultural nation. It's like the polish vs. the germans in WWII you can fight all you want but your defeat is inevitable.

And I have to say I love the term the "War of Nothern Aggression", I always laughed when my teacher jokinglly refered to the civil war by that name. Northern aggression against the south that was attacking the north, yep. The war was just the south trying to preserve it's way of life when they were behind the times. Kinda like what the terrorists are doing now.

If Lee would have waited on Jeb Stuart and his cavalry the Union would have lost the war because Pickets charge would not have happened and the Union army would be chrushed leaving Washington open for attack.

Ewwwww what ifs!

Well Lee also didn't listen to the advice of his old war horse who advised against sending Picket.

Washington was not as open as you think. It was fortified. They may have been able to take it but would have lost many in the process.

I also doubt Lincoln would have surrendered even if Washington had fallen.

Care to make a point or will you just sit on the sidelines making baseless attacks?

Yes, quiz kid. Slavery was not the prime cause of the civil war. The basic cause was that of states rights as defined in the constitution. The root cause of this was financial, the north issued high tariffs on southern good sold abroad, while the south wanted lower tariffs. If you don't believe in taxation without representation then you could side with the south.

Only nowadays in this PC world is slavery said to be the root cause.

Yeah, the south pretty much got their asses handed to them. You can't fight against an industrialized nation when you're an agricultural nation. It's like the polish vs. the germans in WWII you can fight all you want but your defeat is inevitable.

And I have to say I love the term the "War of Nothern Aggression", I always laughed when my teacher jokinglly refered to the civil war by that name. Northern aggression against the south that was attacking the north, yep. The war was just the south trying to preserve it's way of life when they were behind the times. Kinda like what the terrorists are doing now.

I've heard this too and I also laugh when I heard it. To be honest, my history teacher actually believed it was the War of Northern Aggression and asked why I was laughing. I told her that the Confederate States started it by firing on Fort Sumter. Also DYK that the Civil War wasn't a declared war? There was no Declaration of War by Congress against the South!

Ewwwww what ifs!

Well Lee also didn't listen to the advice of his old war horse who advised against sending Picket.

Washington was not as open as you think. It was fortified. They may have been able to take it but would have lost many in the process.

I also doubt Lincoln would have surrendered even if Washington had fallen.

Yeah let's not get into what-ifs. What if sherman hadn't burned the south to the ground and salted the fields after he stomped the shit out of the unorganized confederate army. Doesn't matter what if, history is history.

Kinda like what the terrorists are doing now.

Please lets not introduce that into the discussion.

Terror/terrorists are so over used these days.

But that was a Supreme Court Ruling, judges who may or may not be biased. In our Constitution...I say again..in the document that is our blueprint for this country you will find nothingthat states a State can not secede, if you can find such a clause in our Constitution I've not seen it.
The USSC is the final rule on anything pertaining to the constitution, so legally, the answer is no, no state can leave the union. Now, I do believe that you can stretch "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." to say that the states above must be represented in congress (you would need an amendment to change that), and must be in the union to be represented, so you need an amendment to the constitution to leave the union if you are one of the above states. Also "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" can be taken to mean that you need a vote in the senate in order to remove a state from the senate (leave the union). Such a vote never took place, making the confederacy little more then an act of treason.

I'm sick of Southerners who cannot do what the Southern General (forgot his name, Lee I suppose) told all Confederates to do once he admitted defeat and "LET IT BE! Your all Americans now! North, south, east, and west!"

Past is the past Southerners. I am not pointing out names, but I know a LOT of people who cannot seem to get over themselves.


Oh, and I voted Union because I am in California and I don't know a better state than this.

I've heard this too and I also laugh when I heard it. To be honest, my history teacher actually believed it was the War of Northern Aggression and asked why I was laughing. I told her that the Confederate States started it by firing on Fort Sumter. Also DYK that the Civil War wasn't a declared war? There was no Declaration of War by Congress against the South!

Yeah, there didn't need to be one though. It was just quelling a rebellion. No declaration of war needs to be made in that case, it's just a given.

I'd have fought for the Union because I'm a fan of the United States of America.

A couple people have made a point before about how slavery was on the way out economically. Still, I think it's important to realize that slavery was not just an economic institution, it was very much a social one. So even if 10% of Southern Whites owned slaves, 100% of Southern Whites had an outgroup to compare themselves to. Sort of a "Life is hard, but at least I'm not black" mentality. This social aspect of the institution was so strong that it still exists in part today, over 140 years later, even though the economics of it don't make sense.

And while we're in part on the topic of the economics of slavery, what economic incentive did the Union have to outlaw slavery? They certainly had imperative ethical and civilized reasons to do it, but I feel that there's this mentality of "You Yankee bankers wanna come in here and take our livelihood" going around that I don't understand.

Here's a question I'm throwing out there. You "State's Rights" people, if given the hypothetical that instead of growing tobacco, the base of the Southern economy had been more industrial and thus have no economic need for slavery, would there have been a Civil War? Without having slavery, I'm inclined to say that there never would have been a war. Of course, maybe I'm fundamentally changing the question too much.

Also, I've never really been a fan of Robert E. Lee. He was a really strong leader who had impressive victories at Bull Run. (At least I think that's the one I'm thinking of. Where he divided the troops and beat back an army twice his size or more.) Grant was just as good in my opinion. I like Sherman, too. Still, I think Lee's strategy of taking the war North was really stupid.

Yes, quiz kid. Slavery was not the prime cause of the civil war. The basic cause was that of states rights as defined in the constitution. The root cause of this was financial, the north issued high tariffs on southern good sold abroad, while the south wanted lower tariffs. If you don't believe in taxation without representation then you could side with the south.

Only nowadays in this PC world is slavery said to be the root cause.
And why did they want lower tarrifs? Because they were more agricultural then the north. Why were they more agricultural then the north? Because they had a cheap work force. Why did they have a cheap work force? Slavery.

Yeah, the south pretty much got their asses handed to them. You can't fight against an industrialized nation when you're an agricultural nation. It's like the polish vs. the germans in WWII you can fight all you want but your defeat is inevitable.

And I have to say I love the term the "War of Nothern Aggression", I always laughed when my teacher jokinglly refered to the civil war by that name. Northern aggression against the south that was attacking the north, yep. The war was just the south trying to preserve it's way of life when they were behind the times. Kinda like what the terrorists are doing now.

I think you really didn't stay awake in history class....the South's forces ate up Union troops pretty much the first couple of years, only then did Northern abilities start to kick in....plus..Grant was known as Grant the Butcher, only by throwing as many Union troops at whatever Confederate General he was up against, it's not because he was a better tactician...Lincoln liked him because in his words "He's the only one who isn't afraid to fight Lee"

considering that the average age of a civil war soldier was about the same as the average age of a nationstates member you would fight for whatever side you happened to live on. there were some southerners who fought for the union, but i doubt that many of those were 16 year olds who had family members fighting for the south. except perhaps in the southern border states where family members choosing different sides was more common.

yeah the north was a bit well nutz when it came to slavery. they didnt like slavery, they hated being forced to return escaped slaves. but that didnt mean they treated blacks as equal. im sure SOME did, but the 1800s was a time of intense discrimination against people of all types. (no irish need apply)

i read an article a while back by a man who had been raised all his life to believe that the civil war was not about slavery. he accepted it as fact as most people educated in the south do. but when he actually LOOKED at speeches made and newspaper/magazine articles written at the time, he found it was ALL about slavery. the rest was just sophistry. (too bad i cant remember who the man was, it would make my point so much stronger)

just WHY a poor white kid whose family had never owned slaves and who never thought he would own a slave would fight for some rich guys right to own one, i have no idea. but then slavery doesnt make all that much sense to me anyway.

slave owners were going to lose money big time on the abolishment of slavery. the value of a dozen slaves was a fortune. not to mention the fear that white people had of black reprisals if they were freed. they knew what they had done and knew what they deserved in return for it.

i doubt it was obvious to a plantation owner that slavery was on its way out. no more than it was obvious to george wallace that the civil rights movement would succeed in integrating southern schools.

Yeah, there didn't need to be one though. It was just quelling a rebellion. No declaration of war needs to be made in that case, it's just a given.

Your right it wasn't needed. The south wasn't recognized by the Union. If it was and this crap started, it would have to have a Declaration of War. Since the North Considered this a rebellion against constituted authority it wasn't needed.

I've heard this too and I also laugh when I heard it. To be honest, my history teacher actually believed it was the War of Northern Aggression and asked why I was laughing. I told her that the Confederate States started it by firing on Fort Sumter. Also DYK that the Civil War wasn't a declared war? There was no Declaration of War by Congress against the South!
Hi formal, once again, you don't answer my posts. Ignoring me doesn't make you any more right. Do you concede the point?

I think you really didn't stay awake in history class....the South's forces ate up Union troops pretty much the first couple of years, only then did Northern abilities start to kick in....plus..Grant was known as Grant the Butcher, only by throwing as many Union troops at whatever Confederate General he was up against, it's not because he was a better tactician...Lincoln liked him because in his words "He's the only one who isn't afraid to fight Lee"
The south really didn't stand much of a chance in the long run, and, well, Grant won, you can't hold that aganst him.

