NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, you are Abraham Lincoln. No, you are not dead. You moved your head to snag some popcorn when the bullet wizzed past your head. So, in short, you're alive.

Now, the Civil War is over. The Confederacy has surrendered, etc etc. You are in charge of formulating "reconstruction" policy. You can do just about anything. How do you manage the occupied southern states? Do you focus on reconciliation or retribution?

My Plan:

-Free all slaves (offer compensation for those slaveowners that stayed loyal), offer government paid passage to Liberia. If freed slaves do not want to return to africa, offer government paid resettlment out west for any and all peoples of african descent.

-Execute all Confederate Officers above the rank of Captain.

-Forbid all men who joined the Confederate military, and all militia members who actively participated in actions against the US, from voting or holding public office.

-The south is now an occupied territory. Citizens of southern states (aside from freed slaves) are no longer citizens of the United States. They are subjects, with no constitutional, legal, or civil rights. The Union army, while downsized, will act as the occupying army.

-All estates over 40 acres will be seized by the Federal government, to be auctioned off to nonsoutherners.

-For 100 years, decendants of those who took up arms against the United States are forbidden from Voting in federal Elections, holding federal office, or working for the Federal government in any respect.

-All Union troops will recieve a large (by that day) pention. Large sums will be paid to those wounded, and the widows/families of those killed.

-Special taxes will be levied on all production in the Occupied Territories. These, along with estate sales, will fund the ex-slave resettlment program, as well as the Northern pention plan.

-There will be no court system in the Occupied South for at least 30 years. Trials will be conducted by military tribunal.

-The display of the Confederate Battle Flag, Civil Flag, or Naval Jack will be punishable by death and seizure of all assets.

-All firearms are to be confiscated, and all militias, state or otherwise, are to be disbanded

Thats all I can think of now.

Comments?

mmm heres a good way to fight a gurilla insurgency for the next 50 years.

Thank god our founding fathers didn't have you at the helm or the US might look much more like Israel today O.o

*snip*

Comments?

Apparently you have revoked much of the Constitution, including almost all of the Bill of Rights.

No thank you.

Apparently you have revoked much of the Constitution, including almost all of the Bill of Rights.

No thank you.

The Southerners didn't think much of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when they left. Now, they have to pay for the horror that they inflicted against the rest of the US.

You realize that your plan involves killing thousands of people. I like the 10% plan better.

But if I were Lincoln and I were still alive. I would apologize to the South and to the rest of America for being such a fascist dictator and try to pass an amendment that gives states the right to secede from the union if they want. And then I would resign and appoint Jefferson Davis to the presidency. Fuck Lincoln and fuck the fascist federal government that he started.

Why, out of interest, do you think this would be better than how reconstruction was really done?

Why, out of interest, do you think this would be better than how reconstruction was really done?

Reconstruction was a failure. The south was not punished enough for making war against the United States. This aims to remedy it.

The Southerners didn't think much of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when they left.

hmmm...maybe those pesky rebels need to feel the might of Britain's armed forces again!

Canada could use a pair of trousers!

Most of the OP is evil, retaliatory, vengefully unproductive nonsense bedding for a new schism - especially that whole thing about massacring people and oh, punishing their descendants! Because heaven knows how much responsibility semen holds... wtf? Ludicrous.

Most of the OP is evil, retaliatory, vengefully unproductive nonsense bedding for a new schism - especially that whole thing about massacring people and oh, punishing their descendants! Because heaven knows how much responsibility semen holds... wtf? Ludicrous.

It's not the Semen that holds the responsibility, it's the culture. 100 years should be enough to destroy the culture that enslaved millions and caused the death of 110,000 Americans.

It's not the Semen that holds the responsibility, it's the culture. 100 years should be enough to destroy the culture that enslaved millions and caused the death of 110,000 Americans.

So um, how long to destroy the culture that destroyed that culture mercilessly?

