NationStates Jolt Archive

There is little to support your thesis in these documents. Almost all of the complaints identified are directly related to slavery. Even to the extent some other complaints may be buried in these documents, they are first and foremost about the preservation of the institution of slavery.
There are more passages than those highlighting slavery.
The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all.
The South is displeased with the representation in the government.
The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.
The North is using government money for industry while the South sees none.
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it.
The South had fought for the territory, yet they have no say in how it is run. The new territory is subject to the US laws, and not to the laws that best suit its inhabitants. Granted, the biggest issue was slavery.
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time.
The North wants to impose laws on the new territories. These are laws of slavery. These are not laws that the people of that territory have had any say in.

While slavery was the largest issue, the real problem was why other states were forcing ideas onto other states. It's like saying the American Revolution was about paying taxes. It wasn't, it was about freedom from tyranny and the ability to self-govern.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.


What I have to say is this:
The confederate battle flag is offensive and racist, the civil war was about slavery, the south was wrong, the nearest galaxy is made of cocaine, and people shouldn't start arguements by demanding that the opposite side proove their veiw when the person who started the arguement clearly holds the burden of proof. Burden of proof falls on he who is on the side of the debate contrary to the popularly-heald belief.

Oooooh... Now I see what you mean by honorable! If this is the case then, yes, the south was very honorable.

A reaction in anger is not a wrong act, I'm tired of disrespect from people who probably couldn't even identify the real confederate flag, not the battle flag, the national flag, its a different flag from the common southern cross and the "stars and bars" we commonly see in the news. As for the south being dishonourable, did you ever read about what happened in new york during the war, nothing like the new york draft riots ever happened in the south, and the north attacked innocent civilians on a regular basis, the south did so very rarely, remember what I said about attacking non combatants?

What I have to say is this:
The confederate battle flag is offensive and racist, the civil war was about slavery, the south was wrong, the nearest galaxy is made of cocaine, and people shouldn't start arguements by demanding that the opposite side proove their veiw when the person who started the arguement clearly holds the burden of proof. Burden of proof falls on he who is on the side of the debate contrary to the popularly-heald belief.

The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, I'm the defense, you must prove I was in the wrong, I only have to prove you're not right, my jobs much easier than yours is, since the commonly held opinion attacks my beliefs that makes me the de facto defense in this situation, prosecution must prove he done it, its gonna work the same way here. The battle flag is a flag, how can it be racist, it is inanimate, it has no emotions, see one point wrong for you already. The civil war was not about slavery until Lincoln made it so, had the south continued to recive the foriegn aid it had before Lincoln changed the focus of the war they would have not lost, in fact they were well on their way to winning the war when he signed the emancipation proclamation, when he signed it they lost a good deal of foriegn aid in the form of arms and other necessities, two wrong, strike three your out. The south had the moral highground before Lincoln changed the objective of the war, as such the ones with the moral highground were clearly in the right, when Lincoln had to resort to politics to defeat a superior army that reinforced the rightness of their position, if he was in the right he would have been able to beat anything the south threw at him, a man in the right is almost unstoppable, the south was nigh on unstoppable, they had the convictions and the strength of will to hold the federals at bay at any price, Forrest was a better general than Sherman ever was and who gets remembered for their military skill, not Forrest, he gets remembered for getting very very drunk and running around in his bedsheets being laughed at by the populace, that feels like strike three, you're outta here.

A reaction in anger is not a wrong act,
So, if the north had attacked the south in anger, that wouldn't be wrong. If a guy on the road shoots another one in anger, that's not wrong.

Keep it up. You're doing great.

I'm tired of disrespect from people who probably couldn't even identify the real confederate flag, not the battle flag, the national flag, its a different flag from the common southern cross and the "stars and bars" we commonly see in the news.
But disrespect from you is ok because you can identify the south's flag? What does one thing have to do with the other? How is being able to identify a flag relevant to the discussion? Why do you refer to St. Andrew's Cross as southern cross?

Plus, all I have done is counter your arguments by turning them around. If that's disrespectful it's because you are disrespecting yourself.

As for the south being dishonourable, did you ever read about what happened in new york during the war, nothing like the new york draft riots ever happened in the south, and the north attacked innocent civilians on a regular basis, the south did so very rarely, remember what I said about attacking non combatants?
And who has ever said that the north was honorable? Can't both sides have acted dishonorable before and during the war? Wars may be fought for an honorable cause, but honor is usually the first thing to fly along with the bullets.

The fact that the south rarely attacked civilians makes them, maybe, not as dishonorable; but nevertheless dishonorable.

Please feel free to identify any significant complaints raised that are not related to slavery.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. Paragraph 1 of the quoted portion of the South Carolina declaration.

They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. Almost all of Georgias declaration, only two points in the quoted section even mention slavery.

I honestly can't do much with the portion of the Mississippi declaration you quoted, not enough of the text is availabe here for me to access the cogent points in a quick and efficient manner.

The South commited dishonorable acts as numerous and often as the North. Andersonville, the most deadly prison camp in the war with 13,000 prisoners forced to suffer brutally. The Fort Pillow massacre, and the Poison Spring and the Olustee massacres were all terrible acts commited by the Confederacy. To suggest that one side was more honorable than the other is inaccurate. They may have been defending their way of life, but they were not honoable, and neither was the North.

Oh, for the love of Pete, it's baaack.

The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, I'm the defense, you must prove I was in the wrong, I only have to prove you're not right, my jobs much easier than yours is, since the commonly held opinion attacks my beliefs that makes me the de facto defense in this situation, prosecution must prove he done it, its gonna work the same way here.

Sorry, pal. You wish to prove commonly held opinion (and historical fact) is wrong, so you have the burden of proof.

You are the affirmative side. You are making assertions to correct the "uninformed." You have the burden of proof.

But it matters little as you've already been proven wrong numerous times.

The battle flag is a flag, how can it be racist, it is inanimate, it has no emotions, see one point wrong for you already.

Been through this. The flag is a symbol. A racist symbol. That would be strike one for you.

The civil war was not about slavery until Lincoln made it so, had the south continued to recive the foriegn aid it had before Lincoln changed the focus of the war they would have not lost, in fact they were well on their way to winning the war when he signed the emancipation proclamation, when he signed it they lost a good deal of foriegn aid in the form of arms and other necessities, two wrong, strike three your out.

Nope. Been proven wrong. Southern states seceeded -- over slavery -- before Lincoln even became President. The war was about slavery long before the Emancipation Proclamation. Strike 2.