I think you really didn't stay awake in history class....the South's forces ate up Union troops pretty much the first couple of years, only then did Northern abilities start to kick in....plus..Grant was known as Grant the Butcher, only by throwing as many Union troops at whatever Confederate General he was up against, it's not because he was a better tactician...Lincoln liked him because in his words "He's the only one who isn't afraid to fight Lee"

Hrmn yeah, uh you just said what I said. It was a war of inevitability. The south could do all they wanted but the north would have just kept sending wave after wave after wave. It wasn't as dominant as germany vs poland, that I will give you. But my basic point stands, the south never had a legitimate chance to deal a crushing blow to the north. They had one at antitam, but they squandered it because of the north's sheer power. The north could do troop and supply movements much more easily because of their extensive railway systems. The south just kept running out of supplies. , whereas the north had nearly bottemless supplies at their fingertips.

Hi formal, once again, you don't answer my posts. Ignoring me doesn't make you any more right. Do you concede the point?

Not going to concede anything! SInce you don't have the homeschool numbers, I'm not going to comment!

No one goes to war to prove a legal point.

And no, under the USSC ruling Texas v. White, no state or individual has the right to cede from the Union.
The USSC was wrong. The US was founded upon the idea of the right of secession (the DoI is a document of secession). The Constitution does not prohibit secession. As a result, it is a right of the states.

wtf...even STEPH voted for the Union?

That'd odd...I always imagined her killing Americans, not fighting alongside

*shrug*

surprise surprise, eh?

The USSC was wrong. The US was founded upon the idea of the right of secession (the DoI is a document of secession). The Constitution does not prohibit secession. As a result, it is a right of the states.

Doesn't matter, the second they attacked that fort it became a rebellion and they needed to be put down.

I'd probably side with the confederacy if I lived there, but otherwise the Union. You have to realize the mindset; we wouldn't see things the same way we do now if we lived in the 1860's. True, slavery was the catalyst that lead to the break up of the Union, but most Southerners honestly felt that the government was being too oppressive, and they didn't want to exist under a government controlled by the more densely populated north.

While it did have slavery, slavery wasn't the main or only reason for the war/secession. The reasons were mostly economic (tariffs, taxes, etc.)

It's mostly the only point in school history books, but when you study it you find that slavery was, in fact, dying and wasn't the prime concern.

Economically, yes.

Know what the first thing shelled on Fort Sumter was? The customs (tariff collection) house!

http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cac...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Baawa, then why are there guarantees in the confederate constitution keeping slavery alive for a very long time (until they get amended),
So what? You'll notice that I did not deny that slavery was an issue; it just wasn't THE ONLY issue.

And did you bother to read the text of the link? Did you also happen to know that Lincoln didn't give a tinker's cuss about slavery?

and why do most of the documents of secession point out slavery as the reason why they left..
Because they don't. They mention slavery as A cause, not THE cause.

wtf...even STEPH voted for the Union?

That'd odd...I always imagined her killing Americans, not fighting alongside

*shrug*

surprise surprise, eh?

Nah. I bet it's the slavery issue.

Nah. I bet it's the slavery issue.

Your probably right!

What i find peculiar about everones response is that you all are basing alot of your opinions on how you think today. Would you be so quick to choose sides if you were back in 1860.

The USSC is the final rule on anything pertaining to the constitution, so legally, the answer is no, no state can leave the union.
No, there's no law for it.

Now, I do believe that you can stretch "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." to say that the states above must be represented in congress
Only with super-elastic words could you do that. The reality is that the document names the states in existence at the time and what they would have upon joining.

(you would need an amendment to change that), and must be in the union to be represented, so you need an amendment to the constitution to leave the union if you are one of the above states. Also "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" can be taken to mean that you need a vote in the senate in order to remove a state from the senate (leave the union).
No, you wouldn't. If the state legislature consents and leaves the union....

Such a vote never took place, making the confederacy little more then an act of treason.
Just like the colonies declaring independence from Britain was treason, right?

While it did have slavery, slavery wasn't the main or only reason for the war/secession. The reasons were mostly economic (tariffs, taxes, etc.)

You mention economics.

Well the slaves were part of that economics. One thing that annoyed them was the fact their "property" was not getting returned to them.

Granted it was not the prime reason but it was a major reason.

The question of new slave states also was a factor.....

Us breaking away was an act of treason. However, we did that as a very last resort when the King wouldn't listen to us. We didn't officially split till a YEAR AFTER the revolution had begun. Lincoln was elected in 1860! When it was confirmed that he won the election, South Carolina was the first to split. Others states soon followed. The war started in April 1861 I think it was.

The USSC was wrong. The US was founded upon the idea of the right of secession (the DoI is a document of secession). The Constitution does not prohibit secession. As a result, it is a right of the states.
Doesn't matter, the second they attacked that fort it became a rebellion and they needed to be put down.
South Carolina had already seceded on December 20, 1860.

Not going to concede anything! SInce you don't have the homeschool numbers, I'm not going to comment!
Yes, I do. Look at the thread.

Yes, I do. Look at the thread.

CSW, here's something for you, THIS IS ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR! stay on the bloody topic!

As of this moment, i'm ignoring all of your posts that aren't on topic!

The USSC was wrong. The US was founded upon the idea of the right of secession (the DoI is a document of secession). The Constitution does not prohibit secession. As a result, it is a right of the states.
What you think about the court decision is irrelevant, because I think they know just a little more about the constitution then you do, and even if they were wrong (which would take another court overturning that case), it doesn't matter. It is (for the lack of a better term) law.

CSW, here's something for you, THIS IS ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR! stay on the bloody topic!

As of this moment, i'm ignoring all of your posts that aren't on topic!
I'd stay on the bloody topic if you weren't blatantly dodging my posts.

I'd stay on the bloody topic if you weren't blatantly dodging my posts.

because they are irrelevent unless its on topic. most of your posts to me weren't on topic!

So what? You'll notice that I did not deny that slavery was an issue; it just wasn't THE ONLY issue.

And did you bother to read the text of the link? Did you also happen to know that Lincoln didn't give a tinker's cuss about slavery?


Because they don't. They mention slavery as A cause, not THE cause.

" Your search - cac... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords."

because they are irrelevent unless its on topic. most of your posts to me weren't on topic!
The ones about homeschooling weren't.

There was a civil war?!?!?!?

No, there's no law for it.


Only with super-elastic words could you do that. The reality is that the document names the states in existence at the time and what they would have upon joining.

So? You'd have to change the document in order not to have them represented.

No, you wouldn't. If the state legislature consents and leaves the union....

Along with the congress...

Just like the colonies declaring independence from Britain was treason, right?
Its only treason if you don't win. You lost.

The ones about homeschooling weren't.

in here it is! This is about the Civil War. Something I love to read about. I have an alternate history series regarding this, well two! In one, the British helped the Confederacy but blundered in the SOuth and killed confederates thus bringing the Union together. The second one had the south winning the war. Not an actual book I don't think I have, but a full series from that period towards WWII!

It was still the property of the federal government, South Carolina as a state had no jurisdiction to attack the federally owned property.

It was still the property of the federal government, South Carolina as a state had no jurisdiction to attack the federally owned property.

agreed

in here it is! This is about the Civil War. Something I love to read about. I have an alternate history series regarding this, well two! In one, the British helped the Confederacy but blundered in the SOuth and killed confederates thus bringing the Union together. The second one had the south winning the war. Not an actual book I don't think I have, but a full series from that period towards WWII!
Have an? As in own (Harry Turtledove is great at that...How Few Remain/The Great War/American Empire series are great books). I bumped the homeschooling thread.

Have an? As in own (Harry Turtledove is great at that...How Few Remain/The Great War/American Empire series are great books). I bumped the homeschooling thread.

yea it was very good. Can't wait for his next series on WWII! August its out! :)

Have an? As in own (Harry Turtledove is great at that...How Few Remain/The Great War/American Empire series are great books). I bumped the homeschooling thread.

I agree. I liked the books. Just started reading about teddy when we moved. In a box somewhere.

What i find peculiar about everones response is that you all are basing alot of your opinions on how you think today. Would you be so quick to choose sides if you were back in 1860.
i think we would be even quicker to choose sides. in 1860 you werent an american you were a virginian, new yorker, alabaman, etc. when your state went to war, you went with it.

southerners werent fighting for big political issues. they were fighting for their home. some one else STARTED the war. their question wasnt "is this a just cause for war?" it was "do i fight for my state?"

yea it was very good. Can't wait for his next series on WWII! August its out! :)
Yeah, that should be really interesting to see who wins that war. What is the title?

i think we would be even quicker to choose sides. in 1860 you werent an american you were a virginian, new yorker, alabaman, etc. when your state went to war, you went with it.

southerners werent fighting for big political issues. they were fighting for their home. some one else STARTED the war. their question wasnt "is this a just cause for war?" it was "do i fight for my state?"

You make a very, very good point.

You make a very, very good point.
Which is why it is more important to look at the causes for the leadership to go to war.

Yeah, that should be really interesting to see who wins that war. What is the title?

Return Engagement : Book One of the Settling Accounts Trilogy (TURTLEDOVE, HARRY)

And I do think that the USA will win this one! LOL!

Its not slavery vs no slavery. It's industrial capitalism vs agrarianism.

