NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think that it is ridiculous for someone to be upset at seeing the flag in a museum or in a display with an objective historical bent. But I don't really think that is the main thrust of the discussion here.

How about the Dukes of Hazzards' Dodge Charger? Does it bother anyone that it is named after the Confederacy's foremost general and has the Confederate's ensign painted on the roof? Are the Dukes making a political statement, and if so, what is that statement? :p

But the Confederacy only existed because of slavery. The secession itself was over slavery. So the flag represents a government that was created so that they could keep slavery. It's not that hard to get.


Inaccurate, slavery wasnt the ONE REASON!!!
It was over a lot of reasons, mostly economic, and slavery was tied to that. Nothing to do with morals, that was made up largely during and after the war. As i stated and sourced earlier, the union imported slaves during the war, if had f**k all to do with freeing slaves, dont trust school text books, there just pure properganda, buy real history books mate ;)

Inaccurate, slavery wasnt the ONE REASON!!!
It was over a lot of reasons, mostly economic, and slavery was tied to that. Nothing to do with morals, that was made up largely during and after the war. As i stated and sourced earlier, the union imported slaves during the war, if had f**k all to do with freeing slaves, dont trust school text books, there just pure properganda, buy real history books mate ;)
There were other reasons, but slavery was the main one, to the point where you could say it was THE reason. There has been plenty of evidence posted in this thread, and it's pretty overwhelming, including the statements of the states that seceded, made at the time of secession, that listed slavery as their basic reason for secession.

No, it wasn't fought to end slavery, but it was fought to KEEP slavery, and there is a big difference.

This debate makes me feel like this guy :headbang: I'm from the South and would love to believe that the war wasn't about slavery, but the evidence leads unmistakeably to that conclusion. Stuff about the North's lack of moral spotlessness is a red herring that doesn't lead anywhere.

Inaccurate, slavery wasnt the ONE REASON!!!
It was over a lot of reasons, mostly economic, and slavery was tied to that. Nothing to do with morals, that was made up largely during and after the war. As i stated and sourced earlier, the union imported slaves during the war, if had f**k all to do with freeing slaves, dont trust school text books, there just pure properganda, buy real history books mate ;)

It was not mostly economic! Sure slavery was important to the economics of the region as much as it was a moral issue for the north, however it was really an issue about who would control the country's political route. The North deplored the fact that the southern states could munipulate Congressional decisions and their representation by counting numerous slaves in their populations who were not even being considered citizens. So, the North wanted the whole system of slavery gone, infuriating the South which believed it then had the right to secede to preserve its sovereignty. The North believed the "union" was much more important, but southern states purported their "right" to secede. The South was really afraid of both losing slavery, and power to "control their own destiny." Irregardless, the flag represents the fact that a portion of our country wanted to preserve a terrible way of life and is therefore offensive to me, a Virginian nonetheless.

There were other reasons, but slavery was the main one, to the point where you could say it was THE reason. There has been plenty of evidence posted in this thread, and it's pretty overwhelming, including the statements of the states that seceded, made at the time of secession, that listed slavery as their basic reason for secession.

No, it wasn't fought to end slavery, but it was fought to KEEP slavery, and there is a big difference.

This debate makes me feel like this guy :headbang: I'm from the South and would love to believe that the war wasn't about slavery, but the evidence leads unmistakeably to that conclusion. Stuff about the North's lack of moral spotlessness is a red herring that doesn't lead anywhere.


well, correct me if im wrong but, the boarder state (which i THINK were kentucky maryland) anyway, 4 such states which were officially part of the union were allowed to keep there slaves during the war....... slavery was a big issue, and influenced the powder keg (licolns election) but it is not THE issue, it was about economics, and slavery was heavily tied to that.

It was not mostly economic! Sure slavery was important to the economics of the region as much as it was a moral issue for the north, however it was really an issue about who would control the country's political route. The North deplored the fact that the southern states could munipulate Congressional decisions and their representation by counting numerous slaves in their populations who were not even being considered citizens. So, the North wanted the whole system of slavery gone, infuriating the South which believed it then had the right to secede to preserve its sovereignty. The North believed the "union" was much more important, but southern states purported their "right" to secede. The South was really afraid of both losing slavery, and power to "control their own destiny." Irregardless, the flag represents the fact that a portion of our country wanted to preserve a terrible way of life and is therefore offensive to me, a Virginian nonetheless.