The south had the moral highground before Lincoln changed the objective of the war, as such the ones with the moral highground were clearly in the right, when Lincoln had to resort to politics to defeat a superior army that reinforced the rightness of their position, if he was in the right he would have been able to beat anything the south threw at him, a man in the right is almost unstoppable, the south was nigh on unstoppable, they had the convictions and the strength of will to hold the federals at bay at any price, Forrest was a better general than Sherman ever was and who gets remembered for their military skill, not Forrest, he gets remembered for getting very very drunk and running around in his bedsheets being laughed at by the populace, that feels like strike three, you're outta here.

You have yet to establish any "moral highground" the South occupied.

Oh, yeah, you claimed it is moral to defend -- even kill in the name of -- any position no matter how wrong it was. Not a moral highground.

And the "moral highground" of "honorable" slavery. Buying, selling, and owning your fellow men and women. Buying and selling their children. Forcing them to work for free at the threat of violence. Violating every basic concept of human rights. Not a moral highground.

And treason against a duly formed Republic. Not a moral highground.

You dirty, arrogant, self righteous, holier than thou, supercilious piece of amphibian shit, you have made what is quite possibly the biggest mistake of your life, I am now going to proceed to, in the most disgusting and obscene words I can think of, describe your family......


Miehm is sounding a little angered right now. ;)


Good call mod. That really was stepping about a mile across the line. Insulting someone's family is definitely not cool. :rolleyes:

So, if the north had attacked the south in anger, that wouldn't be wrong. If a guy on the road shoots another one in anger, that's not wrong.

Keep it up. You're doing great.


But disrespect from you is ok because you can identify the south's flag? What does one thing have to do with the other? How is being able to identify a flag relevant to the discussion? Why do you refer to St. Andrew's Cross as southern cross?

Plus, all I have done is counter your arguments by turning them around. If that's disrespectful it's because you are disrespecting yourself.


And who has ever said that the north was honorable? Can't both sides have acted dishonorable before and during the war? Wars may be fought for an honorable cause, but honor is usually the first thing to fly along with the bullets.

The fact that the south rarely attacked civilians makes them, maybe, not as dishonorable; but nevertheless dishonorable.


My point concerning the flag was that they are probably not as well informed as they believe themselves to be, I will not suffer disrespect from one who knows less than I do, if they prove otherwise, I still won't suffer disrespect, I'm reasonably respectful most of the time, they're commonly disrespectful of my knowledge. I refer to St. Andrews cross as the southern cross because that is the name most likely to be recognized by the general public, most people never learned it was called anything but the southern cross so I called it what they would probably know it as. The men of the southern armies were much better controlled in occupied cities than the union forces, they respected the sanctity of the home to a much greater extent than the union did, that is honorable, the great majority of their generals were southern gentlemen, death before dishonor was not just a saying to them, they lived it, the north was composed of street thugs and various other unsavory characters in its upper ranks (they're called hookers for a reason). Even the southern treatment of prisoners was generally better than union treatment of prisoners, I'll admit that some of the prison wardens were a bit sadistic, but the majority were just men who guarded prisoners. The south was more honorable than the north, much more honorable, the north resorted to economic warfare against a supposedly inferior enemy, the south just kicked ass on union troops, thats much more honorable than weakening an enemies economy, if you can't beat him through force of arms you don't deserve to beat him. The north further dishonored itself by attacking civilians and signing the emancipation proclamation, if they were serious about freeing the saves they would have freed all of them, not just the ones in the south, if the north didn't have slaves then freeing them couldn't hurt them at all, so why not free all the slaves, because it was a political ploy to defeat a superior enemy, thats why. Do you get the point yet or do I need to explain it some more.

I provided a link to the full documents. So "I don't have enough text" is a feeble excuse.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. Paragraph 1 of the quoted portion of the South Carolina declaration.

Here is the full paragraph you quote from the South Carolina declaration:

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

The 25 years of agitition they complain about is agitation against slavery.

The sectional party is the Republican party.

The thrust of the paragraph is that the election of Lincoln will bring the end of slavery so they are seceding. Pretty damn clear.


Almost all of Georgias declaration, only two points in the quoted section even mention slavery.

This is simply false:

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. [Note: this would be the election of Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform.] The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. [Note: the wanted half or more of the new territory to have slavery] These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere [Note: this "property is people -- slaves] ; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

They throw in a few economic complaints. But the main complaints (1) insecurity of the institution of slavery with the election of Lincoln, (2) failure of the free states to return slaves to slave states, and (3) failure to allow adequate expansion of slavery into new territories.

Again, the warp and woof is slavery, slavery, slavery.

(And Lincoln isn't even in office yet!)


I honestly can't do much with the portion of the Mississippi declaration you quoted, not enough of the text is availabe here for me to access the cogent points in a quick and efficient manner.

Here is the full statement for Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

[Note: up to here every paragraph -- every sentence has been about slavery.]

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" -- hard to be clearer.

Give it up. You are wrong.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.
how can a flag be offensive? the guy who raises it over the building where MY taxes go to is..... (state capital anyone....?) go ahead, raise it in your yard, paint it on the side of your house, hell put the swastika up there right next to it if you want to. whatever floats your boat as the saying goes...

interesting thing to note. the south pwned the north in the Civil War overall. had Lee won the battle at Gettysburg (sp?) he would have undeniably won the war because there were no other armies between him and Washington.

A recent documentary done by the history channel used forensics to prove that had Lee simply destroyed a farmers fence in the middle of the battlefeild by simply commanding his cannons to do so, he would've won the battle.

for those who don't understand i shall explain. the decisive moment of that battle was that Lee did what was called Picettes (sp?) charge. he had the mass of his force charge through the center of the battlefeild to overrun the Northern army. (a mistake as all of his officers thought... and most historians think). This actually would've succeeded despite extra casualties, only problem was there was a big fence in the way which easily could've been destroyed by his cannons. so everyones climbing the fence and reforming while they get shot at. (this takes longer than it sounds) The south did overrun the north but were not able to keep it (lack of men). the north pushes them back and the north wins.
Final Conclusion: had Lee not had made the stupidest military blunder in the history of war, there would today be a Confederated States of America (im just guessing what there real name was) and a United States of America.

The south was about freedom, not slavery, not freeing the slaves, but the choice of wether or not to do so, that was the freedom they sought.

The freedom to restrict freedom. That sounds like something out of 1984.

The freedom to choose whether or not someone should be a slave is not a freedom. It is a power; one that no mortal is entitled to. Do you think I should have the right to decide tomorrow that I want you to be my slave, and then take action accordingly? If that really was the South's way of 'being about freedom', then the Civil War really was about slavery.

Fighting a war over the freedom to choose to have slaves means fighting a war over slavery. Even a million qualifiers won't alter this.

The freedom to restrict freedom. That sounds like something out of 1984.

The freedom to choose whether someone else should or shouldn't be a slave is not a freedom at all. It is a power; one that no mortal is entitled to. Do you think I should have the right to decide tomorrow that I want you to be my slave, and then take action accordingly? If that really was the South's way of 'being about freedom', then the Civil War really was about slavery.