The south also has a strong Christian heritage, whereas the north was falling into the trap of Atheism at the time.

I would have fought for the Confederacy.

Return Engagement : Book One of the Settling Accounts Trilogy (TURTLEDOVE, HARRY)

And I do think that the USA will win this one! LOL!
If he wants to flip history, I think he should let the CSA win...that would be interesting, and would give two what ifs at the same time.

Watch the movie Gods and Generals, you see that the civil war is all about poetry and wierd ass american gnerals that wear to much clothes to battle. Who cares about the civil war, it happened, and just to let you know the National Archives of the United States kept every damn piece of paper from the civil war on both sides. I do research there and they have about 5 rooms the size of a football fields holding all that crap. So it didnt matter what size we would fight on, what matters is that all the paper would be saved.
HAHA

Yes, quiz kid. Slavery was not the prime cause of the civil war. The basic cause was that of states rights as defined in the constitution. The root cause of this was financial, the north issued high tariffs on southern good sold abroad, while the south wanted lower tariffs. If you don't believe in taxation without representation then you could side with the south.

Only nowadays in this PC world is slavery said to be the root cause.

all claims of 'states rights' reduce to slavery, with the possible exception of the tariff (but even there, the reason it negatively affected them so much was because their entire economy was based on exporting slave-labor cotton and tobacco, instead of having any industry at all). for example the south was all in favor of 'states rights' when it came to allowing and expanding slavery, but demanded that the federal government force the northern states to enforce the fugitive slave laws that were being fairly regularly ignored by northern judges and law enforcement.

slavery and exagerated fears that the north was growing powerful enough to outlaw it completely were the root causes of the civil war. anyone saying otherwise is obfuscating.

I would have fought for the Union because I'm from the part of Arkansas that was against slavery and what I think about slavery now really doesn't matter as 1861 would've been entirely different circumstances. However, I'm against it and racism.

I would have fought for the Union because I'm from the part of Arkansas that was against slavery and what I think about slavery now really doesn't matter as 1861 would've been entirely different circumstances. However, I'm against it and racism.

Liar! You and Bill would have been drinking beer and looking for chicks! :p

As I just stated in my response, not all southerners hated blacks or were close minded pricks....only 10% of the South owned slaves, place like West Virginia and Kentucky were not conducive to slave-operated plantations. And before you get on your high horse..just how do you think those slaves got to ports like Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah?...On Yankee ships they did...New England captains got rich off the slave trade. And, your average Union soldier didn't care much for blacks themselves, as is obvious from their treatment of the Massachusetts 54th, the US Cavalry 9th and 10th regiments, all black troops....so let's have no delusions that the average Yankee cared either for blacks..they may not have wanted slaves, but they sure as hell didn't want them living next to them either.

FYI:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five.

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

I thought 10% seemed very low.

That's not the reason, so please apologize. I don't like being accused of supporting things like that. I just don't think I could stomach fighting for that warmonger tyrant Lincoln. Plus, one of my heroes, Robert E. Lee (who opposed slavery, mind you) led the Confederate army.
My history book suggests that the main focus of the Civil War was due to the issue of ownership of slaves. You can provide something different?

Union!

If he wants to flip history, I think he should let the CSA win...that would be interesting, and would give two what ifs at the same time.

agreed and to be honest, the book came in today! I just picked it up. And no, I didn't lie to you. I heard august and was surprised to see it on the self!

agreed and to be honest, the book came in today! I just picked it up. And no, I didn't lie to you. I heard august and was surprised to see it on the self!
Ha, now I know what to do with my birthday money. Any good (from what you've read of it)?

Ha, now I know what to do with my birthday money. Any good (from what you've read of it)?

i'm only on page 12 and of course the surprise attack has pissed off the USA! Gee that sounds familiar. Fort Sumter=surprise attack! Pearl Harbor=Surprise attack!

But from the first 12-13 pages i've read, its good!

I live in Minnesota, so either neither or the north. But not because I would care about slaves, cause at that time I probaably wouldn't. It's a society thing. The civil war wasn't about slavery anyway. North didn't want the south seceding.

You should have another one. Start today. This time, finish the job.

Right. The civil war.
The Confederacy of Southern American States - were pro slavery, but that wasn't the reason for the war. Lincoln used the fact that the Confederacy supported slavery and employed slaves as propaganda - the Northern states had many blacks and its people, while many being racist, were anti-slaverists. However, the Union, against slavery, was in the right. I probably would not have fought for either, since in those days war was so.. uncivilized.

(on another topic, is war civilized anyawy? Thats not the point, but feh)

i'm only on page 12 and of course the surprise attack has pissed off the USA! Gee that sounds familiar. Fort Sumter=surprise attack! Pearl Harbor=Surprise attack!

But from the first 12-13 pages i've read, its good!
Thats good, I'll get it tomorrow when I swing by boarders.

Galliam- And the south seceded why?

And why did they want lower tarrifs?
Because they had to import more items and because protectionism SUCKS ASS.

The USSC was wrong. The US was founded upon the idea of the right of secession (the DoI is a document of secession). The Constitution does not prohibit secession. As a result, it is a right of the states.
What you think about the court decision is irrelevant, because I think they know just a little more about the constitution then you do,
Not in this case. In this case, it's much like the hysteria post Sept 11 which ramrodded the gutting of the 4th and 5th amendments known as the USA PATRIOT act through congress.

and even if they were wrong (which would take another court overturning that case), it doesn't matter. It is (for the lack of a better term) law.
Laws are made by CONGRESS and signed by the PRESIDENT, bub, remember?

" Your search - cac... - did not match any documents.
Try the PDF then
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ostrowksi.pdf
I was trying to get the link to the PDF-to-HTML equivalent for you to make it easier

Sombody wondered if I thougth there were more to states rigth than slavery, and yes, I think it was. It was also wether the United States is, or the United States are. The issue was also how strong the federal government should be.

I think the reason for the war, were manyfold. The economic side was one reason. The level of tarrifs was one issue between the South and the North.

The State Rigths was about how much the federal government should decide for the states. Slavery was the conflict that brougth this issue to the front.

Also the fact that most people resent beeing told that they are immoral and should change by outsiders should also be rememberd. Also it is easy to be moral about an issue that have no bearing on your own economy. As an example, if you work for a ban on cars, because they are polluting, Detroit is not a place you will get popular.

Basically, I think that the USCW, as all wars, happend for multiple reasons.

The thing that suprises me is that there have been only one US Civil War. The reason I think, is the strength of their Constitution, which I think is a good one.

(Yes, I think slavery is wrong. Yes, I know the South fired the first shoots. Yes, I would still figth with Bobby Lee. And, no, this is not a theme that will make me hold a grudge against anybody).


If all agreed, this would be a boring forum.
E oTraian.

Not in this case. In this case, it's much like the hysteria post Sept 11 which ramrodded the gutting of the 4th and 5th amendments known as the USA PATRIOT act through congress.


Laws are made by CONGRESS and signed by the PRESIDENT, bub, remember?

It would have been overturned by now if it was wrong bub. You know jack-sh*t about the Constitution compaired to those guys. You can tell them that they are wrong once you get admitted to the court.

Hence "Lack of a better term"

No, there's no law for it.
Only with super-elastic words could you do that. The reality is that the document names the states in existence at the time and what they would have upon joining.
So? You'd have to change the document in order not to have them represented.
No you wouldn't.


No, you wouldn't. If the state legislature consents and leaves the union....
Along with the congress...
Nope.


Just like the colonies declaring independence from Britain was treason, right?
Its only treason if you don't win. You lost
Wishy-washy cowardice.

It was still the property of the federal government, South Carolina as a state had no jurisdiction to attack the federally owned property.
It was a sovereign state and was responding to the fraud that the US government had perpetrated.

No you wouldn't.

Nice of you. Why not?


Nope.

Yep


Wishy-washy cowardice.
Nope.

all claims of 'states rights' reduce to slavery,
No, they do not.

with the possible exception of the tariff (but even there, the reason it negatively affected them so much was because their entire economy was based on exporting slave-labor cotton and tobacco, instead of having any industry at all).
There were other industries, and the number of slaves and plantations were dwindling.

for example the south was all in favor of 'states rights' when it came to allowing and expanding slavery, but demanded that the federal government force the northern states to enforce the fugitive slave laws that were being fairly regularly ignored by northern judges and law enforcement.
And that has what to do with your premise?

slavery and exagerated fears that the north was growing powerful enough to outlaw it completely were the root causes of the civil war. anyone saying otherwise is obfuscating.
Anyone so blatantly oversimplifying the causes to just slavery is completely fucking stupid.

It was a sovereign state and was responding to the fraud that the US government had perpetrated.
Bullcrap, they fired on a fort that was federal property, which is an act of rebellion.

No, they do not.
Which ones do not?

There were other industries, and the number of slaves and plantations were dwindling.

I call BS. Source

And that has what to do with your premise?

That the south only wanted 'states rights' when it could help them

Anyone so blatantly oversimplifying the causes to just slavery is completely fucking stupid.
Anyone so blatantly complicating the causes of the war beyond slavery is completely fucking stupid.

It was a sovereign state and was responding to the fraud that the US government had perpetrated.