So um, how long to destroy the culture that destroyed that culture mercilessly?

A dominant culture can't really be destroyed. Of course, the North didn't really have a true homogenous culture compared to the south.

I think you just dislike rednecks. ;)

It was NOT a civil war, it was a war between the states. With respect, Lincoln was much more concerned about southern sucession than he was about slavery. Slavery only became important when it was necessary to rally the northern states when a confederate victory looked like a possibility. While there were zealots on both sides, the south hung on under much worse conditions than we can imagine today. The war wasn't all that popular in many parts of the north either - remember the draft started there and you could buy your way out.

Sorry, you strike out on all counts...

It's not the Semen that holds the responsibility, it's the culture. 100 years should be enough to destroy the culture that enslaved millions and caused the death of 110,000 Americans.

Ah, so then they get to return the favour for a hundred years of the slavery and massacres you put them through? Or what, "no constitutional, legal, or civil rights", mass executions and discrimination due to ancestry somehow doesn't amount to that?

It was NOT a civil war, it was a war between the states. With respect, Lincoln was much more concerned about southern sucession than he was about slavery. Slavery only became important when it was necessary to rally the northern states when a confederate victory looked like a possibility. While there were zealots on both sides, the south hung on under much worse conditions than we can imagine today. The war wasn't all that popular in many parts of the north either - remember the draft started there and you could buy your way out.

Sorry, you strike out on all counts...

I don't think I said anything about the causes of the war. I expressed my view about what should have been done to those who CAUSED and FOUGHT this war. The south, and southerners, caused this war, and needed to be punished most harshly. We didn't punish them hard enough.

Ah, so then they get to return the favour for a hundred years of the slavery and massacres you put them through? Or what, "no constitutional, legal, or civil rights", mass executions and discrimination due to ancestry somehow doesn't amount to that?

It doesn't. The African slaves brought over didn't do anything wrong. The northerners who fought the south didn't do anything wrong. It was the SOUTH that did the wrong things. It was the SOUTH that caused the war. No one else.

Reconstruction was a failure. The south was not punished enough for making war against the United States. This aims to remedy it.

Do you realize that the South did not want a war, they merely wanted to secede from the union. If anything the North should be punished for trying to ruin the South's economy and culture.

I don't think I said anything about the causes of the war. I expressed my view about what should have been done to those who CAUSED and FAUGHT this war. The south, and southerners, caused this war, and needed to be punished most harshly. We didn't punish them hard enough.

+their great grandchildren as well. Presumably you spend time atoning for bad things your ancestors did in 1907?

A dominant culture can't really be destroyed. Of course, the North didn't really have a true homogenous culture compared to the south.

You think the South had a homogeneous culture? :confused:

Riiiiight.

Do you realize that the South did not want a war, they merely wanted to secede from the union. If anything the North should be punished for trying to ruin the South's economy and culture.

The south participated in an active insurrection against the US. They broke US constitutional law by attempting to break away. If the south couldn't take the heat, they should have stayed out of the kitchen.

You think the South had a homogeneous culture? :confused:

Riiiiight.

Compared to the North, yes. The South did not benifit nearly as much as the north did from immigration. The North was much more diverse.

+their great grandchildren as well. Presumably you spend time atoning for bad things your ancestors did in 1907?

The south as a culture would still existed in 1907 because the North didn't punish them enough. What has southern culture brought us? Slavery. Opression. Aristocracy.

It doesn't. The African slaves brought over didn't do anything wrong. The northerners who fought the south didn't do anything wrong. It was the SOUTH that did the wrong things. It was the SOUTH that caused the war. No one else.

That is so demented on so many levels I can't actually be bothered to read what you have to write any more.

It doesn't. The African slaves brought over didn't do anything wrong. The northerners who fought the south didn't do anything wrong. It was the SOUTH that did the wrong things. It was the SOUTH that caused the war. No one else.