one thing that books do differ on is wether it was legal for the confederate states to succeed. Some say yes, some say no. Robert E Lee belived no, licoln went AGAINST the constitution to create West virginia. The political reason u stated , yes, also was a very important issue, the south is now only represented by 1 justice on the supreme courst, dispite the fact 1/3 of americans live there so, they would of been beter not succeeding.

well, correct me if im wrong but, the boarder state (which i THINK were kentucky maryland) anyway, 4 such states which were officially part of the union were allowed to keep there slaves during the war....... slavery was a big issue, and influenced the powder keg (licolns election) but it is not THE issue, it was about economics, and slavery was heavily tied to that.

ho hum

listen...

We know the North did not fight to free slaves. That is a straw man argument as nobody here is making it. The North fought because the South seceded. In fact, the South attacked first.

The Southern states were afraid that they would lose their slaves. Yes, it was economic in a sense, because the southern economy was built on slavery. They saw the tide slowly turning in the US. The Lincoln Republicans were committed to preventing the growth of slavery in the United States.

In posts 204 and 205 Cat Tribe included some primary sources, including a link to the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. I suggest that you read those, as they are very instructive.

one thing that books do differ on is wether it was legal for the confederate states to succeed. Some say yes, some say no. Robert E Lee belived no, licoln went AGAINST the constitution to create West virginia. The political reason u stated , yes, also was a very important issue, the south is now only represented by 1 justice on the supreme courst, dispite the fact 1/3 of americans live there so, they would of been beter not succeeding.Lincoln created West Virginia?! Damn, and there I was, thinking that my ancestors had done it all on there own...

one thing that books do differ on is wether it was legal for the confederate states to succeed. Some say yes, some say no. Robert E Lee belived no, licoln went AGAINST the constitution to create West virginia. The political reason u stated , yes, also was a very important issue, the south is now only represented by 1 justice on the supreme courst, dispite the fact 1/3 of americans live there so, they would of been beter not succeeding.
Nope, he did it quite legally, as Virginia was in absentia, and congress agreed. And yes, the some on one side consists of the entire US body of law, which clearly states that secession isn't legal.

Nope, he did it quite legally, as Virginia was in absentia, and congress agreed. And yes, the some on one side consists of the entire US body of law, which clearly states that secession isn't legal.

Did you know that, prior to the Civil War, most of the Founding Fathers and most Americans favored the right of secession? In fact, when New England considered seceding during the War of 1812, no one did a damn thing about it. And consider this: how hypocritical would it be for a country which itself seceded from another country to make secession illegal?

Did you know that, prior to the Civil War, most of the Founding Fathers and most Americans favored the right of secession? In fact, when New England considered seceding during the War of 1812, no one did a damn thing about it. And consider this: how hypocritical would it be for a country which itself seceded from another country to make secession illegal?

You have a source for that first statement? The US was always divided on the "right" of secession. And maybe nobody did anything about New England seceding because all they did was "consider" it. The framers of the constitution didn't even require the consent of all of the states to form the Union, so I don't think they had a huge problem with making secession illegal.

Did you know that, prior to the Civil War, most of the Founding Fathers and most Americans favored the right of secession? In fact, when New England considered seceding during the War of 1812, no one did a damn thing about it. And consider this: how hypocritical would it be for a country which itself seceded from another country to make secession illegal?
Considering and actually doing something is a different thing. To quote:

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

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

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

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


Salmon P. Chase, Majority Opinion, Texas v. White

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!

Unfortunately it DOES represent racism. An example is this, I live in the Rio Grande region of south Texas. When the minutemen declared they were going to initiate patrols here, most residents here didn't know what to make of the movement. Untill a local channel broadcasted images of the minutemen. And one idiot minutemen had to have a confederate flag waving as he was near his car on "patrol".

That single image made almost all citizens of thick mexican-american heritage brand them as a racist movement. It doesn't even matter that the minutemen are mostly volenteer citizens acutely aware of the problem with our boarder. Most got suck with the stigma because some idiot couldn't keep his "southern pride" back home. The ****ing idiot painted a bad picture for the movement by most boarder residents who view it.