A fraud that was built in 1829. It was federal property and they had the right to be there. Now if South Carolina offered to pay for the two forts, then you would have a claim.

They did not.

Sorry but that is revisionist history.

Not in this case. In this case, it's much like the hysteria post Sept 11 which ramrodded the gutting of the 4th and 5th amendments known as the USA PATRIOT act through congress.
It would have been overturned by now if it was wrong bub.
No it wouldn't, bub. Recall: it took about 100 years for Plessy v Fergeson to be overturned.

You know jack-sh*t about the Constitution compaired to those guys.
*laughs*
Ok little one, it's time for you to head back to school now.

Liar! You and Bill would have been drinking beer and looking for chicks! :p
Bill is from the part of the state that was pro-slavery.

It was a sovereign state and was responding to the fraud that the US government had perpetrated.
A fraud that was built in 1829.
Ok, you have completely misunderstood. I say FRAUD, not FORT. FRAUD. FORT. Two different words.

Get it?

Ok, you have completely misunderstood. I say FRAUD, not FORT. FRAUD. FORT. Two different words.

Get it?

err... actually, I think it's you that's misunderstood. Read it again, it'll make sense.

No it wouldn't, bub. Recall: it took about 100 years for Plessy v Fergeson to be overturned.

1869+100=1969.
Recall: You have no support backing up your case.

*laughs*
Ok little one, it's time for you to head back to school now.
*laughs*
Come back when you get your law degree.

No you wouldn't.
Nice of you. Why not?
Remember when I explained that it just listed the states that were extant at the time and that is what they would receive upon ratifying the document? Any of that ring a bell?

Go back to school, kid. You need it.

No it wouldn't, bub. Recall: it took about 100 years for Plessy v Fergeson to be overturned.
1869+100=1969.
Recall: You have no support backing up your case.
Recall: I just supported it.

Ok little one, it's time for you to head back to school now.

Remember when I explained that it just listed the states that were extant at the time and that is what they would receive upon ratifying the document? Any of that ring a bell?

Go back to school, kid. You need it.
Remember when I said that it was irrelevant, no matter what occurs those states must have those representatives, no matter what?

Go back to school, kid. You need it.

Those who know me, know how I picked ;) I would have fought and died to save Dixie from the stern bigot Yankees and Caesar Lincoln....

Me!

Recall: I just supported it.

Ok little one, it's time for you to head back to school now.
With what?

Ok little one, it's time for you to head back to school now. You need to have something called proof before you make stupid statements like that.

Bullcrap, they fired on a fort that was federal property, which is an act of rebellion.
When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.

Oh and by the way, less than 5% of the South owned slaves....

Me!

With what?
With the fact that the time between decisions doesn't make the original decision not wrong, kiddo.

Go back to school, little one.

When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.

I was right! It was april! :D

Wow! I never thought I'd get so many replies. It's interesting hearing all sorts of different views, from the left, right, and in between.

Thanks for making it such a popular poll!

When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.

While I'm not American and thus not that clear on this, I'm fairly certain that the States did NOT have the right to secede (though some Southerners did assume that such a right was part of their residual powers, that seems like an unfounded claim to me anyways. Certainly this does not seem to have been the intention of the writers of the document).

With the fact that the time between decisions doesn't make the original decision not wrong, kiddo.

Go back to school, little one.

The first inquiries to which our attention was directed by [74 U.S. 700, 719] counsel, arose upon the allegations of the answer of Chiles (1), that no sufficient authority is shown for the prosecution of the suit in the name and on the behalf of the State of Texas; and (2) that the State, having severed her relations with a majority of the States of the Union, and having by her ordinance of secession attempted to throw off her allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, has so far changed her status as to be disabled from prosecuting suits in the National courts.

The first of these allegations is disproved by the evidence. A letter of authority, the authenticity of which is not disputed, has been produced, in which J. W. Throckmorton, elected governor under the constitution adopted in 1866, and proceeding under an act of the State legislature relating to these bonds, expressly ratifies and confirms the action of the solicitors who filed the bill, and empowers them to prosecute this suit; and it is further proved by the affidavit of Mr. Paschal, counsel for the complainant, that he was duly appointed by Andrew J. Hamilton, while provisional governor of Texas, to represent the State of Texas in reference to the bonds in controversy, and that his appointment has been renewed by E. M. Pease, the actual governor. If Texas was a State of the Union at the time of these acts, and these persons, or either of them, were competent to represent the State, this proof leaves no doubt upon the question of authority.

The other allegation presents a question of jurisdiction. It is not to be questioned that this court has original jurisdiction of suits by States against citizens of other States, or that the States entitled to invoke this jurisdiction must be States of the Union. But, it is equally clear that no such jurisdiction has been conferred upon this court of suits by any other political communities than such States.

If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at he time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it. [74 U.S. 700, 720] We are very sensible of the magnitude and importance of this question, of the interest it excites, and of the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of so disposing of it as to satisfy the conflicting judgments of men equally enlightened, equally upright, and equally patriotic. But we meet it in the case, and we must determine it in the exercise of our best judgment, under the guidance of the Constitution alone.

Some not unimportant aid, however, in ascertaining the true sense of the Constitution, may, be derived from considering what is the correct idea of a State, apart from any union or confederation with other States. The poverty of language often compels the employment of terms in quite different significations; and of this hardly any example more signal is to be found than in the use of the word we are now considering. It would serve no useful purpose to attempt an enumeration of all the various senses in which it is used. A few only need be noticed.

It describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.

It is not difficult to see that in all these senses the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state.

This is undoubtedly the fundamental idea upon which the republican institutions of our own country are established. It was stated very clearly by an eminent judge,6 in one of the earliest cases adjudicated by this court, and we are not aware of anything, in any subsequent decision, of a different tenor. [74 U.S. 700, 721] In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.

The use of the word in this sense hardly requires further remark. In the clauses which impose prohibitions upon the States in respect to the making of treaties, emitting of bills of credit, and laying duties of tonnage, and which guarantee to the States representation in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, are found some instances of this use in the Constitution. Others will occur to every mind.

But it is also used in its geographical sense, as in the clauses which require that a representative in Congress shall be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen, and that the trial of crimes shall be held within the State where committed.

And there are instances in which the principal sense of the word seems to be that primary one to which we have adverted, of a people or political community, as distinguished from a government.

In this latter sense the word seems to be used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

In this clause a plain distinction is made between a State and the government of a State.

Having thus ascertained the senses in which the word state is employed in the Constitution, we will proceed to consider the proper application of what has been said. [74 U.S. 700, 722] The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.

From the date of admission, until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States.

On the 1st of February,7 a convention, called without authority, but subsequently sanctioned by the legislature regularly elected, adopted an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States under the Constitution of the United States, whereby Texas was declared to be 'a separate and sovereign State,' and 'her people and citizens' to be 'absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the government thereof.'

It was ordered by a vote of the convention8 and by an act of the legislature,9 that this ordinance should be submitted to the people, for approval or disapproval, on the 23d of February, 1861.

Without awaiting, however, the decision thus invoked, the convention, on the 4th of February, adopted a resolution designating seven delegates to represent the State in the convention of seceding States at Montgomery, 'in order', as the resolution declared, 'that the wishes and interests of the people of Texas may be consulted in reference to the constitution and provisional government that may be established by said convention.'

Before the passage of this resolution the convention had [74 U.S. 700, 723] appointed a committee of public safety, and adopted an ordinance giving authority to that committee to take measures for obtaining possession of the property of the United States in Texas, and for removing the National troops from her limits. The members of the committee, and all officers and agents appointed or employed by it, were sworn to secrecy and to allegiance to the State. 10 Commissioners were at once appointed, with instructions to repair to the headquarters of General Twiggs, then representing the United States in command of the department, and to make the demands necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the committee. A military force was orgnaized in support of these demands, and an arrangement was effected with the commanding general, by which the United States troops were engaged to leave the State, and the forts and all the public property, not necessary to the removal of the troops, were surrendered to the commissioners. 11

These transactions took place between the 2d and the 18th of February, and it was under these circumstances that the vote upon the ratification or rejection of the ordinance of secession was taken on the 23d of February. It was ratified by a majority of the voters of the State.

The convention, which had adjourned before the vote was taken, reassembled on the 2d of March, and instructed the delegates already sent to the Congress of the seceding States, to apply for admission into the confederation, and to give the adhesion of Texas to its provisional constitution.

It proceeded, also, to make the changes in the State constitution which this adhesion made necessary. The words 'United States,' were stricken out wherever they occurred, and the words 'Confederate States' substituted; and the members of the legislature, and all officers of the State, were required by the new constitution to take an oath of fidelity to the constitution and laws of the new confederacy.

Before, indeed, these changes in the constitution had been [74 U.S. 700, 724] completed, the officers of the State had been required to appear before the committee and take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States.

The governor and secretary of state, refusing to comply, were summarily ejected from office.

The members of the legislature, which had also adjourned and reassembled on the 18th of March, were more compliant. They took the oath, and proceeded on the 8th of April to provide by law for the choice of electors of president and vice-president of the Confederate States.

The representatives of the State in the Congress of the United States were withdrawn, and as soon as the seceded States became organized under a constitution, Texas sent senators and representatives to the Confederate Congress.