You know, history is written by the people who win wars. I implore you to look at pre-civil war America from both sides a bit more objectively. You need to ask the question, why did the South want to secede? It wasn't about slavery in the South, it was about whether or not slavery was going to be allowed in the new territories like Kansas and Nebraska. It wasn't about random rebel millitias attacking the North, it was the state governments trying to back out of the agreement that they signed in 1776.

Ask yourself this. Do you want to live in a country where the highest branch of government has more power over your life than your local and state governments? If the answer is yes, then maybe you should move to Europe and get the hell out of America you socialist.

Compared to the North, yes. The South did not benifit nearly as much as the north did from immigration. The North was much more diverse.

So the strong French and Spanish influences in Southern culture, in addition to the greater influence of African cultures on the South due to the widespread slavery, created a homogeneous culture compared to a region of largely English descent that had similar European cultural influences coming in via immigration and fewer African cultural influences due to less slavery?

It's not the Semen that holds the responsibility, it's the culture. 100 years should be enough to destroy the culture that enslaved millions and caused the death of 110,000 Americans.

If you want to destroy the culture, that's not going far enough. All Southern children should be taken from their parents and put into re-education programs teaching proper Yankee moral values. :rolleyes:

It wasn't just Southern culture that enslaved millions, plenty of other modern cultures were doing the same thing at the time. The North endorsed slavery as well until they began industrializing and had no more real need for unskilled free labour.

World War Two happened because the harsh conditions imposed on Germany and Austria after World War One and they weren't half as bad as the conditions suggested in the OP. The Reconstruction wasn't handled well, but it didn't lead to a Second American Civil War.

The south as a culture would still existed in 1907 because the North didn't punish them enough. What has southern culture brought us? Slavery. Opression. Aristocracy.

The South has brought America a spirit of individualism and community that Northerners don't understand. In fact, as far as Lincoln was concerned, the South was just one big cotton plantation.

...and they [Yankees] are marked ... with such a perversity of character, as to constitute, from that circumstance, the natural division of our parties
Thomas Jefferson

The Southerners didn't think much of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when they left. Now, they have to pay for the horror that they inflicted against the rest of the US.

What horror? Methinks your knowledge of history is a bit skewed if not outright perverted.

So the strong French and Spanish influences in Southern culture, in addition to the greater influence of African cultures on the South due to the widespread slavery, created a homogeneous culture compared to a region of largely English descent that had similar European cultural influences coming in via immigration and fewer African cultural influences due to less slavery?

African culture? African culture was in no way connected to the main southern culture. It was repressed to the greatest extent. French and Spanish influences were minuscule compared to the vast overarching culture retained by the predominantly Irish and Scottish (by ancestry) settlers.

The North, on the other hand, was made of many different European cultures. Germans, Scandinavians (apologies to Fass for not differentiating), Italians, and Slavs were just a few of the Ethinc groups that made up the North. While the north was still predominantly of English heratige, european minorities were much larger and more influential there then in the south.

The south participated in an active insurrection against the US. They broke US constitutional law by attempting to break away. If the south couldn't take the heat, they should have stayed out of the kitchen.

Can you please reference the specific constitutional text where secession is expressly forbidden...

The south as a culture would still existed in 1907 because the North didn't punish them enough. What has southern culture brought us? Slavery. Opression. Aristocracy.

Thats not what I asked you. I asked you if you atone for crimes your ancestors committed 100 years ago. 100 years ago my country was part of the largest empire the world has ever seen - maybe I should be punished because people I descended from probably helped to colonise India and Africa. I'm also going to guess that you are American - any of your ancestors fight in the Phillipines at the turn of the century, or Vietnam thirty years ago? Maybe you and your culture should be destroyed for causing so many wars people the world over consider to be wrong. If you'd just like to give up your voting rights and hand over everything you own to an impoverished Vietnamese family I think we can call it even, don't you?

What horror? Methinks your knowledge of history is a bit skewed if not outright perverted.