Hell I was offended by that ****er being hispanic and supporting the minutemen movement. Because I DO associate that flag with racism. And I damned well know what the civil war was fought over and around 16 causes that lead up to it in the turbulent 1850's decade. I know it wasn't slavery, but I still associate that ****ing treacherous flag as both anti-American and pro-slavery. So **** yourself jonny rebel. I'm a real American patriot who knows where real American culture comes from (hint: 1776) and I know you anti-american pricks are under the damned delusion that you are waving a "pro-south" flag. You aren't for a lot of people. Your waving a flag that represents nothing but distain for a lot of people.

its just a picture represnting an idea. the idea isnt around any more and the wars over...dont get anyones deal i think people should just drop the entiret hing

I don't associate the Confederate naval jack with slavery or oppression or anything like that. I think that it's just a neat-looking flag- a blue X on top of a white X a red field with thirteen stars? It's really a unique design. That's why it's on the Evinsian flag. I'm not racist, I just like the flag.

I think it's fine to display a Confederate flag in public. I'm from California, which was on the side of the north, and I am a true American, meaning I belive that all people have the right to freedom of expression. That's what makes America beatiful. Rednecks can say the HATE blacks, as logn as they don't HURT them. They have the right to their own opinions. Our government does not have the right to force the current leaders' opinions on its citizens, nor should it have.

Being a traitor doesn't require one to be found guilty of treason, more than being a murderer requires you to be found guilty of murder.

There was a decision not to have any trials for treason because the US wanted to bring the Confederate States back into the union with a minimum of bad feeling. And anyway, what were they going to do, hang the entire Confederate army.

Being a traitor most certainly DOES require one to be found guilty of treason.... A traitor is one who commits treason. And no one was convicted of commiting TREASON, because no one did.

Ex: Lee resigned his Commission in the United States Army, so as to render his services to Virginia; the same with Jackson, the same with Longstreet, the same with Hill.... Soldiers joined their own forces from their HOME (Virginia) in service to their GOVERNMENT (the Commonwealth of Virginia).... Virginia seceeded only AFTER war became the Union's goal; every attempt at peace led by Virginia delegates thwarted by actions of the Federal Executive and his forces...

One cannot be a "traitor" for serving their HOME and their "COUNTRY" (sic. Virginia) or their people.... Which is what these people did....

There was never a decision not to have "any trials for treason"; their in fact WERE trials as such held; Jefferson Davis, in fact, was one held for it.... Except; none were rendered a guilty verdict by the higher courts, others were thrown out, for "lack of evidence".

In some cases Guilty verdicts were levied during the time the war was being commenced; however, even of the ones found guilty by Military Kangaroo courts (Tribunals; much Like Bush uses now at Git-mo); higher courts later threw the rullings out.

This was already handled by federal courts of the USA, using that same constitution and they were declared slaves. Robert E Lee had his home and land confiscated which became Arlington Cemetary.

and don't tell anyone to keep their mouth shut. ;)

1. Declared slaves? No one was declared slaves.


2. Arlington was owned by Mrs. Lee... and by federal documents states such:


The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee. The property was offered for public sale Jan. 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."

Not for any purpose or provision you cited.

Being a traitor most certainly DOES require one to be found guilty of treason.... A traitor is one who commits treason. And no one was convicted of commiting TREASON, because no one did.

Ex: Lee resigned his Commission in the United States Army, so as to render his services to Virginia; the same with Jackson, the same with Longstreet, the same with Hill.... Soldiers joined their own forces from their HOME (Virginia) in service to their GOVERNMENT (the Commonwealth of Virginia).... Virginia seceeded only AFTER war became the Union's goal; every attempt at peace led by Virginia delegates thwarted by actions of the Federal Executive and his forces...

One cannot be a "traitor" for serving their HOME and their "COUNTRY" (sic. Virginia) or their people.... Which is what these people did....

There was never a decision not to have "any trials for treason"; their in fact WERE trials as such held; Jefferson Davis, in fact, was one held for it.... Except; none were rendered a guilty verdict by the higher courts, others were thrown out, for "lack of evidence".

In some cases Guilty verdicts were levied during the time the war was being commenced; however, even of the ones found guilty by Military Kangaroo courts (Tribunals; much Like Bush uses now at Git-mo); higher courts later threw the rullings out.
Davis was indicted but the Senate decided not to try him. Considering that he levied war against the United States, he was a traitor no matter what his court record (or lack thereof) states. He fits the definition completely.

Davis was indicted but the Senate decided not to try him. Considering that he levied war against the United States, he was a traitor no matter what his court record (or lack thereof) states. He fits the definition completely.