In all respects, so far as the object could be accomplished by ordinances of the convention, by acts of the legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up, and new relations to a new government were established for them.

The position thus assumed could only be amintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion, which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas, who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State, except under the immediate protection of the National military forces.

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

But in order to the exercise, by a State, of the right to sue in this court, there needs to be a State government, competent to represent the State in its relations with the National [74 U.S. 700, 727] governmet, so far as least as the institution and prosecution of a suit is concerned.

And it is by no means a logical conclusion, from the premises which we have endeavored to establish, that the governmental relations of Texas to the Union remained unaltered. Obligations often remain unimpaired, while relations are greatly changed. The obligations of allegiance to the State, and of obedience to her laws, subject to the Constitution of the United States, are binding upon all citizens, whether faithful or unfaithful to them; but the relations which subsist while these obligations are performed, are essentially different from those which arise when they are disregarded and set at nought. And the same must necessarily be true of the obligations and relations of States and citizens to the Union. No one has been bold enough to contend that, while Texas was controlled by a government hostile to the United States, and in affiliation with a hostile confederation, waging war upon the United States, senators chosen by her legislature, or representatives elected by her citizens, were entitled to seats in Congress; or that any suit, instituted in her name, could be entertained in this court. All admit that, during this condition of civil war, the rights of the State as a member, and of her people as citizens of the Union, were suspended. The government and the citizens of the State, refusing to recognize their constitutional obligations, assumed the character of enemies, and incurred the consequences of rebellion.

Start disproving. Line by line, if you will.

When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.

Kiddo, firing on federal property is what started the war, not the south having a hissy fit. Chances are they would have been left alone if they didn't open fire.

Kiddo, firing on federal property is what started the war, not the south having a hissy fit. Chances are they would have been left alone if they didn't open fire.

agreed!

While I'm not American and thus not that clear on this, I'm fairly certain that the States did NOT have the right to secede (though some Southerners did assume that such a right was part of their residual powers, that seems like an unfounded claim to me anyways. Certainly this does not seem to have been the intention of the writers of the document).

The right of each state to secede is protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. Each state joined the Union voluntarily; each state could leave voluntarily....

Secondly, (and not to you, Mallberta), the states seceded, they did not rebel. The two terms are totally different. They have no connection. Secession is not rebellion; rebellion is not secession. The states voluntarily left the nation and created their own. They were then forced back into the Union by Lincoln's illegal war....

Me!

Try the PDF then
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ostrowksi.pdf
I was trying to get the link to the PDF-to-HTML equivalent for you to make it easier

Ok I am going to still read it. But the credibility factor takes a loss when I read crap like:

"Can a few courageous writers like Tom DiLorenzo and his colleagues, using logic, evidence, and moral suasion, negate what their opponents thought they had won eith over a million troops on battlefields 138 years ago? Yes! That is why to protect a victory apparently won by bullets, today's "Northern Aggressors" are firing words at Tom DiLorenzo. Those words, unlike yesteryear's bullets, are missing their mark. The "cold steel" of truth is winning this war."

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

*sighs*

The right of each state to secede is protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. Each state joined the Union voluntarily; each state could leave voluntarily....

Secondly, (and not to you, Mallberta), the states seceded, they did not rebel. The two terms are totally different. They have no connection. Secession is not rebellion; rebellion is not secession. The states voluntarily left the nation and created their own. They were then forced back into the Union by Lincoln's illegal war....

Me!
Wrong. Colerica, please see the case Texas v. White and maybe help out baawa in disproving it, line by line.

While I'm not American and thus not that clear on this, I'm fairly certain that the States did NOT have the right to secede (though some Southerners did assume that such a right was part of their residual powers, that seems like an unfounded claim to me anyways. Certainly this does not seem to have been the intention of the writers of the document).

edit- also, if the right to secede was accorded to all states, why then did Texas (if I remember correctly) make such a right a necessary condition of ther entrance into the union (and as such was the only state to secede legally, in my understanding)? If this right actually existed, surely this would not have been necessary?

Which ones do not?
All of them.


There were other industries, and the number of slaves and plantations were dwindling.
I call BS. Source
The history book you didn't read in school.

Anyone so blatantly complicating the causes of the war beyond slavery is completely fucking stupid.
Anyone with that attitude has the intellectual acumen of a gnat and probably thinks that Sept 11 happened because "them damned a-rabs just hate the rich west".

Kiddo, you've got a lot of learning to do. Here, have some: http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia

Ahem.

Wrong. Colerica, please see the case Texas v. White and maybe help out baawa in disproving it, line by line.

Texas versus White holds no grounds when its in the shadow of the US Constitution and her Amendments (specifically the 9th and 10th.)

And, to the debate, I add: http://www.liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/2003was_secession_legal.htm

Which, point by point, outlines my stances on this issue....

Me!

Ok I am going to still read it. But the credibility factor takes a loss when I read crap like:

"Can a few courageous writers like Tom DiLorenzo and his colleagues, using logic, evidence, and moral suasion, negate what their opponents thought they had won eith over a million troops on battlefields 138 years ago? Yes! That is why to protect a victory apparently won by bullets, today's "Northern Aggressors" are firing words at Tom DiLorenzo. Those words, unlike yesteryear's bullets, are missing their mark. The "cold steel" of truth is winning this war."
I don't see why it would take a loss.

Also, I actually personally know Tom DiLorenzo.

Ahem.
If the AoC were perpetual, then the Constitution wouldn't be in effect, would it?

A-HEM!

Think before you post, kiddo. You just shot yourself in the foot with that one.

Ahem.

Articles of Confederation was no longer in use! It was REPLACED by the US Constitution!

Colerica is right! Read the 10th amendment especially! Rights not granted by the federal government are reserved for the states.

Thus the states could've seceded at anytime!

err... actually, I think it's you that's misunderstood. Read it again, it'll make sense.
No, I understood it perfectly.

Hint: The FRAUD does not refer to the FORT. Get it now?

Remember when I explained that it just listed the states that were extant at the time and that is what they would receive upon ratifying the document? Any of that ring a bell?

Go back to school, kid. You need it.
Remember when I said that it was irrelevant,
Remember when I explained that it just listed the states that were extant at the time and that is what they would receive upon ratifying the document? Any of that ring a bell?

No, I understood it perfectly.

Hint: The FRAUD does not refer to the FORT. Get it now?

Actually, you don't.

Why don't you explain your "fraud" and we can go from there.

Texas versus White holds no grounds when its in the shadow of the US Constitution and her Amendments (specifically the 9th and 10th.)

And, to the debate, I add: http://www.liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/2003was_secession_legal.htm

Which, point by point, outlines my stances on this issue....

Me!

If you want to get into the 9th and 10th amendments, the 9th amendment would over-rule the (hypothetical) right to secede given by the 10th, as one point of seceding would be to protect slavery. The right to live free over rules the right to secede (you can't use the 10th amendment to take away freedoms). Though the 9th is ignored...often.

Articles of Confederation was no longer in use! It was REPLACED by the US Constitution!

Colerica is right! Read the 10th amendment especially! Rights not granted by the federal government are reserved for the states.

Thus the states could've seceded at anytime!

Exactly. Secession was an unenumerated right given to each and every state, as promised to them by the 9th and, especially, the 10th Amendment....

Me!

Anyways, the whole think is fairly pointless really. Even if the Southern states did have the right to secede, that just means that instead of a civil war, it was a war between sovereign nations; if anything, it puts the northern states in a better light (I think the march to the sea, for instance, is less reprehensible when the victims are hostile foreigners rather than fellow countrymen.).

Personally, I do not think it was the intention of the framers to allow for sucession, based mostly on what I've read of the Federalist papers, but I'm certainly willing to admit I'm at a disadvantage here, not having directly studied this particular conflict.

When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.
While I'm not American and thus not that clear on this, I'm fairly certain that the States did NOT have the right to secede (though some Southerners did assume that such a right was part of their residual powers, that seems like an unfounded claim to me anyways.
The idea of the formation of the colonies into the United States was based on the Lockean precept of alterning or abolishing the government when it had become a detriment to the governed. This also means that a state in a federal union has the right of secession (and if you don't believe me about Locke, read his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and compare it to the Declaration of Independence before the listing of the causes of separation).

Articles of Confederation was no longer in use! It was REPLACED by the US Constitution!

Colerica is right! Read the 10th amendment especially! Rights not granted by the federal government are reserved for the states.

Thus the states could've seceded at anytime!
Point taken. Read the preamble to the constitution. If the union is now more perfect, and it was already perpetual...

Ahh Colerica is back.

Ok 10th amendment time again:

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.

The United States was a series of colonies under the British unitary system; upon the execution of the Revolution, the United States became a confederation under the Articles of Confederation; and when that system proved unsuccessful, it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution.

Federal systems are chosen for a number of reasons. The size of the nation might be one concern; the diversity of the political subdivisions might be another. The United States combines a bit of both: the size of the continental United States made a unitary system unwieldy, and the diverse interests of the states made confederation impossible. Nations like Switzerland have a population split by language, and despite its small size, found federalism to be a better choice than the others. China, being an extremely large and extremely diverse nation, finds the unitary system more suited to its political ideology. However, communism does not require a unitary system: the former USSR was a federation, at least in its internal structure.