The Civil War. The 110,000 Northerners killed in a war the South started?

Can you please reference the specific constitutional text where secession is expressly forbidden...

Texas v White, 74 US 700.

The south participated in an active insurrection against the US. They broke US constitutional law by attempting to break away. If the south couldn't take the heat, they should have stayed out of the kitchen.

Where in the constitution does it say that states can't secede from the union? Where does it say that in the Declaration of Independence? You are full of shit. The constitution is a multilateral treaty that derives its legal effect from the sovereign parties that voluntarily signed it.

The Civil War was not the congress' war, it was not the people's war, and it was not America's war. It was Lincoln's war. Lincoln instigated the bloodiest conflict in North American history so he could tax the Souther states.

You know, history is written by the people who win wars. I implore you to look at pre-civil war America from both sides a bit more objectively. You need to ask the question, why did the South want to secede? It wasn't about slavery in the South, it was about whether or not slavery was going to be allowed in the new territories like Kansas and Nebraska. It wasn't about random rebel millitias attacking the North, it was the state governments trying to back out of the agreement that they signed in 1776.

Ask yourself this. Do you want to live in a country where the highest branch of government has more power over your life than your local and state governments? If the answer is yes, then maybe you should move to Europe and get the hell out of America you socialist.

Causes are not important, no matter how misguided they may be. Secession is illegal. The South knew they couldn't do it legally, so they tried to brawl their way out. They killed 110,000 Northerners.

African culture? African culture was in no way connected to the main southern culture. It was repressed to the greatest extent. French and Spanish influences were minuscule compared to the vast overarching culture retained by the predominantly Irish and Scottish (by ancestry) settlers.

Dear Lincoln. I don't know why I even bother.

Where in the constitution does it say that states can't secede from the union? Where does it say that in the Declaration of Independence? You are full of shit. The constitution is a multilateral treaty that derives its legal effect from the sovereign parties that voluntarily signed it.

The Civil War was not the congress' war, it was not the people's war, and it was not America's war. It was Lincoln's war. Lincoln instigated the bloodiest conflict in North American history so he could tax the Souther states.

Texas v White says it's illegal.

And you seem to have a rather Neo-confederate view of the Civil War. May I suggest Attack and Die (http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Die-Military-Southern-Heritage/dp/0817302298)? A rather good read, I must say.

Causes are not important, no matter how misguided they may be. Secession is illegal. The South knew they couldn't do it legally, so they tried to brawl their way out. They killed 110,000 Northerners.

I guess reason and logic are overrated too right? Jeeze, now I think you are just trying to argue for the sake of argument.

I guess reason and logic are overrated too right? Jeeze, now I think you are just trying to argue for the sake of argument.

Causes are not important, in this case. Does it matter if one lynches a black man because he looked at ones woman wrong, or didn't salute and show the proper respect for a white man? No, what matters is the Lynching.

The south engaged in a bloody war of secession. They were not oppressed. They had full representation and civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States. They had no legitimate reason to engage in rebellion against the United States.

African culture? African culture was in no way connected to the main southern culture. It was repressed to the greatest extent. French and Spanish influences were minuscule compared to the vast overarching culture retained by the predominantly Irish and Scottish (by ancestry) settlers.

The North, on the other hand, was made of many different European cultures. Germans, Scandinavians (apologies to Fass for not differentiating), Italians, and Slavs were just a few of the Ethinc groups that made up the North. While the north was still predominantly of English heratige, european minorities were much larger and more influential there then in the south.

African Culture was a heavy influence in Louisiana; French culture was a heavy influence in Louisiana and Georgia, Spanish was a heavy influence in Texas and Florida... Most northern culture was English, Dutch, and various Eastern European... Most of which is identical.

You demonstrate a complete ignorance of various southern cultures, which could very greatly between adjacent states... Something generally not seen in the North.