Forgetting the fact that he was running his own nation and didn't order the firing of Fort Sumter.

Davis was indicted but the Senate decided not to try him. Considering that he levied war against the United States, he was a traitor no matter what his court record (or lack thereof) states. He fits the definition completely.

Fort Sumpter was fired upon by the South Carolina Militia, under order from the Govenor of South Carolina.... Due to acts by Lincoln (against ovetures made) to resupply the Fort as opposed to leaving it. This occured in April of 1861.

Each state declared war SEPERATELY. Something people like you keep refusing to realize about the construction of the states in general at this time. Armies were under the DIRECT control of the govenors of EACH STATE in the Confederacy.


"The sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Virginia having been denied, her territorial rights assailed, her soil threatened with invasion by the authorities at Washington, and every artifice employed which could inflame the people of the Northern States and misrepresent our purposes and wishes, it becomes the solemn duty of every citizen of this State to prepare for the impending conflict.

"Those misrepresentations have been carried to such an extent that foreigners and naturalized citizens who, but a few years ago, were denounced by the North and deprived of essential rights, have now been induced to enlist into regiments for purposes of invading this State, which then vindicated those rights and effectually resisted encroachments which threatened their destruction.

"Against such a policy and against a force which the Government at Washington, relying upon its numerical strength, is now rapidly concentrating, it becomes the State of Virginia to prepare proper safeguards.

" To this end and for these purposes, and with a determination to repel invasion, I, John Letcher, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by authority of the Convention, do hereby authorize the commanding general of the military forces of this State to call out, and to cause to be mustered into the service of Virginia, from time to time, as the public exigency may require, such additional number of volunteers as he may deem necessary.

" To facilitate this call, the annexed schedule will indicate the places of rendezvous at which the companies called for will assemble upon receiving orders for service."

This was made in May of 1861, a few weeks following Virginia's secession ordinance being ratified by refferendum by the people of the Commonwealth. As an official response to Lincoln for emassing troops for the purpose of invasion. Had Lincoln not been hell-bent upon war; and hell bent to use force to maintain the "union" the Commonwealth never would have seceded. The secession was forced: And it became the duty of the Govenor, and our legislatures to protect the people of this Commonweath from the blood-thirsty nationalists in Washington.

-We did not secede because of slavery.
-We did not secede because of Lincoln being president
-Lee did not resign for any other reason than loyalty to his fellow Virginians
-Jackson did not serve for any other reason that his loyalty to his fellow Virginians

1. We, as a Commonwealth, and upon our principles, refused to raise armies to invade the homes of fellow Americans.
2. We, as a Commonweath, and upon our principles, refused to let Federal Forces march and ranksack our own homes on their rampage of blood-lust and war. Absolutely commited to the end for peace....
3. Our only goal was to end this war, by peace... (And we got damn close, too... it took the combined armies of New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire 2 1/2 years to defeat the Army Of Northern Virginia; only after the failure of Lee's march on Washington, at the battle of Gettysburg... to deliver a cease-fire agreement [which was repeated refused by Lincoln] directly to Washington from the Governor of Virginia...)

The Confederacy fought for the right to keep slaves under the guise of "states rights." Certain elements (similar to if not the KKK) use the Confederate flag as their symbol, so as far as I'm concerned, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism. That's why I find it offensive.

I would *love* to stand across from a KKK rally and burn the Confederate flag.

and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War.Any civil war buffs here? Please chime in. My understanding is that slaves were forced to enlist or at the very least .. coerced or otherwise strongly encouraged to. As to fighting side by side, they were on the same battlefield, but usually were sent out as the first to die, they weren't allowed to rise to a high rank of officer either.

I am not black, nor am I Southern. I wasn't a history major either. This is what I learned during Black History month in school growing up. If this is incorrect, let me know.

The Confederate flag doesn't offend me personally, because my family immigrated here long after the war. I don't have any ancestors that were involved. But, if the flag offends a friend of mine, I am sensitive to that. Any object can be used as a symbol of pride, or hate - as the case may be.

Fort Sumpter was fired upon by the South Carolina Militia, under order from the Govenor of South Carolina.... Due to acts by Lincoln (against ovetures made) to resupply the Fort as opposed to leaving it. This occured in April of 1861.

Each state declared war SEPERATELY. Something people like you keep refusing to realize about the construction of the states in general at this time. Armies were under the DIRECT control of the govenors of EACH STATE in the Confederacy.