Fighting a war over the freedom to choose to have slaves means fighting a war over slavery. Even a million qualifiers won't alter this.

Amen.

And damn well said.

Miehm,

You do not need to think the South was right about the Civil War to have pride in Southern heritage.

You need not defend slavery. You need not revise history.

The North and the West have their share of nasty history.

The entire United States does.

Even on just the issue of slavery, the entire US bears responsibility. The Constitution was written to accomodate slavery. It specified that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person.

There may be a country with no horrors in its history. I doubt it.

I have said before -- I have ancestors that were Confederates. Prominent Confederates. There are some things they did in their lives that were good. There were some that were evil. As with much of mankind. Slavery was a very big evil -- but is one that many justified.

History and the attitudes of free men finally caught up with the practice of slavery in the South. The center could not hold. Slavery had to end. Unfortunately, it required force to make some relent from the practice.

If you have pride in Southern traditions, great. But pick the right ones. Not the indefensible.

Please.

Oh, for the love of Pete, it's baaack.



Sorry, pal. You wish to prove commonly held opinion (and historical fact) is wrong, so you have the burden of proof.

You are the affirmative side. You are making assertions to correct the "uninformed." You have the burden of proof.

But it matters little as you've already been proven wrong numerous times.



Been through this. The flag is a symbol. A racist symbol. That would be strike one for you.



Nope. Been proven wrong. Southern states seceeded -- over slavery -- before Lincoln even became President. The war was about slavery long before the Emancipation Proclamation. Strike 2.



You have yet to establish any "moral highground" the South occupied.

Oh, yeah, you claimed it is moral to defend -- even kill in the name of -- any position no matter how wrong it was. Not a moral highground.

And the "moral highground" of "honorable" slavery. Buying, selling, and owning your fellow men and women. Buying and selling their children. Forcing them to work for free at the threat of violence. Violating every basic concept of human rights. Not a moral highground.

And treason against a duly formed Republic. Not a moral highground.

My assertations must be proven false, had you made the claim that the north was right I would need to prove those assertations wrong, not that the south was right, I'm putting the burden of proof on you, you are evading the burden, as such your arguments are invalid. Ball 1

If you can show me one incident where the confederate battle flag was used as a racist symbol, just one incident, then I'll cede the point, as it stands the battleflag has never been used in a racist manner, the flag used by the klan and other hate groups is not the battleflag of the confederacy, so those don't count, the square confederate battleflag must be the one used in the hate act, not the rectangular klan flag. Ball 2

The election of Abraham Lincoln sparked the secessions, he was not president, just president-elect, they did not secede for the right to own slaves, they seceded for the right to choose wether or not they wanted to own slaves in their territory, they were for the states right to be their own masters, not minions of the federal government, you still have yet to prove that free choice was not why they seceded, so that must be why they seceded, if the territories decided on their own not to be slave owning states there would not have been an issue, but the fact that the federal government would make the decision was the problem. Ball 3

The souths highground was based on their secession from a state that removed their choice to do as they believed was right. Slavery is not dishonorable, been over that already, in addition, the precepts and morals of modern America are not the issue, modern morals did not exist, they believed they were in the right, the morals of the past are the ones that matter, since they believed they had moral superiority and since they believed it, it was as they believed, perception is more important than reality in this case. They also had a reasonable belief in their moral superiority because they were seceding from a regime that was trying to remove what they considered to be a right, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do. They were not traitors, a traitor is someone who betrays his nation, the confederates were not united states citizens, they were confederate citizens, there was no betrayal involved, the only betrayal is of the memory of those who fought and died for their beliefs and their nation. You are a traitor to history, how does it feel?

how can a flag be offensive? the guy who raises it over the building where MY taxes go to is..... (state capital anyone....?) go ahead, raise it in your yard, paint it on the side of your house, hell put the swastika up there right next to it if you want to. whatever floats your boat as the saying goes...

interesting thing to note. the south pwned the north in the Civil War overall. had Lee won the battle at Gettysburg (sp?) he would have undeniably won the war because there were no other armies between him and Washington.

A recent documentary done by the history channel used forensics to prove that had Lee simply destroyed a farmers fence in the middle of the battlefeild by simply commanding his cannons to do so, he would've won the battle.

for those who don't understand i shall explain. the decisive moment of that battle was that Lee did what was called Picettes (sp?) charge. he had the mass of his force charge through the center of the battlefeild to overrun the Northern army. (a mistake as all of his officers thought... and most historians think). This actually would've succeeded despite extra casualties, only problem was there was a big fence in the way which easily could've been destroyed by his cannons. so everyones climbing the fence and reforming while they get shot at. (this takes longer than it sounds) The south did overrun the north but were not able to keep it (lack of men). the north pushes them back and the north wins.
Final Conclusion: had Lee not had made the stupidest military blunder in the history of war, there would today be a Confederated States of America (im just guessing what there real name was) and a United States of America.

Actually, Picketts charge was an accident by the courier, Pickett was an agressive general and Lee sent a message amounting to "Don't charge", Pickett recieved the message sans don't, and so he charged, other than that you are completely correct in your analysis of the battle of Gettysburg.

interesting thing to note. the south pwned the north in the Civil War overall. had Lee won the battle at Gettysburg (sp?) he would have undeniably won the war because there were no other armies between him and Washington.

This sort of historical view is ridiculous, and I hate it. The South did not "pwn" the North by virtue that the North ultimately won the war. The assertion that had Lee done this or done that is irrelevant, because he did not, and it did not happen. There are infinite possible outcomes if one goes back and review and critiques all the past decisions.

And at any rate, by 1865 the sack of a capital city was no longer the end of a war. Look at the destruction of Washington in the War of 1812. It didn't cause the US surrender.

Miehm,

You do not need to think the South was right about the Civil War to have pride in Southern heritage.

You need not defend slavery. You need not revise history.

The North and the West have their share of nasty history.

The entire United States does.

Even on just the issue of slavery, the entire US bears responsibility. The Constitution was written to accomodate slavery. It specified that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person.

There may be a country with no horrors in its history. I doubt it.

I have said before -- I have ancestors that were Confederates. Prominent Confederates. There are some things they did in their lives that were good. There were some that were evil. As with much of mankind. Slavery was a very big evil -- but is one that many justified.

History and the attitudes of free men finally caught up with the practice of slavery in the South. The center could not hold. Slavery had to end. Unfortunately, it required force to make some relent from the practice.

If you have pride in Southern traditions, great. But pick the right ones. Not the indefensible.

Please.