Thats not what I asked you. I asked you if you atone for crimes your ancestors committed 100 years ago. 100 years ago my country was part of the largest empire the world has ever seen - maybe I should be punished because people I descended from probably helped to colonise India and Africa. I'm also going to guess that you are American - any of your ancestors fight in the Phillipines at the turn of the century, or Vietnam thirty years ago? Maybe you and your culture should be destroyed for causing so many wars people the world over consider to be wrong. If you'd just like to give up your voting rights and hand over everything you own to an impoverished Vietnamese family I think we can call it even, don't you?

It's different because, in this case, it was a Civil War. One set of states engaged in rebellion against the United States. Would my punitive measures be appropriate in postwar Germany? No. But they are appropriate for a culture that rebelled against the Constitution and the United States.

The Civil War. The 110,000 Northerners killed in a war the South started?

Almost all of which were deaths occuring on southern soil lodged to an invading army.

African Culture was a heavy influence in Louisiana; French culture was a heavy influence in Louisiana and Georgia, Spanish was a heavy influence in Texas and Florida... Most northern culture was English, Dutch, and various Eastern European... Most of which is identical.

You demonstrate a complete ignorance of various southern cultures, which could very greatly between adjacent states... Something generally not seen in the North.

European Culture may now be nigh homogenous, but it surely was not then. I recall several racist essays penned by English against the Slavs, Scandinavians, and Italians.

French was influential in Louisiana, and not in the whole south as the Scottish and Irish culture was.

At the time, Texas and Florida were pretty much frontier areas. Even though Inuit culture has a heavy influence in Alaska, one could not say that they have influence in the whole United States.

Texas v White, 74 US 700.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said.... CONSTITUTIONAL text... The specific text in the United States Constitution, along with what section and article that EXPRESSLY forbids secession... I'm not interested in an act of judicial activism which rules in absence.

Almost all of which were deaths occuring on southern soil lodged to an invading army.

Putting down a rebellion in United States territory hardly counts as an invasion.

It's different because, in this case, it was a Civil War. One set of states engaged in rebellion against the United States. Would my punitive measures be appropriate in postwar Germany? No. But they are appropriate for a culture that rebelled against the Constitution and the United States.

The difference in that one war was civil and the other between nations is completely arbitrary to the core principle at hand. Your reasoning for destroying southern culture was that doing so would prevent further attempts at persecution of blacks - as if that didn't take place in the wonderful North, where blacks and whites danced hand in hand - the same logic works in Germany and the United States. By destroying the former's culture of persecution of Jews, and the latters culture of preventing communist states from forming such mistakes could have been prevented in future. So I will say it again - in order to destroy America's culture of imperialism, you must have your rights suspended and your property revoked in order to prevent such things from happening again.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said.... CONSTITUTIONAL text... The specific text in the United States Constitution, along with what section and article that EXPRESSLY forbids secession... I'm not interested in an act of judicial activism which rules in absence.

Oh, shall we then say that the Commerce Clause didn't exist before Gibbons v. Ogden? Or the power of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison?

Reconstruction was a failure. The south was not punished enough for making war against the United States. This aims to remedy it.

This aims to propose a hypothetical scenario over a century too late.

Fortunately.

Where do you people come from?

This aims to propose a hypothetical scenario over a century too late.

Fortunately.

Where do you people come from?

Yeah, well, it's fun to imagine what would have happened. Alternate history, if you will.

Ok, you are Abraham Lincoln. No, you are not dead. You moved your head to snag some popcorn when the bullet wizzed past your head. So, in short, you're alive.


[....]



Thats all I can think of now.

Comments?

Gee, what a great way to create a Totalitarian state, earn the enmity of a significant portion of the nation for the remainder of it's history, destroy the economy of your own country, foment a second civil war, and rape that same Constitution you reference, in the same ways you accuse the South of doing.

Oh, and:

The northerners who fought the south didn't do anything wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea

Texas v White says it's illegal.