This was made in May of 1861, a few weeks following Virginia's secession ordinance being ratified by refferendum by the people of the Commonwealth. As an official response to Lincoln for emassing troops for the purpose of invasion. Had Lincoln not been hell-bent upon war; and hell bent to use force to maintain the "union" the Commonwealth never would have seceded. The secession was forced: And it became the duty of the Govenor, and our legislatures to protect the people of this Commonweath from the blood-thirsty nationalists in Washington.

-We did not secede because of slavery.
-We did not secede because of Lincoln being president
-Lee did not resign for any other reason than loyalty to his fellow Virginians
-Jackson did not serve for any other reason that his loyalty to his fellow Virginians

1. We, as a Commonwealth, and upon our principles, refused to raise armies to invade the homes of fellow Americans.
2. We, as a Commonweath, and upon our principles, refused to let Federal Forces march and ranksack our own homes on their rampage of blood-lust and war. Absolutely commited to the end for peace....
3. Our only goal was to end this war, by peace... (And we got damn close, too... it took the combined armies of New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire 2 1/2 years to defeat the Army Of Northern Virginia; only after the failure of Lee's march on Washington, at the battle of Gettysburg... to deliver a cease-fire agreement [which was repeated refused by Lincoln] directly to Washington from the Governor of Virginia...)

I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at here, but as to the issue of your secession not being because of slavery...

from the Virginia ordinance of secession

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Fort Sumpter was fired upon by the South Carolina Militia, under order from the Govenor of South Carolina.... Due to acts by Lincoln (against ovetures made) to resupply the Fort as opposed to leaving it. This occured in April of 1861.

Oh, resupplying a fort OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is an overt act of war? News to me. And to just about any other country in the world.

This was made in May of 1861, a few weeks following Virginia's secession ordinance being ratified by refferendum by the people of the Commonwealth. As an official response to Lincoln for emassing troops for the purpose of invasion. Had Lincoln not been hell-bent upon war; and hell bent to use force to maintain the "union" the Commonwealth never would have seceded. The secession was forced: And it became the duty of the Govenor, and our legislatures to protect the people of this Commonweath from the blood-thirsty nationalists in Washington.


Also, you are making a pretty strange claim here. Basically you are saying that Virginia seceded because Lincoln was going to use the military to prevent you from seceding, thus forcing you to secede. It would seem to me that this logic suggests you could have avoided the war by not seceding. Is it possible that Virginia was afraid of losing its slaves, and that's why they seceded?

Also, you are making a pretty strange claim here. Basically you are saying that Virginia seceded because Lincoln was going to use the military to prevent you from seceding, thus forcing you to secede. It would seem to me that this logic suggests you could have avoided the war by not seceding. Is it possible that Virginia was afraid of losing its slaves, and that's why they seceded?
How about the fact that they wanted the right to determine for themselves


At least that’s what I get from it … they succeeded because they did not want to be forced by the federal government to act in such a manor

(sometimes how things are carried out can make the differance)

How about the fact that they wanted the right to determine for themselves


At least that’s what I get from it … they succeeded because they did not want to be forced by the federal government to act in such a manor

(sometimes how things are carried out can make the differance)
Right, they wanted the right to determine for themselves to keep their slaves. As in, they wanted to keep their slaves, and not be told to give them up.

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!
Hello the south lost. Their never was a Confederacy. You just wanted a Confederacy. And the flag was always bad. More black people were on the NORTH. In case you don't know what color they were in it was BLUE. Now you look at it from this view, because it is the best view. You are so racist.

i find all words and ideas offensive. please stop communicating, thanks.

Right, they wanted the right to determine for themselves to keep their slaves. As in, they wanted to keep their slaves, and not be told to give them up.
It could be the very fact that they wanted to determine their future whatever it was

I am not saying that is nessisarily so but to just go along with it because you were going to do it anyways sets bad precidence

Kind of like how I would be upset of my landlord came in and removed an old tv without me asking

Yes I may have wanted to get rid of it anyways but I would be mad that he was doing it without my permission without me having a say to him about what goes on in my apartment if it does not violate the building rules

Also, you are making a pretty strange claim here. Basically you are saying that Virginia seceded because Lincoln was going to use the military to prevent you from seceding, thus forcing you to secede. It would seem to me that this logic suggests you could have avoided the war by not seceding. Is it possible that Virginia was afraid of losing its slaves, and that's why they seceded?