The germans do not forget the acts of Hitler, but they do not denigrate the sacrifices of the Wehrmacht, America is just about the only nation in the world that denigrates the sacrifices of the common soldiers and tries to forget what happened, I preserve the wrong and the right in order that we do not forget, remember, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it, if we let a whole way of life be corrupted and forgotten then we will eventually repeat the acts that we tried to prevent, if the only way to get people to remember is debate the rightness of one side over the other, I will do so, since the south is the side I align myself with on the basis of family history and the basis of a good deal of research I believe that the south was in the right in respect to secession, slavery was wrong, but the south was right about the right to choose, eventually slavery would have been abolished when they realized that industry was more profitable than cash crops, the slaves would have been counterproductive since the training needed to work in industry would have removed a good bit of their profits, they would have been forced to free the slaves and allow the former slaves to train themselves, since they would be running the training facilities they would be making more money than they lost by paying wages to the freedmen, in the end the south would have become a free country it just would have taken longer and been less damaging than the reconstruction period.

*snip* The souths highground was based on their secession from a state that removed their choice to do as they believed was right. Slavery is not dishonorable, been over that already, in addition, the precepts and morals of modern America are not the issue, modern morals did not exist, they believed they were in the right, the morals of the past are the ones that matter, since they believed they had moral superiority and since they believed it, it was as they believed, perception is more important than reality in this case. They also had a reasonable belief in their moral superiority because they were seceding from a regime that was trying to remove what they considered to be a right, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do. They were not traitors, a traitor is someone who betrays his nation, the confederates were not united states citizens, they were confederate citizens, there was no betrayal involved, the only betrayal is of the memory of those who fought and died for their beliefs and their nation. You are a traitor to history, how does it feel?

Every point you raise has been defeated before. You simply refuse to face reality.

You are an apologist for slavery.

The enslavement of about 10 to 12 million people. Millions and millions were tortured and killed. It was an abomination. The scorn of history is well deserved.

Over 600,000 Americans were killed in the Civil War. Their deaths are not honored by your revisionism.

I have never condemned every Confederate as evil or dishonorable. I have condemned slavery as evil and dishonorable. I have condemned secession and war to defend slavery as evil and dishonorable. Unfortunately, honorable and good men can serve evil and dishonorable causes. You do the Confederate dead no service by arguing their cause was just. You refuse to learn the lessons of history.

I will discuss this no more with you.

If I believe in souls, I would despair for yours.

This sort of historical view is ridiculous, and I hate it. The South did not "pwn" the North by virtue that the North ultimately won the war. The assertion that had Lee done this or done that is irrelevant, because he did not, and it did not happen. There are infinite possible outcomes if one goes back and review and critiques all the past decisions.

And at any rate, by 1865 the sack of a capital city was no longer the end of a war. Look at the destruction of Washington in the War of 1812. It didn't cause the US surrender.

The south lost by virtue of political maneuvering not military force of arms, the south won almost every single fight in the war, with approximately 2-1 casualties in the souths favor for the whole war, they were a very effective military force that lacked political capital, they were beaten because of being politically unviable, not militarily inferior.

The south lost by virtue of political maneuvering not military force of arms, the south won almost every single fight in the war, with approximately 2-1 casualties in the souths favor for the whole war, they were a very effective military force that lacked political capital, they were beaten because of being politically unviable, not militarily inferior.

But. They. Lost. You can't escape that fact. To say that the South should have won the war is completely ignorant of history. Whatever means the North used to defeat the South, they worked, because the South ended up losing. It doesn't matter that the South won more battles, because they lost the war.

But. They. Lost. You can't escape that fact. To say that the South should have won the war is completely ignorant of history. Whatever means the North used to defeat the South, they worked, because the South ended up losing. It doesn't matter that the South won more battles, because they lost the war.
The point I'm making is that the south really did decimate the union forces and as such they would have won a stand up fight, not a fight involving under handed politiking, superior military means eventual victory, period, undermining the military removes its superiority and makes the war a toss up, the union outnumbered the confederates and the tactics of Grant depended on the numerical superiority of union armies, the confederacy just plain fought better, the fore gone conclusion is that the south would have won a fight between their armies, with no politiking involved.

The point I'm making is that the south really did decimate the union forces and as such they would have won a stand up fight, not a fight involving under handed politiking, superior military means eventual victory, period, undermining the military removes its superiority and makes the war a toss up, the union outnumbered the confederates and the tactics of Grant depended on the numerical superiority of union armies, the confederacy just plain fought better, the fore gone conclusion is that the south would have won a fight between their armies, with no politiking involved.

You're infinitely naive if you think that war should only be fought on the battlefield.

You're infinitely naive if you think that war should only be fought on the battlefield.

Not naive, I believe that there is a time and a place for politics, that time is not in the middle of a war, war is combat, politicians rarely have a very good picture of what is necessary, their actions often undermine their military might, in this situation the union was not undermined, but Anmerica has had that happen in other wars, Vietnam for example, Iraq for another, politics does not belong on the battlefield.

Not naive, I believe that there is a time and a place for politics, that time is not in the middle of a war, war is combat, politicians rarely have a very good picture of what is necessary, their actions often undermine their military might, in this situation the union was not undermined, but Anmerica has had that happen in other wars, Vietnam for example, Iraq for another, politics does not belong on the battlefield.

You're comparing two different things now. You weren't talking about politicians earlier, you were talking about the Union using superior man power and resources to win the war that they lost in pure tactics. The South won the tactical war, but the North won the strategic war.

The south lost by virtue of political maneuvering not military force of arms, the south won almost every single fight in the war, with approximately 2-1 casualties in the souths favor for the whole war, they were a very effective military force that lacked political capital, they were beaten because of being politically unviable, not militarily inferior.

They were beaten because they lost the battle that really mattered. Gettysburg, Atlanta, Chattanooga and Vicksburg.
They were beaten because the Union maintained willpower and did not cave to numerous defeats. Grant, as overall commander of Union forces from late 63', recognized that superior numbers would win regardless of losses in the field. When he lost a battle against the ANV he didn't retreat he simply pressed forward. When he began doing this Lee told his generals that was it, the war was over and it was only a matter of time.
They were beaten because the Confedracy's political system was a shambles with states often refusing to help each other and refusing cooperate even in the short term to win the war.
Yes, overall the Confederacy had superior generalship. It took the Union three years to finally produce Meade, Sherman, Sheridan, Grant and Thomas. But once these men became the leaders for the Union it was pretty much over for the Confederacy because they did not cave and retreat when they lost a battle that didn't utterly destroy their army in the field.
They recognized that as long as their army remained intact they had the ability to replace losses and the Confederacy did not have the ability to do so.

On a side note, why the heck is Grant constantly refered to here and Sherman ignored? Yeah yeah yeah Grant fought Lee but it was Sherman's gutting of the interior of the Confederacy that finished the war, not the pointless bloodletting in Virginia in 64'.