And you seem to have a rather Neo-confederate view of the Civil War. May I suggest Attack and Die (http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Die-Military-Southern-Heritage/dp/0817302298)? A rather good read, I must say.

The supreme court is not indisputably right. Plenty of bullshit Supreme court cases have been overturned. And the chief justice of that case was a member of Lincoln's cabinet. I would argue that this decision deserves critical attention, because if states do not have the right to get out of a bad deal, then America has simply become an oppressive oligarchy similar to Russia's Eastern block states.

You can call me whatever you want but please let me call you names back. You are a Federalist of the highest order. You believe that the people of this country can and should be sent to war so that our government's economic goals can be met. You are a complete fascist and you see communities and familes as expendable government resources.

And may I suggest Lincoln's Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press (http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Wrath-Brilliant-Scoundrels-Presidents/dp/1402207557/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2535609-2575066?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192499356&sr=8-1). Quite an excellent read.

Gee, what a great way to create a Totalitarian state, earn the enmity of a significant portion of the nation for the remainder of it's history, destroy the economy of your own country, foment a second civil war, and rape that same Constitution you reference, in the same ways you accuse the South of doing.


The people who didn't formulate armed rebellion against the Constitution will still have those rights. And economic sanctions against the south wouldn't effect the Northern economy in a bad way. In fact, it would probably help it along.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea

Although such actions are unfourtunate, Georgians can't say they didn't deserve it.

Although such actions are unfourtunate, Georgians can't say they didn't deserve it.

Just like the people of Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane, eh?

Yeah, well, it's fun to imagine what would have happened. Alternate history, if you will.

Lets imagine then, that the South was allowed to peacefully secede from the union. Would the South be one of the only countries in the world today that still allows slavery? I imagine that if Lincoln had never tried to tax the life out of the South, the states would have remained independent and would have been able to peacefully come to compromises with the North.

It that so hard to imagine?

Putting down a rebellion in United States territory hardly counts as an invasion.

Were the troops on soil other than that which they originated? Yes...

Were the Union troops attacking a lawful army representative of the states which they were fighting in? Yes...

Were these troops called forth by a lawful government? Yes...

Was this lawful government a representative government (republican form) of the people of those states? Yes...

Luckily for everyone, a troll like you was not in charge... Nor would they have been... Even as murderous and bloodthirsty as some northern generals were (*cough Sherman *cough), their civility pails compared to your barbarism.

The supreme court is not indisputably right. Plenty of bullshit Supreme court cases have been overturned. And the chief justice of that case was a member of Lincoln's cabinet. I would argue that this decision deserves critical attention, because if states do not have the right to get out of a bad deal, then America has simply become an oppressive oligarchy similar to Russia's Eastern block states.

You can call me whatever you want but please let me call you names back. You are a Federalist of the highest order. You believe that the people of this country can and should be sent to war so that our government's economic goals can be met. You are a complete fascist and you see communities and familes as expendable government resources.

And may I suggest Lincoln's Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press (http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Wrath-Brilliant-Scoundrels-Presidents/dp/1402207557/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2535609-2575066?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192499356&sr=8-1). Quite an excellent read.

You are not qualified to scrutinize the Supreme Court decisions. No one is. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and it's decisions are the "laws of the land", until they are changed by another Court decision. I guess one could say that the decisions are infallible until the Supreme Court says they made a mistake.

And thank you for calling me a Federalist. I am one. I am proud of it.

As far as the book goes, I trust the opinion of two of the most respected civil war historians in history against the combination of a no-name professor and a "Space Entrepreneur."

Lets imagine then, that the South was allowed to peacefully secede from the union. Would the South be one of the only countries in the world today that still allows slavery? I imagine that if Lincoln had never tried to tax the life out of the South, the states would have remained independent and would have been able to peacefully come to compromises with the North.

It that so hard to imagine?