Federalism in the United States has evolved quite a bit since it was first implemented in 1787. In that time, two major kinds of federalism have dominated political theory.

The first, dual federalism, holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.

The second, cooperative federalism, asserts that the national government is supreme over the states, and the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause have entirely different meaning. A good illustration of the wide interpretation of these parts of the Constitution is exemplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause's other common name: the Elastic Clause.

Dual federalism is not completely dead, but for the most part, the United States' branches of government operate under the presumption of a cooperative federalism. The shift from dual to cooperative was a slow one, but it was steady.

One of the earliest examples of a shift was in the Supreme Court's Gibbons v. Ogden decision, which ruled in 1824 that Congress's right to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause could be "exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than those prescribed in the constitution..." The Court did not expand the powers of the national government much over the next century.

Regardless of the kind of federalism current the Constitution does provide some very specific powers to both the states and the federal government. These powers are traditionally divided into three categories.

Reserved powers are those that have been granted specifically to the states or are of a traditionally state scope. These consist mostly of police powers, such as providing fire and police protection, establishment of health regulations, licensing, and education.

Granted powers, also known as express, enumerated, implied, delegated, and inherent powers, are those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8, such as the power to coin money, to raise an army and navy, to provide for patent and copyright protections, to establish a post office, and to make treaties and war with other nations. An express, delegated, or enumerated power is one specifically listed; an implied or inherent power is one that exists to carry out an express or enumerated power. For example, Congress can raise an army; this implies the ability to specify regulations concerning who can join the army.

Concurrent powers are those held to some extent by both the federal and state governments. Both, for example, have taxation power, the ability to construct and maintain roads, and other spending for the general welfare.

Many things are denied of both or either levels of government. States, for example, have no authority to coin money or wage war. Neither may pass a bill of attainder or any ex post facto law. Much of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to both states and the federal government, while all of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to the federal government. Note that the Bill of Rights originally had no effect of restriction on the states, but judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause has incorporated much of the upholding of civil rights to the states.

So it would appear that we have an interpreted right to withdraw from the union. Well at the time that is.....

With the fact that the time between decisions doesn't make the original decision not wrong, kiddo.

Go back to school, little one.
Start disproving. Line by line, if you will.

Sure.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.


Start disproving.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, (that means secede) and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (That too means secede).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (That's an idea straight out of John Locke's Second Treatise On Civil Government, which I suggest that you read.

The idea of the formation of the colonies into the United States was based on the Lockean precept of alterning or abolishing the government when it had become a detriment to the governed. This also means that a state in a federal union has the right of secession (and if you don't believe me about Locke, read his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and compare it to the Declaration of Independence before the listing of the causes of separation).

That's very, very obvious. Life liberty property and life liberty happiness do bear some strong similarities. However, I'm not sure Locke would really give much insight into this kind of federal issue; certainly there is no section in the second treatise directly relating to states rights. I think it's certainly a stretch to say that simply because parts of the constitution resemble Lockes works (and other parts strongly reflect Rousseau, IMO) that ALL of his principles must then be taken implicitly as part of the constitution. I again don't think this was the intention of the framers, nor do I think it is reflected in the contemporary writing of the time (based mainly again on the federalist papers).

edit-

also, if this was so, why did the confederation refuse to allow Eastern Tennessee (I believe this was the region, but I'm not sure) to seccede? Why would it not have allowed certain segments of the population (i.e. slaves) to move freely, even to leave their territory altogether? I don't think the southern states were really that concerned with individual rights.

Anyways, the whole think is fairly pointless really. Even if the Southern states did have the right to secede, that just means that instead of a civil war, it was a war between sovereign nations; if anything, it puts the northern states in a better light (I think the march to the sea, for instance, is less reprehensible when the victims are hostile foreigners rather than fellow countrymen.).

Personally, I do not think it was the intention of the framers to allow for sucession, based mostly on what I've read of the Federalist papers, but I'm certainly willing to admit I'm at a disadvantage here, not having directly studied this particular conflict.

No worries. There is a revisionist contingent that tries to redefine the war.

Colerica has even argued that we can secced since the Declaration of Independence did that....

I'd say the Union. We'd both collapse if the Union didn't win.

Sure.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.


Start disproving.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, (that means secede) and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (That too means secede).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (That's an idea straight out of John Locke's Second Treatise On Civil Government, which I suggest that you read.

Done. 9 would over rule 10 in the right to live free. You can't use the 10th to deny people the right to live free and without slavery.

Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the government. Try again.

When did the act happen?
Apr 12, 1861

When did South Carolina secede?
Dec 20, 1860.

No rebellion, kiddo.

firing on federal property is what started the war, not the south having a hissy fit. Chances are they would have been left alone if they didn't open fire.
Kiddo, Lincoln was an ardent protectionist. Do you know what the first thing which was fired upon at the fort? The customs house! You know--WHERE THE TARRIFS ARE COLLECTED!

Could you be bothered to think, kiddo? And I call you kiddo because you are younger than I am (I can tell. You've not graduated from high school yet--that's plainly obvious).

Kiddo, Lincoln was an ardent protectionist. Do you know what the first thing which was fired upon at the fort? The customs house! You know--WHERE THE TARRIFS ARE COLLECTED!

Could you be bothered to think, kiddo? And I call you kiddo because you are younger than I am (I can tell. You've not graduated from high school yet--that's plainly obvious).

Kiddo, so what? Thats irrelevent, considering that (in your argument) the south wasn't paying any customs. I sincerly doubt that they went around paying customs when they had already 'left' the union.

No, I understood it perfectly.

Hint: The FRAUD does not refer to the FORT. Get it now?
Actually, you don't.
Actually, I did.

Why don't you explain your "fraud" and we can go from there.
Lincoln had stated to the South Carolinian legislature that he would not resupply the customs house at Fort Sumter, and then proceeded to have it resupplied. This pissed off the South Carolinians to no end.

Done. 9 would over rule 10 in the right to live free.
No, it wouldn't. Try again.

Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the government. Try again.
Certainly does in this case. Try again.

Kiddo, Lincoln was an ardent protectionist. Do you know what the first thing which was fired upon at the fort? The customs house! You know--WHERE THE TARRIFS ARE COLLECTED!

Could you be bothered to think, kiddo? And I call you kiddo because you are younger than I am (I can tell. You've not graduated from high school yet--that's plainly obvious).
Kiddo, so what?
Kiddo, Lincoln lied to the South Carolinians.

No, it wouldn't. Try again.

Yes it would. Care to disprove it?


Certainly does in this case. Try again.
The declaration of independence is not, NOT, a legal document with any bearing to the legal aspect of the war.

Kiddo, Lincoln lied to the South Carolinians.
And? Oh, of course they got pissed, but when I get pissed I don't run around attacking federal property (most times).

The idea of the formation of the colonies into the United States was based on the Lockean precept of alterning or abolishing the government when it had become a detriment to the governed. This also means that a state in a federal union has the right of secession (and if you don't believe me about Locke, read his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and compare it to the Declaration of Independence before the listing of the causes of separation).
That's very, very obvious. Life liberty property and life liberty happiness do bear some strong similarities. However, I'm not sure Locke would really give much insight into this kind of federal issue; certainly there is no section in the second treatise directly relating to states rights.
It's a necessary corollary.

I think it's certainly a stretch to say that simply because parts of the constitution resemble Lockes works (and other parts strongly reflect Rousseau, IMO) that ALL of his principles must then be taken implicitly as part of the constitution.
I'm stating that since this is a Lockean-precept country, to deny the right of secession is to deny the very thing that had been fought for by the colonists not 20 years before. Wouldn't that seem odd to you?

I again don't think this was the intention of the framers, nor do I think it is reflected in the contemporary writing of the time (based mainly again on the federalist papers).
In what way?

also, if this was so, why did the confederation refuse to allow Eastern Tennessee (I believe this was the region, but I'm not sure) to seccede?
Are you talking about West Virginia, perhaps? Otherwise, I'd need a little more info, because I don't recall that part of Tenn. wanted to secede from the confederacy.

hrmn yeah, um, pretty simple. I don't hate black people, I hate close minded pricks, so I guess I'd be shootin me some rebels.

Same here, anybody racist really makes me mad.

No, it wouldn't. Try again.
Yes it would. Care to disprove it?
Kiddo, there's no need to disprove the unproven.


Certainly does in this case. Try again.
The declaration of independence is not, NOT, a legal document with any bearing to the legal aspect of the war.
The DoI shows Lockean precepts as the foundation of the US. Maybe you should read the book I recommended.

1869+100=1969.
Recall: You have no support backing up your case.

*laughs*
Come back when you get your law degree.

Plessy v. Ferguson was that case that ruled that 'separate but equal' was constitutional, correct? If so, I thought it took place in 1890-something, unless I'm mistaken.

The South. I have 2 great-great-grandfathers on my dad's side who fought for Dixie, and I am proud of that. I am a Southerner, born and raised, so I would fight for the Confederacy.

Kiddo, there's no need to disprove the unproven.

Let me say this again. The right to live free trumps the right to secede from the union. One of the purposes of the south seceding was to keep slavery alive, and because you can not use the Constitution to deny rights to someone, you can not use the Constitution to secede for the purpose of denying rights to someone. 9th Amendment over-rules the 10th.