Not naive, I believe that there is a time and a place for politics, that time is not in the middle of a war, war is combat

That's ridiculous. Every single war in human history has involved political maneuvering and non-combat-oriented strategy in addition to actual combat. I mean hell, much of what you're saying about the southern forces could apply to the Third Reich -- they sure were remarkably successful those first few years, and it didn't hurt that they caught the rest of the world with its collective pants down. Strategy (both our good, and their asinine) ultimately had as much or more to do with their demise as the Allies' glorious armies.

But that doesn't imply that they "should" have won. If you really think the quality of fighting forces indicates who "should" win, in some kind of twisted moral sense, then the whole Lost Cause/Confederate romanticism thing is even further off the deep end than I'd imagined.

You're comparing two different things now. You weren't talking about politicians earlier, you were talking about the Union using superior man power and resources to win the war that they lost in pure tactics. The South won the tactical war, but the North won the strategic war.

I was talking about politics in the manner in which they affect the military during war-time, like changing the focus of a war in the middle of the war, or pulling out your troops when you can't protect your objectives is militarily unviable and politically, completely acceptable, the union could bring superior manpower and resources to bear as a result of the political actions of the Lincoln administration, it would have been impossible to use that many troops together without removing the souths foriegn aid, since the south had the tactical superiority they had to remove their foreign aid to reduce their tactical superiority, the superiority I mentioned allowed them to hit any point along a union column and destroy the union supply lines, since the south lost their supplies from foreign nations, they lost alot of their tactical mobility, and gave the union the opportunity to mobilise larger forces thereby allowing Grants tactics to be feasible.

The point I'm making is that the south really did decimate the union forces and as such they would have won a stand up fight, not a fight involving under handed politiking, superior military means eventual victory, period, undermining the military removes its superiority and makes the war a toss up, the union outnumbered the confederates and the tactics of Grant depended on the numerical superiority of union armies, the confederacy just plain fought better, the fore gone conclusion is that the south would have won a fight between their armies, with no politiking involved.
No due offence, but that has to be one of the stupidest things that I've heard yet on this message board.

"They should have won if the north wouldn't fight with all of its cards"

Honest to the divine lord, war has no rules, war has no honor, in war everything goes. Political willpower, economics and men count just as much as stratigical skill.

They were beaten because they lost the battle that really mattered. Gettysburg, Atlanta, Chattanooga and Vicksburg.
They were beaten because the Union maintained willpower and did not cave to numerous defeats. Grant, as overall commander of Union forces from late 63', recognized that superior numbers would win regardless of losses in the field. When he lost a battle against the ANV he didn't retreat he simply pressed forward. When he began doing this Lee told his generals that was it, the war was over and it was only a matter of time.
They were beaten because the Confedracy's political system was a shambles with states often refusing to help each other and refusing cooperate even in the short term to win the war.
Yes, overall the Confederacy had superior generalship. It took the Union three years to finally produce Meade, Sherman, Sheridan, Grant and Thomas. But once these men became the leaders for the Union it was pretty much over for the Confederacy because they did not cave and retreat when they lost a battle that didn't utterly destroy their army in the field.
They recognized that as long as their army remained intact they had the ability to replace losses and the Confederacy did not have the ability to do so.

On a side note, why the heck is Grant constantly refered to here and Sherman ignored? Yeah yeah yeah Grant fought Lee but it was Sherman's gutting of the interior of the Confederacy that finished the war, not the pointless bloodletting in Virginia in 64'.

Sherman was a butcher and scum, Grant fought a real mans fight, Forrest was a tactical and strategic genius, but Sherman was a butcher and a destroyer of crops and homes, Forrest and Stonewall had much more skill in maneuvering their troops, Sherman just picked a target and started going, not being stopped by anything he wasn't subtle or at all a tactical genius on par with the confederate generals, its like comparing Ali and Tyson, Tyson was a slugger, Ali was a fighter, Ali fought with his head and his hands, Tyson just hit things till they stopped moving.

I was talking about politics in the manner in which they affect the military during war-time, like changing the focus of a war in the middle of the war, or pulling out your troops when you can't protect your objectives is militarily unviable and politically, completely acceptable, the union could bring superior manpower and resources to bear as a result of the political actions of the Lincoln administration, it would have been impossible to use that many troops together without removing the souths foriegn aid, since the south had the tactical superiority they had to remove their foreign aid to reduce their tactical superiority, the superiority I mentioned allowed them to hit any point along a union column and destroy the union supply lines, since the south lost their supplies from foreign nations, they lost alot of their tactical mobility, and gave the union the opportunity to mobilise larger forces thereby allowing Grants tactics to be feasible.

And all those things you mentioned are called military strategy, which is much more important in fighting a war than simple tactics. Tactics are what happens on the battlefield itself; the South was undoubtedly better at military tactics. But strategy is the overall plan for the war. This involves maneuvering armies, destroying supply lines, blockading ports, so on and so forth. Strategy is what wins wars. And the North was much better at military strategy than the South. The South could barely coordinate their armies with one another, and the states were constantly fighting amongst themselves for control over the Confederacy.

Sherman was a butcher and scum, Grant fought a real mans fight, Forrest was a tactical and strategic genius, but Sherman was a butcher and a destroyer of crops and homes, Forrest and Stonewall had much more skill in maneuvering their troops, Sherman just picked a target and started going, not being stopped by anything he wasn't subtle or at all a tactical genius on par with the confederate generals, its like comparing Ali and Tyson, Tyson was a slugger, Ali was a fighter, Ali fought with his head and his hands, Tyson just hit things till they stopped moving.
Sherman understood one thing that most people tend to overlook. Suckerpunch the enemy and they won't be able to fight. He did a rather good job at suckerpunching the south. See my earlier post.

Sherman was a butcher and scum, Grant fought a real mans fight, Forrest was a tactical and strategic genius, but Sherman was a butcher and a destroyer of crops and homes, Forrest and Stonewall had much more skill in maneuvering their troops, Sherman just picked a target and started going, not being stopped by anything he wasn't subtle or at all a tactical genius on par with the confederate generals, its like comparing Ali and Tyson, Tyson was a slugger, Ali was a fighter, Ali fought with his head and his hands, Tyson just hit things till they stopped moving.

Sherman regulary outmanuevered his opposition, Johnston. Only once did he perform a head on assualt of entrenchments, he recieved a bloddy nose and didn't do it again. How do you explain his successful flanking manuevers that led to his almost envelopment of Atlanta? This is just picking a target and moving forward?
Then, at Atlanta when the Texan Hood assumed command and stupidly attacked Sherman, Sherman handled him quite effectively, took Atlanta and then was smart enough to realize Hood was not a threat to him anymore and that Thomas could handle holding the rear. He marches to the sea and breaks the back of the Confederacy.
Butcher? He was merely punishing the Confederacy for the bloodletting it began with its childish tantrum and succession. He should of burned more quite frankly.