Slavery was already in process of being phased out in parts of the South before the Civil War, or even the first state to seceded... Likely, even if they South were allowed to peacefully secede, Slavery would have ended before the 1890's.

Were the troops on soil other than that which they originated? Yes...

And you can stop there. The South was US territory in a state of rebellion. It wasn't Canada, or any other Sovereign nation.

Slavery was already in process of being phased out in parts of the South before the Civil War, or even the first state to seceded... Likely, even if they South were allowed to peacefully secede, Slavery would have ended before the 1890's.

Now that is incorrect. Slavery was as strong as ever in the South. It was what made the Southern economy tick. The Aristocrats that controlled the southern governments would have never gone for it.

T
Although such actions are unfortunate, Georgians can't say they didn't deserve it.

Are you serious? Did you know that Atlanta is the only American city to ever be completely destroyed during a war. Did you know that the first person to die in the the siege of Atlanta was a five year old girl taking her dog for a walk. Its not even a stretch to say that in general, the South is poorer than the North today because of the Civil War and the artillery bombardments on almost every major Southern city.

Please explain to me why Georgians deserved that? Were we wrong to defend our freedom and community?

This was nearly genocide. Please, justify it you sick son of a bitch.

Are you serious? Did you know that Atlanta is the only American city to ever be completely destroyed during a war. Did you know that the first person to die in the the siege of Atlanta was a five year old girl taking her dog for a walk. Its not even a stretch to say that in general, the South is poorer than the North today because of the Civil War and the artillery bombardments on almost every major Southern city.

Please explain to me why Georgians deserved that? Were we wrong to defend our freedom and community?

This was nearly genocide. Please, justify it you sick son of a bitch.

Georgians were in a state of rebellion against the United States. Total war is unfourtunate, but nessesary to bring about cessation of hostilities.

Are you serious? Did you know that Atlanta is the only American city to ever be completely destroyed during a war. Did you know that the first person to die in the the siege of Atlanta was a five year old girl taking her dog for a walk. Its not even a stretch to say that in general, the South is poorer than the North today because of the Civil War and the artillery bombardments on almost every major Southern city.

Please explain to me why Georgians deserved that? Were we wrong to defend our freedom and community?

This was nearly genocide. Please, justify it you sick son of a bitch.

There is something about... hmmm... "I promise to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution, ..... defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" So if the US Supreme rules it constitutional then...? Logic prevails. I don't agree with the OP, but there's a point.

This was nearly genocide.

Not even remotely.

Please, justify it you sick son of a bitch.

"Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

Forgive me if my sympathy is restrained for such brave defenders of their "freedom" and "community."

Georgians were in a state of rebellion against the United States. Total war is unfourtunate, but nessesary to bring about cessation of hostilities.

So the various massacres and other brutal measures employed by the British Army against the colonists during the American war of indepence are prefectly fine, seeing as the American colonies were illegally rebelling against British rule.

Georgians were in a state of rebellion against the United States. Total war is unfourtunate, but nessesary to bring about cessation of hostilities.

Don't you mean, "to bring about hostilities." Because neither the citizens of Georgia nor Jefferson Davis had any plans to overthrow the Whitehouse or to take over the North. Can you explain how the South was so aggressive that it deserved to be invaded and raped?

honestly, this arguement is getting redundant.

There are only two things you should look at to justify the civil war one way or another.

1) Did the South have the right to succeed?

Yes. the tenth ammendment states that any powers not given in the constitution/bill of rights belong to the individual states. Sucession falls into this category. While insurection/treason is mentioned in the constituion, it is not clearly defined, and it does not expressly say that states can or cannot succeed, so, as per the tenth ammendment, they have the power to do so.

2) Would the world be better off if the south had successfully succeeded?

No. Granted, the US has done some fucked up shit in its 200+ years of existence, but it also acomplished some amazing feats (ie defeating the nazis, keeping the USSR in check, helping to prevent the further colonization of S America via the Monroe Doctorine ect.). so I find it hard to belive that the world would be a much better place if the US had been split in half.