No...

Virginia seceded because the Lincoln Administration was hell-bent on prosecuting the secession as a "War"....

Virginia, prior to Lincoln's emassing of troops, sent its own delegates to S.C. as well as in attendance in Washington attempting to reach a peacefull settlement between Washington, and the seceded states (at that time, it was only South Carolina, Georiga, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana and Texas)...

Once Lincoln began to call for the emassing of troops, Virginia wanted no part in "invading" those southern States.... Rather than be apart of Lincoln's war Machine, the state choose to secede.... And Virginia's secession brough the Secession of North Carolina, Tennesse, and Arkansas with it... We wanted to see a peacefull settlement reached between the CSA and Union..... And, when the Union abandoned all principles of reaching such... we seceded.

We were not going to stand idly by why federal troops illegaly marched across our land; nor were we going to emass troops to invade someone else's homes.

Maybe you don't understand this....

No...

Virginia seceded because the Lincoln Administration was hell-bent on prosecuting the secession as a "War"....

Virginia, prior to Lincoln's emassing of troops, sent its own delegates to S.C. as well as in attendance in Washington attempting to reach a peacefull settlement between Washington, and the seceded states (at that time, it was only South Carolina, Georiga, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana and Texas)...

Once Lincoln began to call for the emassing of troops, Virginia wanted no part in "invading" those southern States.... Rather than be apart of Lincoln's war Machine, the state choose to secede.... And Virginia's secession brough the Secession of North Carolina, Tennesse, and Arkansas with it... We wanted to see a peacefull settlement reached between the CSA and Union..... And, when the Union abandoned all principles of reaching such... we seceded.

We were not going to stand idly by why federal troops illegaly marched across our land; nor were we going to emass troops to invade someone else's homes.

Maybe you don't understand this....
And joined a cause which committed an act of war upon the United States.


Maybe you don't understand this....

So, when called to fight for your country, you instead decided to "adhere to their enemies" and "make war upon" the Federal government. Can you explain to me how that is not treason?

Right, they wanted the right to determine for themselves to keep their slaves. As in, they wanted to keep their slaves, and not be told to give them up.

The Cotton States seceded in response to Lincolns ideas, in opposition, in 1860...

Lincoln was inaugurated in January of 1861....

Fort Sumpter is attacked in April of 1861...
Lincoln began calling for troops in April of 1861...

Virginia seceded in May of 1861....

Untill a convention was settled in April of 1861, in response to Lincolns call for troops (which set about a general refferendum on the secession isue); no one in Washington throught the Commonweath of Virginia would secede... In fact, Lee himself warned the administration about this fact, when he was called to lead the Army of the Potomac for the Union, that very month... But the issue was settled by "the people" in public refferendum... The Commonwealth would not be a party to Lincoln's war; and we would defend this principle on our own soil..... Once we left, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennesse followed us (likely Maryland would have too, had Lincoln not arrested the Maryland Legislature when refferendum talks began to commence in their own legislature..... Which would have effectively "cut-off" the Capitol from the rest of the Union...)...

You can levy the claims you wish; they are not born by any document which preceded from this Commonwealth; nor are they in line with the time, and occurances surrounding our secession... We left because of the war-mongering Lincoln, and a Federal Regime which was no longer acting by the principles of the constitution it was supposedly bound to... And in accordance with provision in ratification, refferendum was called by all citizens of the Commonwealth, as to where Virginia would stand, and the choice of this state was to not stand idly by and assist Lincoln's war...

And joined a cause which committed an act of war upon the United States.


Maybe you don't understand this....

CSW, the Fort, by law, should have been returned to the Sovereign State of South Carolina, who legally owned the land... Or did you miss the part of the US Constitution limiting federal ownership to the 10 mile square of the District of Columbia? All "bases" and "forts" are "leased" from the "States".... Once South Carolina seceded, Lincoln had no business holding onto that fort... Nor of attempting to resupply it, after the government of South Carolina called for its surrender..... Every move was made to end the Sumpter engagement peacefully by the then seceded states, as well as the states which were still part of the Union (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesse and Arkansas)... That lying Bastard of a President wanted it attacked, and was making sure South Carolina would...