No due offence, but that has to be one of the stupidest things that I've heard yet on this message board.

"They should have won if the north wouldn't fight with all of its cards"

Honest to the divine lord, war has no rules, war has no honor, in war everything goes. Political willpower, economics and men count just as much as stratigical skill.


The south were better fighters, period. The north was not skilled or subtle or tactically gifted in the least, they had to resort to underhanded politiking, if you're gonna fight a war you get warriors to fight, if you're gonna be a political machine, you get politicians, binary solution set. The southern army, in a stand up fight would have beaten the northern army, and did so repeatedly, the point was that the south was a better group of fighters than the north, in a straight up, fair fight the south would win because of tactical superiority, the north was a strategic army, the south wailed on strategy with better tactics.

The south were better fighters, period. The north was not skilled or subtle or tactically gifted in the least, they had to resort to underhanded politiking, if you're gonna fight a war you get warriors to fight, if you're gonna be a political machine, you get politicians, binary solution set. The southern army, in a stand up fight would have beaten the northern army, and did so repeatedly, the point was that the south was a better group of fighters than the north, in a straight up, fair fight the south would win because of tactical superiority, the north was a strategic army, the south wailed on strategy with better tactics.
So what? What does this have to do with anything? Since when is war a "stand up fight". The entire point of war is to win, not to have everyone take turns taking shots at each other with the same amount of men.

The south were better fighters, period. The north was not skilled or subtle or tactically gifted in the least, they had to resort to underhanded politiking, if you're gonna fight a war you get warriors to fight, if you're gonna be a political machine, you get politicians, binary solution set. The southern army, in a stand up fight would have beaten the northern army, and did so repeatedly, the point was that the south was a better group of fighters than the north, in a straight up, fair fight the south would win because of tactical superiority, the north was a strategic army, the south wailed on strategy with better tactics.

The Confederate army? The Union Army? Which one? There were many different armies with different characters. The Army of Northern Virginia, The Army of the Potomac, The Army of Northern Tennesee, The Army of the Cumberland, The Army of the West. . .so on and so forth.

And again I must say the Confederacy lost the battles that mattered to victory in the war. You can win many battles and have an advantage in the total number of victories but if you lose the battles that really matter to victory and you cannot replace your losses and you have no manufacturing base to speak of then you aren't going to win the war.

Sherman regulary outmanuevered his opposition, Johnston. Only once did he perform a head on assualt of entrenchments, he recieved a bloddy nose and didn't do it again. How do you explain his successful flanking manuevers that led to his almost envelopment of Atlanta? This is just picking a target and moving forward?
Then, at Atlanta when the Texan Hood assumed command and stupidly attacked Sherman, Sherman handled him quite effectively, took Atlanta and then was smart enough to realize Hood was not a threat to him anymore and that Thomas could handle holding the rear. He marches to the sea and breaks the back of the Confederacy.
Butcher? He was merely punishing the Confederacy for the bloodletting it began with its childish tantrum and succession. He should of burned more quite frankly.

And what was forrest then? Forrest was an unbeaten Cavalry general who repeatedly struck union armies and faded back into the air, Sherman, as you said, attacked entrenchments once and was beaten off, Forrest attacked them quite often and never lost until the end of the war, when lee surrendered. Sherman just trampled through Georgia and the other southern states like a sumo-wrestler at a midgets convention, he didn't have nearly the skill that Forrest had when it came to maneuvering troops, he made the french look flexible in comparison (WW1 french) Forrest was the ultimate cavalry general, Sherman was a tank. Sherman committed more war crimes than the men of andersonville prison ever did, he was a murderer ansd a slaughterer, he was not a man to be proud of, and if he'd taken more time to burn the south he would have been run down and eventually overrun, by moving as fast as he did in such a straight line he prevented the confederacy from catching his forces and slaughtering his troops, he couldn't maneuver or he would have been caught and destroyed eventually, he had to move to prevent being pinned down, the confederacy would have eventually sent Forrest after him, Forrest would have won in a fight with Sherman, hands down.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

It was not completly about slavery, but became about slavery.

The Confederete Flag is a ridicuelos symbol honoring a insurection. It has no place here.

And showing it with a skull in the middle is just plain wrong.

I'm a native Texan, so I have a right to disagree with you.

It was not completly about slavery, but became about slavery.

The Confederete Flag is a ridicuelos symbol honoring a insurection. It has no place here.

And showing it with a skull in the middle is just plain wrong.

I'm a native Texan, so I have a right to disagree with you.

I hate the skull bit, as a texan you do have a right to disagree with me, as a Virginian I have the right to say that you're entitled to your opinion, it was not however an insurrection, it was not a civil war, it was a war between seperate soviergn nations, therefore the Confederate flag is not insurrectionist, but a symbol of a nation that has died, it is a memory of a golden age in our history, when everything was black and white, good and evil, law and chaos, it is a memory of a time long past, a time of honor and gentlemanly chivalry, now we are trapped in a world that we cannot control, on a path we cannot change, we are on the path to destruction and the brakes have locked up, it is only a matter of time before America loses her place as top dog in this world of ours.

And what was forrest then? Forrest was an unbeaten Cavalry general who repeatedly struck union armies and faded back into the air, Sherman, as you said, attacked entrenchments once and was beaten off, Forrest attacked them quite often and never lost until the end of the war, when lee surrendered. Sherman just trampled through Georgia and the other southern states like a sumo-wrestler at a midgets convention, he didn't have nearly the skill that Forrest had when it came to maneuvering troops, he made the french look flexible in comparison (WW1 french) Forrest was the ultimate cavalry general, Sherman was a tank. Sherman committed more war crimes than the men of andersonville prison ever did, he was a murderer ansd a slaughterer, he was not a man to be proud of, and if he'd taken more time to burn the south he would have been run down and eventually overrun, by moving as fast as he did in such a straight line he prevented the confederacy from catching his forces and slaughtering his troops, he couldn't maneuver or he would have been caught and destroyed eventually, he had to move to prevent being pinned down, the confederacy would have eventually sent Forrest after him, Forrest would have won in a fight with Sherman, hands down.

What about Forrest? Yes, he was a brilliant commander, of that there is no doubt. However, his victories did not win the war.
Pray tell, what army in the Confederacy would hunt down Sherman's army? Which one? Please be specific. Hood went north and got his ass kicked by Thomas, Lee was otherwise occupied in Virginia, the Confederacy had no other standing army to speak of at that point in the war and not much male population to raise another army and no arms to equip them with.