The DoI shows Lockean precepts as the foundation of the US. Maybe you should read the book I recommended.
Know what? I will, when I go shopping next. However, that isn't the point, intentions are well and good, but the AoC clearly states that the union is perpetual, and the constitution backs it up. What makes that statement any less relevant then the statements made in the DoI

Plessy v. Ferguson was that case that ruled that 'separate but equal' was constitutional, correct? If so, I thought it took place in 1890-something, unless I'm mistaken.
I'm talking about Texas v. White. 1868-9

I'm talking about Texas v. White. 1868-9

Oh. Sorry.

And? Oh, of course they got pissed, but when I get pissed I don't run around attacking federal property (most times).

Sorry but they didn't get pissed because of that. They were pissed before it even got to that.

We understand that the two forts were built long before the war.

1860 SC passes Ordinance of Secession(I think December). They demand all "FEDERAL" property particularly the forts of Charleston harbor(Sumter, Moultrie, and Castle *forgot rest of name*).

Major Anderson Relocates from Fort Moultrie to Sumter as it is more defensible then Moultrie.

The Govenor had the other forts and arsenal siezed after President Buchanan refused to leave Sumter. He also orders Guns pointed at Sumter.

1861, Jan an unarmed ship sent to reinforce Sumter is turned back by South Carolina forces.

I believe the Govenor demanded another surrender but was declined and plans were prepared to reduce the stronghold.

Lincoln was about to take office.

Feb. the new Confederate goverment sent Gen. Beuregard to command Charleston.

April, Lincoln sends notice that a Navel expedition will be sent to provision the garrison. Beauregard calls for surrender


Beuregard attacks.

So where is the notice of nonprovesion?

Let me say this again. The right to live free trumps the right to secede from the union. One of the purposes of the south seceding was to keep slavery alive, and because you can not use the Constitution to deny rights to someone, you can not use the Constitution to secede for the purpose of denying rights to someone. 9th Amendment over-rules the 10th.


Know what? I will, when I go shopping next. However, that isn't the point, intentions are well and good, but the AoC clearly states that the union is perpetual, and the constitution backs it up. What makes that statement any less relevant then the statements made in the DoI


The AoC was scrapped CSW when the US Constitution was approved! Washington was the FIRST elected President in 1788 and took office in '89! He left office in 1797 and died 2 years later. The AoC thus, was non-existant!

The AoC was scrapped CSW when the US Constitution was approved! Washington was the FIRST elected President in 1788 and took office in '89! He left office in 1797 and died 2 years later. The AoC thus, was non-existant!
The AoC has as much bearing on this discussion as the DoI does.

The AoC has as much bearing on this discussion as the DoI does.

If you believe that then why do you continue to bring up the AoC?

You say that the DoI has no bearing but then you quote the AoC which hasn't existed since the Constitution was approved that replaced it. So which is it?

If you believe that then why do you continue to bring up the AoC?

You say that the DoI has no bearing but then you quote the AoC which hasn't existed since the Constitution was approved that replaced it. So which is it?
If Baawa wishes to say that the DoI has bearing, then I will accept that as long as he accepts that the AoC has the same weight.

If Baawa wishes to say that the DoI has bearing, then I will accept that as long as he accepts that the AoC has the same weight.

Nice CYA! Now answer the question!

Nice CYA! Now answer the question!
Fine. The constitution affirms what was said in the preamble of the AoC. A more perfect union that is still permanent.

The undertakers.

Seriously though, I’ve lived down south, and quite frankly I didn’t see one bit of that Southern hospitality that I’ve heard so much about. 95% of the people that I knew were all assholes down there as opposed to the 86% of the people up north. That and there was a serial flasher that liked to hang out around my neighborhood. I lived there for five years, and I would not want to do that again. That’s why I would fight with the south and move back north when the war was over. If they weren’t a part of this country I would have never had to live there.

Fine. The constitution affirms what was said in the preamble of the AoC. A more perfect union that is still permanent.

Never did answer it! AoC no longer valid so how can you still use it when he can't use the DoI?

Never did answer it! AoC no longer valid so how can you still use it when he can't use the DoI?
I never said he couldn't use it, I just say that if he wants to use the DoI, then I can use the AoC. As he is using the DoI, I will use the AoC.

I never said he couldn't use it, I just say that if he wants to use the DoI, then I can use the AoC. As he is using the DoI, I will use the AoC.

He used the DoI because you used the DoC!

He used the DoI because you used the DoC!
AoC, and I used to to prove a point with wording, not to infer something in an entirely different document.

I hate slavery and would have opposed it certainly but I don't believe a war a division like that was necessary, lincoln was a shit president and all that was a big mess

AoC, and I used to to prove a point with wording, not to infer something in an entirely different document.

Well it was how it was posted that started this whole thing regarding the AoC and the DoI

The undertakers.

Seriously though, I’ve lived down south, and quite frankly I didn’t see one bit of that Southern hospitality that I’ve heard so much about. 95% of the people that I knew were all assholes down there as opposed to the 86% of the people up north. That and there was a serial flasher that liked to hang out around my neighborhood. I lived there for five years, and I would not want to do that again. That’s why I would fight with the south and move back north when the war was over. If they weren’t a part of this country I would have never had to live there.

Hrmn, that isn't a bad idea. Mebby then I wouldn't have to endure nascar on tv anymore :o .

Hate slavery. But then again I dont think people can say "for the union, they hated slavery" most people with any brain in their head know that the only Lincoln signed the amancipation(sp) proclimation was to get more support for the union by making blacks love it even more. Thats the only reason. Just for more soldiers and more people leaving the south. I might have been on the union but then jumped ship later on becuase the union was getting its arse kicked by southern superiority. But after the battle of antietem(sp) I would jump ship back to the north because of the mistake of some stupid dumb arse leaving the battle plans rolled around a cigar. Looked like Europe was gonna help the south by sending troops if they won that battle but...didnt happen. South had best leaders, by far. Except for a few of the best military leaders in history which were stillo n the north. So my opinion. Swing either way.

I'd be here defending my land I rightfully stole off the natives...

Hate slavery. But then again I dont think people can say "for the union, they hated slavery" most people with any brain in their head know that the only Lincoln signed the amancipation(sp) proclimation was to get more support for the union by making blacks love it even more. Thats the only reason. Just for more soldiers and more people leaving the south. I might have been on the union but then jumped ship later on becuase the union was getting its arse kicked by southern superiority. But after the battle of antietem(sp) I would jump ship back to the north because of the mistake of some stupid dumb arse leaving the battle plans rolled around a cigar. Looked like Europe was gonna help the south by sending troops if they won that battle but...didnt happen. South had best leaders, by far. Except for a few of the best military leaders in history which were stillo n the north. So my opinion. Swing either way.

Actually he signed it in hopes to insight a black uprising in the south, hey guess what, it worked.

I ....kinda said that. and yeah, I know it worked. Never said it didnt. just pointing out to peopel that the north didnt do that just to be nice. they did it for the sake of their existance. Most people go "I would fight for the north because they loved blacks" when in fact they really didnt. just tolerated them more than the south. Not rascist, just stating a historical fact.

I ....kinda said that. and yeah, I know it worked. Never said it didnt. just pointing out to peopel that the north didnt do that just to be nice. they did it for the sake of their existance. Most people go "I would fight for the north because they loved blacks" when in fact they really didnt. just tolerated them more than the south. Not rascist, just stating a historical fact.

hrmn yeah, I should have said "more specifically" instead of "actually".

Hrmn, that isn't a bad idea. Mebby then I wouldn't have to endure nascar on tv anymore :o .
I usually just change the channel. But if a war can have the same effect, than why not?

Hasta La Vista Abey
:sniper:

Too many pages to read through so I'll just answer the original question:

The Black Hat Brigade out of Illinois.

Actually he signed it in hopes to insight a black uprising in the south, hey guess what, it worked.

Caesar Lincoln signed it to get Europe off his back. He said, quote, "One war at a time." Britian was inches away from siding with the CSA. Had they done so, America would more than likely cease to exist. Britain still wanted revenge, believe it or not, for the Revolutionary War. They saw that if they helped the CSA, they could defeat the USA and then the Confederates wouldn't be strong enough to defeat the British....thusly, the lobsters could have America back.....

Caesar Lincoln signed it to get Europe off his back. He said, quote, "One war at a time." Britian was inches away from siding with the CSA. Had they done so, America would more than likely cease to exist. Britain still wanted revenge, believe it or not, for the Revolutionary War. They saw that if they helped the CSA, they could defeat the USA and then the Confederates wouldn't be strong enough to defeat the British....thusly, the lobsters could have America back.....

That's not quite true. While England's royalty did support the CSA, the majority of England's citizenry publicly supported the northern states, as most of their relatives and ancestors had emigrated to New England. Were England ever to openly recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy, they would have faced a public revolt and possibly their own civil war. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Union, of course, I would have felt very guilty in supporting the enslavement of a fellow human being...