Frankly, I don't have the time to research the history of Virginia in any detail. I know a few things here, though:

The Confederacy was based on slavery. It was THE issue that brought it about. Plenty of evidence has been produced in this thread already, something that has been conspicuously absent from the deniers who tell us to "read a history book". We don't need to speculate on this issue because the people who seceded said as much, and the consitution of the Confederacy backs it up.

Virginia mentions, in its ordinance of secession, solidarity with the "slave-holding states". Not the "freedom loving, consitution jocking" states. Virginia was a slaveholding state. They had to pick a side and they picked the side that had slaves, which is also, incidentally, the side that fired the first shots.

Virginia "adhered to the enemies" of the United States and "made war" on them. That is the consitutional definition of treason.

So, when called to fight for your country, you instead decided to "adhere to their enemies" and "make war upon" the Federal government. Can you explain to me how that is not treason?

Lincoln was not calling for a "fight for their country".... They were calling them to invade someone elses....

You may lay down, and grovel like a coward when some bloodthirsty git screams from a governmental pulpit.... Others of us will not stand by while such occurs... We will prosecute that individual by all means at our disposal... Virginia took pains great pains to form this Union.... And it was great pain to be forced to leave it when we did... But we stood by our principles...

Lincoln was not calling for a "fight for their country".... They were calling them to invade someone elses....

You may lay down, and grovel like a coward when some bloodthirsty git screams from a governmental pulpit.... Others of us will not stand by while such occurs... We will prosecute that individual by all means at our disposal... Virginia took pains great pains to form this Union.... And it was great pain to be forced to leave it when we did... But we stood by our principles...

Well, personally I think that it is pretty important for a country to be able to put down rebellions with force of arms if necessary. If it's not able to, then it's not really a sovereign nation. Everyone can have their principles if they want, but if you join the rebellion rather than fight it then you have committed treason, plain and simple. You can make a judgment based on whether or not that treason was justified by your moral code (and in some cases it is), but that doesn't make it something other than what it is.

Frankly, I don't have the time to research the history of Virginia in any detail. I know a few things here, though:

Translation: I'm want to be ingorant of the truth....


The Confederacy was based on slavery. It was THE issue that brought it about. Plenty of evidence has been produced in this thread already, something that has been conspicuously absent from the deniers who tell us to "read a history book". We don't need to speculate on this issue because the people who seceded said as much, and the consitution of the Confederacy backs it up.

The Confederacy was founded by South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Texas and Florida... And was based upon their oposition to Lincoln's election.... Most likely motivated by the slavery issue...

Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennesse, wanted peacefull settlement between the two powers... Yet, despite their work, Lincoln choose to inaugurate war upon them, by illegally holding onto foreign soil, to which they had no constitutional rights to..... As such, once war was being commenced, these states realized that the Federal Government in Washington, was no longer going to live by its root principles; thus seceding from the Union.


Virginia mentions, in its ordinance of secession, solidarity with the "slave-holding states". Not the "freedom loving, consitution jocking" states. Virginia was a slaveholding state. They had to pick a side and they picked the side that had slaves, which is also, incidentally, the side that fired the first shots.

Hmm, nice omition, you love perverting facts.... They do not mention "solidarity" they mention specific governmental infractions in oppression to the "Southern Slaceholding States" (namely South Carolina, etc.) (In Lincoln's holding of foreign soil) and to infractions in this state [Virginia] (In Lincoln calling for Virginians to assist the invasion of those states)... Thus to act upon our own ratification "having declared [by their intitial ratification of the Constitution] that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers...."


Virginia "adhered to the enemies" of the United States and "made war" on them. That is the consitutional definition of treason.

We waged a WAR in defense of our state against a warmongering blood-thirsty tyrant and his "regime" which operated in every manner in opposition to the US Constitution, directly ignoring Article I Section 8 [Holding onto foeign lands illegality]; Article II Section 2 [calling troops, and engaging in war without congressional approval]; Article III Section 2 [denying judicial power, rulling against his imposition on enumerated rights]; Article IV Section 4[denying states their republican form of government]; Amendment I[suspending freedom of the press], Amendment IV[ordering searches and seizures, without writ], Amendment V[holding state legislators and other such without charge or writ], Amendment VI[denying trial to same], Amendment IX and Amendment X [catch alls]...

So basically, your claims to "constitution jocking" and "Freedom" loving, is a lie. The Norther States stood idely by why some power-mongering tyrant rampaged over the entire constitution.... And you're doing the same... Much like the Union States of the time...