Your analysis of Sherman's style of fighting is really strange and does not match his actions in the field.
Please provide specific battles and manuevers to back up what you are saying about Sherman. Please show the time when he mindlessly rolled forward like a tank. Was this when he flanked Johnston repeatedly from Chatanooga to Atlanta? Was that the time when he just moved straight ahead becasue if you think so I suggest you look at a map of the manuevers he made.

Honestly, having read many of your posts and having seen your opening statement about being prepared to back things up with facts I am completely baffled.

Have you studied the Civil War very much? You speak in such simple terms about the war showing so little insight of military doctrine that I just don't think you have really studied the Civil War or in fact war in general very much. I recommend Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton, read their works, especially Foote, really good stuff and will give you more knowlege about the Civil War.
Until then I don't see any point with debating your bizarre, illogical ideas about the war and war in general. :rolleyes: And I have to go to work anyway.

The Confederate army? The Union Army? Which one? There were many different armies with different characters. The Army of Northern Virginia, The Army of the Potomac, The Army of Northern Tennesee, The Army of the Cumberland, The Army of the West. . .so on and so forth.

And again I must say the Confederacy lost the battles that mattered to victory in the war. You can win many battles and have an advantage in the total number of victories but if you lose the battles that really matter to victory and you cannot replace your losses and you have no manufacturing base to speak of then you aren't going to win the war.

NVA and AOP, they're the only one in my area, and this is highly arguable, the only ones that really mattered, they fought the battles that determined the outcome of the war in the most part.

Butcher? He was merely punishing the Confederacy for the bloodletting it began with its childish tantrum and succession. He should of burned more quite frankly.

and the Americans should have dropped the bomb on every single Japanese city, at least by your logic.


doesn't feel so good when we're talking about your people does it?

and the Americans should have dropped the bomb on every single Japanese city, at least by your logic.


doesn't feel so good when we're talking about your people does it?
If I remember correctly 31's an expat. I think.

and the Americans should have dropped the bomb on every single Japanese city, at least by your logic.


doesn't feel so good when we're talking about your people does it?

His people? Your people?

We are all Americans. We were before the Civil War. We are now. We were then -- but some were rebelling against the legal government.

And if they hadn't been so belligerent in defense of the institution of slavery we might not have lost over 600,000 lives to the War.

What about Forrest? Yes, he was a brilliant commander, of that there is no doubt. However, his victories did not win the war.
Pray tell, what army in the Confederacy would hunt down Sherman's army? Which one? Please be specific. Hood went north and got his ass kicked by Thomas, Lee was otherwise occupied in Virginia, the Confederacy had no other standing army to speak of at that point in the war and not much male population to raise another army and no arms to equip them with.

Your analysis of Sherman's style of fighting is really strange and does not match his actions in the field.
Please provide specific battles and manuevers to back up what you are saying about Sherman. Please show the time when he mindlessly rolled forward like a tank. Was this when he flanked Johnston repeatedly from Chatanooga to Atlanta? Was that the time when he just moved straight ahead becasue if you think so I suggest you look at a map of the manuevers he made.

Honestly, having read many of your posts and having seen your opening statement about being prepared to back things up with facts I am completely baffled.

Have you studied the Civil War very much? You speak in such simple terms about the war showing so little insight of military doctrine that I just don't think you have really studied the Civil War or in fact war in general very much. I recommend Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton, read their works, especially Foote, really good stuff and will give you more knowlege about the Civil War.
Until then I don't see any point with debating your bizarre, illogical ideas about the war and war in general. :rolleyes: And I have to go to work anyway.

Forrest would have been able to run Shermans forces into the ground and use flanking hit and run attacks to whittle away Shermans army until he could decimate them with a full frontal assault. A tank does not roll mindlessly forward, it rolls forward and soaks up the damage and keeps moving towards its objective, thats not at all mindless. As for Johnston, he wasn't even in the same galaxy as Sherman, and Sherman wasn't even in Forrests league, Johnston wasn't a very good general by confederate oer union standards, Forrest was a great general by the standards of Hitlers Panzer divisions, and they were nigh unstoppable for quite a while, Forrest stopped anyone who came into contact with him and he could have stopped Sherman.

His people? Your people?

We are all Americans. We were before the Civil War. We are now. We were then -- but some were rebelling against the legal government.

And if they hadn't been so belligerent in defense of the institution of slavery we might not have lost over 600,000 lives to the War.

I have to agree with most of that, but I still must say that the confederates were a seperate nation from the union.

Forrest would have been able to run Shermans forces into the ground and use flanking hit and run attacks to whittle away Shermans army until he could decimate them with a full frontal assault. A tank does not roll mindlessly forward, it rolls forward and soaks up the damage and keeps moving towards its objective, thats not at all mindless. As for Johnston, he wasn't even in the same galaxy as Sherman, and Sherman wasn't even in Forrests league, Johnston wasn't a very good general by confederate oer union standards, Forrest was a great general by the standards of Hitlers Panzer divisions, and they were nigh unstoppable for quite a while, Forrest stopped anyone who came into contact with him and he could have stopped Sherman.
Did he?

No.

Was he able to?

No.

So does your hypothetical matter?

No.

Did he?

No.

Was he able to?

No.

So does your hypothetical matter?

No.

Had Forrest been pitted against Sherman Sherman would have lost, he did not have anywhere near Forrests degree of tactical mobility, Forrest would have fed Sherman into a meatgrinder and swamped the remaining forces.

Had Forrest been pitted against Sherman Sherman would have lost, he did not have anywhere near Forrests degree of tactical mobility, Forrest would have fed Sherman into a meatgrinder and swamped the remaining forces.
Was he?

No.

Does it matter?

No.

Can you prove it?

No.

His people? Your people?

We are all Americans. We were before the Civil War. We are now. We were then -- but some were rebelling against the legal government.

And if they hadn't been so belligerent in defense of the institution of slavery we might not have lost over 600,000 lives to the War.

well it says by his name he's Japanese, i just wanted to see if he would support his "ideology" on his own people and not just people of European descent.

...and anyway i'm Canadian :)

Was he?

No.

Does it matter?

No.

Can you prove it?

No.

I can prove that Forrest would have won, by comparing the combat records of the generals in question, it is readily apparent that General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a much better commander than Sherman, Forrest regularly defeated forces that significantly outnumbered his own, Sherman wasn't up to beating a enemy like Forrest.

well it says by his name he's Japanese, i just wanted to see if he would support his "ideology" on his own people and not just people of European descent.

...and anyway i'm Canadian :)

It says by his name he is currently in Japan.

You jumped to several nasty assumptions.

well it says by his name he's Japanese, i just wanted to see if he would support his "ideology" on his own people and not just people of European descent.

...and anyway i'm Canadian :)

Go Canada!!