That's not quite true. While England's royalty did support the CSA, the majority of England's citizenry publicly supported the northern states, as most of their relatives and ancestors had emigrated to New England. Were England ever to openly recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy, they would have faced a public revolt and possibly their own civil war. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Three words:

The Trent Affair

That is what caused Britian to come close to war with the US but after Prince Albert intercepted a letter from Prime Minister Palmerston and redid the language regarding the 2 envoys, that is what got Britian off the back of the USA

Ooh, very true Formal. But the problem still remains that the citizenry of England would not have accepted allegiance with the Confederacy. Granted, the cotton trade was important enough for England to send troops to Canada in posturing for an entrance into the war. But you also have to go back to the fact that overwhelming majority of the English people did not support the Confederacy, despite the economic ties. The familial ties to the Union were too strong and even had Seward not apologized for the affair it is questionable that England would have involved themselves and risk their own civil war as a result.

The timing seems questionable too if you think about it. Do you think England would have done the same posturing in 1862 that they did just the year before? By late 1862 the Union blockade had become a reality instead of a paper threat. By 1864 the Confederacy had already made the appeal to England and France to free their slaves in return for political recognition and military assistance. That's what I wonder though. England's threatening gesture came at a time when the Union was at its weakest. If the United States had stalled for a while longer, into early 1862 would England have proceeded?

Excellent point Formal!! Love ya.

Ooh, very true Formal. But the problem still remains that the citizenry of England would not have accepted allegiance with the Confederacy. Granted, the cotton trade was important enough for England to send troops to Canada in posturing for an entrance into the war. But you also have to go back to the fact that overwhelming majority of the English people did not support the Confederacy, despite the economic ties. The familial ties to the Union were too strong and even had Seward not apologized for the affair it is questionable that England would have involved themselves and risk their own civil war as a result.

The timing seems questionable too if you think about it. Do you think England would have done the same posturing in 1862 that they did just the year before? By late 1862 the Union blockade had become a reality instead of a paper threat. By 1864 the Confederacy had already made the appeal to England and France to free their slaves in return for political recognition and military assistance. That's what I wonder though. England's threatening gesture came at a time when the Union was at its weakest. If the United States had stalled for a while longer, into early 1862 would England have proceeded?

Excellent point Formal!! Love ya.

I truely believe they will!

To be honest, I forgot about the trent affair but then it came back to me as I read Harry Harrison's book Stars and Strips Forever! Its a 3 book set regarding an alternate Civil War in which Britian did follow through. Pretty interesting. It actually showed how close we got to war with Britian. Thank God for Prince Albert!

Kiddo, there's no need to disprove the unproven.
Let me say this again. The right to live free trumps the right to secede from the union.
Let me say this again: it does not. There's no such thing as conflicting rights.

One of the purposes of the south seceding was to keep slavery alive, and because you can not use the Constitution to deny rights to someone,
They weren't.


The DoI shows Lockean precepts as the foundation of the US. Maybe you should read the book I recommended.
Know what? I will, when I go shopping next. However, that isn't the point, intentions are well and good, but the AoC
....was superceded by the Constitution.

If you believe that then why do you continue to bring up the AoC?

You say that the DoI has no bearing but then you quote the AoC which hasn't existed since the Constitution was approved that replaced it. So which is it?
If Baawa wishes to say that the DoI has bearing, then I will accept that as long as he accepts that the AoC has the same weight.
I don't have to do any such thing. The DoI is a document of secession, which is entirely germane to the discussion. It also shows the reasons why the colonies became the United States--also relevant. The AoC is wholly irrelevant.

Let me say this again: it does not. There's no such thing as conflicting rights.

Your right. There is no right to secede in the case of the confederacy.

They weren't.

They weren't what?

....was superceded by the Constitution.
Point? It is about as relevant to this discussion as the DoI is, and it establishes a permanent union. The Constitution's preamble says "to form a more perfect union". One that is still permanent.

6 people stated there was a civil war?

I hope those are foriegners or people with sick sense of humor because if they're american and serious, then they DO NEED to go back to school!

Your right. There is no right to secede in the case of the confederacy.

They weren't what?

....was superceded by the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Point? It is about as relevant to this discussion as the DoI is, and it establishes a permanent union. The Constitution's preamble says "to form a more perfect union". One that is still permanent.[/QUOTE]

The Preamble is but that is all it is, A preamble! As for the AoC, it is superceded and shouldn't be used in an arguement.

I don't have to do any such thing. The DoI is a document of secession, which is entirely germane to the discussion. It also shows the reasons why the colonies became the United States--also relevant. The AoC is wholly irrelevant.
No, the AoC is relevant because it establishes the fact that the founders intended for the union to be permanent and indissoluble.

....was superceded by the Constitution.
Point? It is about as relevant to this discussion as the DoI is, and it establishes a permanent union. The Constitution's preamble says "to form a more perfect union". One that is still permanent.[/QUOTE]

The Preamble is but that is all it is, A preamble! As for the AoC, it is superceded and shouldn't be used in an arguement.[/QUOTE]
And the DoI somehow is relevent to the legal issues at hand?

See the top.

No, the AoC is relevant because it establishes the fact that the founders intended for the union to be permanent and indissoluble.

The AoC was founded at the end of the Revolutionary War. However, our Founding Fathers found that IT DIDN'T WORK so the scrapped it and started over. They formed the US Constitution. Thus they declared the AoC DEAD and the US as we have it today, more or less, was born.

The AoC was founded at the end of the Revolutionary War. However, our Founding Fathers found that IT DIDN'T WORK so the scrapped it and started over. They formed the US Constitution. Thus they declared the AoC DEAD and the US as we have it today, more or less, was born.
Thanks for the history lesson formal...

If anything, the AoC would give greater weight to the entire secession argument, just because of the far weaker federal branch.

Let me say this again: it does not. There's no such thing as conflicting rights.
Your right. There is no right to secede in the case of the confederacy.
Of course there was, and the word is "you're", not "your"


They weren't.
They weren't what?
Using the constution to deny the rights of other people.


....was superceded by the Constitution.
Point? It is about as relevant to this discussion as the DoI is,
No, the DoI is relevant to establishing the type of nation the US was to be (Lockean). The AoI was OBE (overtaken by events).

Care to know many of the founders' feelings on contracts (which is what the constitution is)? Could never be permanent. Could never be perpetually binding. Jefferson himself felt that contracts should be valid only for 19 years.

Hint: it helps to have done some research. Stay in school, kiddo.

Point? It is about as relevant to this discussion as the DoI is, and it establishes a permanent union. The Constitution's preamble says "to form a more perfect union". One that is still permanent.

The Preamble is but that is all it is, A preamble! As for the AoC, it is superceded and shouldn't be used in an arguement.[/QUOTE]
And the DoI somehow is relevent to the legal issues at hand?

See the bottom.[/QUOTE]

He was stating how the DoI was used for US to secede from Great Britian. Technically we had no right to Secede from the United Kingdom but we did it anyway. That was what he was getting at. He brought out a line in it that brought a point home. The Southern States thought that the Union held to much power and that they were getting ignored. Thus they seceded from the Union.

I agree that the Declaration of Independence is in actuality a document of secession. However, you should also read the first line of the second paragraph of the declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This wholly gives African-Americans, as they are "men," the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, according to the Declaration of Independence, secession would have been justified, but slavery would not have been...

Finally, the Articles of Confederation was a piece of shit. It gave virtually no power to the federal government, concentrating power in the hands of the states. What came of such a form of nation? The United States was ridiculed. It was only with the tenacity of men such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was the Constitution drafted, according centralized control to the federal government.

Last but not least, the Confederate government towards the end of the war was actually bigger than that of the Federal government, due to the fact that Jefferson Davis, although prevented from forcing the Confederate states, due to the clause in their constitution (giving states' power over the government), worked hard to centralize the government, making it more centralized than the one that they had been trying to escape...

Thanks for the history lesson formal...

If anything, the AoC would give greater weight to the entire secession argument, just because of the far weaker federal branch.

Now there's a bold line. If the Federal Government was weaker, they wouldn't have seceded from the union because the AoC prevented the government from trampling on states rights thus they couldn't pass anything on slavery unless all states agreed.

Of course there was, and the word is "you're", not "your"

Thank you. It is a bit late at night for me.
There was not. Which wins out, the right to live free or the right to leave the union?

Using the constution to deny the rights of other people.

How so? They were attempting to leave the union to stop what they saw as the abolition of slavery on the horizon.


No, the DoI is relevant to establishing the type of nation the US was to be (Lockean). The AoI was OBE (overtaken by events).

Care to know many of the founders' feelings on contracts (which is what the constitution is)? Could never be permanent. Could never be perpetually binding. Jefferson himself felt that contracts should be valid only for 19 years.

Hint: it helps to have done some research. Stay in school, kiddo.
Then why use language like that. Permanent means permanent, unless the meaning of the word has changed radically over the past 200 years.

Technically, when the states joined the Union and signed the Constitution, they were signing a binding contract, in which under a legal basis, the South's actions would be considered illegal...

Now there's a bold line. If the Federal Government was weaker, they wouldn't have seceded from the union because the AoC prevented the government from trampling on states rights thus they couldn't pass anything on slavery unless all states agreed.

Yes, but you didn't read what I said.

Well, CSW, the issue of secession would have never come up under the Articles of Confederation...

Yes, but you didn't read what I said.

Actually I did! you didn't read what I said. Think about the AoC.

Until then,

Good Night