I can prove that Forrest would have won, by comparing the combat records of the generals in question, it is readily apparent that General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a much better commander than Sherman, Forrest regularly defeated forces that significantly outnumbered his own, Sherman wasn't up to beating a enemy like Forrest.

That doesn't prove that Forrest would have won, nor can it. The only way you could possibly PROVE that Forrest would beat Sherman is if they fought and Forrest won. But they didn't, so you've got nothing. You've got flimsily supported suppositions and nothing else.

I can prove that Forrest would have won, by comparing the combat records of the generals in question, it is readily apparent that General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a much better commander than Sherman, Forrest regularly defeated forces that significantly outnumbered his own, Sherman wasn't up to beating a enemy like Forrest.
Did they ever meet in battle?


Or are you just full of conjecture and bullshit?

It says by his name he is currently in Japan.

You jumped to several nasty assumptions.

i prefer calling it an educated guess

i prefer calling it an educated guess

<sigh>

Fine. I'll stop letting you off easy.

I call it a stupid assumption combined with racial prejudice.

I call it a stupid assumption combined with racial prejudice.

um i thought that a person living in Japan was probably Japanese... sorry i'll try and keep my bigotry to myself next time.

um i thought that a person living in Japan was probably Japanese... sorry i'll try and keep my bigotry to myself next time.

And you thought, because he was probably Japanese, he would care about "his own people" but not those "of European descent" :rolleyes:

The American civil war took place in America and the anti-slavery guys won.

That's all I know. That's all anybody non-USian needs to know.

except that abe lincoln, the "anti slavery" guy, freed the slaves in the states he couldn't (those that had seceded) and didn't in those he could (those that were still part of the union). interesting.

except that abe lincoln, the "anti slavery" guy, freed the slaves in the states he couldn't (those that had seceded) and didn't in those he could (those that were still part of the union). interesting.

Asked and answered.

More than once.

Try to keep up.

And you thought, because he was probably Japanese, he would care about "his own people" but not those "of European descent" :rolleyes:

no, i wanted to see if he would maintain his childish statement when he thought of his parents, siblings or children being effected by it.

no, i wanted to see if he would maintain his childish statement when he thought of his parents, siblings or children being effected by it.


:confused:

Must have been your evil twin that said:

well it says by his name he's Japanese, i just wanted to see if he would support his "ideology" on his own people and not just people of European descent.

...and anyway i'm Canadian :)

um no that sounds like me.. whats your point?

um no that sounds like me.. whats your point?

Cute.

Notice the similarity between what I said, but you denied:

And you thought, because he was probably Japanese, he would care about "his own people" but not those "of European descent"

And what you said:

well it says by his name he's Japanese, i just wanted to see if he would support his "ideology" on his own people and not just people of European descent.

...and anyway i'm Canadian :)

Trying to deny you said something in the Forums is stupid. We can scroll back.

But feel free to keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing.

i'm not denying i said anything! please explain...

Did they ever meet in battle?


Or are you just full of conjecture and bullshit?

Conjecture and bullshit huh? Ok lets do the numbers, I'll type slower so you can keep up.

Forrests campaign history: At the beginning of the Civil War, Forrest, a wealthy citizen of Memphis, organized a cavalry force, which he led at Fort Donelson (Feb., 1862) and Shiloh (April). He assumed command of a cavalry brigade in the Army of Tennessee (June) and in July captured a large Union garrison at Murfreesboro. He was made a brigadier general. With a newly recruited command he effectively cut Grant's communications in a raid through W Tennessee (Dec., 1862). After foiling a Union attempt to cut the railroad between Chattanooga and Atlanta (May, 1863), Forrest participated in the Chattanooga campaign until trouble with Braxton Bragg led him to accept a command in N Mississippi. He was promoted to major general (Dec., 1863); captured Fort Pillow (Apr., 1864); defeated a superior force at Brices Cross Roads, Miss. (June); and held Gen. Andrew Jackson Smith to a drawn battle at Tupelo, Miss. (July). These Union failures against Forrest caused Sherman, then advancing on Atlanta, much concern for his communications. Forrest commanded all the cavalry under John Bell Hood in that general's Tennessee campaign (Nov.—Dec., 1864) and was promoted to lieutenant general (Feb., 1865). He surrendered shortly after his defeat at Selma, Ala., in April.

Shermans Campaign history for the March to the sea: Civil War Career

When Louisiana seceded Sherman resigned from the military academy (Jan., 1861), and in May he rejoined the U.S. army as a colonel. Sherman commanded a brigade in the first battle of Bull Run (July) and in August was made a brigadier general of volunteers and sent to Kentucky. There he succeeded Robert Anderson in command of the Dept. of the Cumberland (Oct.), but in November he was transferred to the Dept. of the Missouri.

Sherman distinguished himself as a division commander at Shiloh (Apr., 1862) and was promoted to major general in May. He took part in the operations about Corinth, occupied Memphis (July), and commanded the Dist. of Memphis (Oct.—Dec., 1862). After his defeat at Chickasaw Bluffs in the first advance of the Vicksburg campaign, he served under John A. McClernand in the capture of Arkansas Post (Jan., 1863). In the successful move on Vicksburg, Sherman ably led the 15th Corps. In July he was made a brigadier general in the regular army.

When Ulysses S. Grant assumed supreme command in the West, Sherman became commander of the Army of the Tennessee (Oct., 1863). He commanded the Union left at Missionary Ridge in the Chattanooga campaign (Nov.), went to the relief of Ambrose E. Burnside at Knoxville (Dec.), and destroyed Confederate communications and supplies at Meridian, Miss., in Feb., 1864.

When Grant became commander in chief, Sherman succeeded him as supreme commander in the West (March). His Atlanta campaign (May—Sept., 1864) resulted in the fall of that city on Sept. 2. The Confederate attempt to draw him back failed, and Sherman burned (Nov. 15) most of Atlanta and the next day, with 60,000 men, began his famous march to the sea. With virtually no enemy to bar his way, he was before Savannah in 24 days, leaving behind him a ruined and devastated land. Savannah fell on Dec. 21.

As you can see, Forrest and Sherman did meet once, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they met at shiloh Forrests attack forced Sherman to retreat, as such we can find it reasonable to believe that Forrest would win again.

On the 8th, Grant sent Brig. Gen. William T. Sherman, with two brigades, and Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Wood, with his division, in pursuit of Beauregard. They ran into the Rebel rearguard, commanded by Col. Nathan Bedford Forrest, at Fallen Timbers. Forrest’s aggressive tactics, although eventually contained, influenced the Union troops to return to Pittsburg Landing.

My information came from the Yahoo encyclopedia and The Heritage Preservation Services, a branch of the national park service, and their website is at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/tn003.htm the Fed doesn't lie.

bumptastic