Im sure people are going to disagree with me, but honestly, when you toss aside all philosophy, morals, ect. and deal with the nitty gritty, this makes a lot of sense.

Heritage not hate, brothers. Slavery was appaling and the loss of life during the war too, but Lincoln should be open to granting amnesty to all southern patriots. Except for that swiss man (not even a true southerner) who ran Andersonville. That was horrible stuff. Deo Vindice.

If secession was illegal... Then the US Constitution is illegal, since it is a result of secession of all the states from the Articles of Confederation.

Not even remotely.



"Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

Forgive me if my sympathy is restrained for such brave defenders of their "freedom" and "community."

I don't understand. What point are you trying to make? The North did in fact try to eliminate the rights of the Southern states. The South did defend its freedom and community. And I don't believe in God.

Heritage not hate, brothers. Slavery was appaling and the loss of life during the war too, but Lincoln should be open to granting amnesty to all southern patriots. Except for that swiss man (not even a true southerner) who ran Andersonville. That was horrible stuff. Deo Vindice.

Andersonville has been revisted by one JAG officer... If the trial were to be reran, the original sentence would have been overturned... Andersonville was the fault of Sherman and Lincoln...

1. Their was an attempt to offer a prisoner exchange with the north... Union officials denied it.
2. Their was an attempt to simply send the POW's back north... Union officials denied the request.
3. Sherman specifically cut supply lines to the prison... Resulting in lack of food and medical supplies.
4. Guards and officers suffered with the prisoners due to these lacks.

The North did in fact try to eliminate the rights of the Southern states.

"States' rights" are invoked and tossed aside according to political convenience; that's been the historical tradition for all geographical areas and major political movements.

The South did defend its freedom

...to hold millions of people as chattel.

And I don't believe in God.

I don't either. I was making a point with regard to justification... and chose to use the words of Abraham Lincoln, who made the point more eloquently than I would have.

2) Would the world be better off if the south had successfully succeeded?

No. Granted, the US has done some fucked up shit in its 200+ years of existence, but it also acomplished some amazing feats (ie defeating the nazis, keeping the USSR in check, helping to prevent the further colonization of S America via the Monroe Doctorine ect.). so I find it hard to belive that the world would be a much better place if the US had been split in half.


Im sure people are going to disagree with me, but honestly, when you toss aside all philosophy, morals, ect. and deal with the nitty gritty, this makes a lot of sense.

Maybe WWII would have been the reunification of the North and the South? It really quite impossible to see what the outcome of a successful Southern secession would have been, but I assure you that the world would have been better in 1860 if it were true.

Although this is probably the worst "reconstruction plan" that could have been (I'm sure the original poster is well aware of this...), it is interesting to think what would have been.

The plan has a high likelihood of killing the United States. I wonder what we would have been... (since none of us would have been americans)

OP, I am a Georgian. Descended equally from both (your distinctions) Saintly Yankee Dutch/Italians and Evil Racist Georgia Scotts (who were sharecroppers, never slaveholders...ahem, as were many of our ancestors), what culpability for these "crimes against the United States" would you assign me?

Just curious.

If secession was illegal... Then the US Constitution is illegal, since it is a result of secession of all the states from the Articles of Confederation.

You cannot compare the Constitution with the AoC. 2 completely different documents.

There is something about... hmmm... "I promise to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution, ..... defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" So if the US Supreme rules it constitutional then...? Logic prevails. I don't agree with the OP, but there's a point.

Very true. But shouldn't the president try to preserve the union with the powers given to him by the constitution? I really don't know enough about modern or historic law to say.

Don't you mean, "to bring about hostilities." Because neither the citizens of Georgia nor Jefferson Davis had any plans to overthrow the Whitehouse or to take over the North. Can you explain how the South was so aggressive that it deserved to be invaded and raped?

It rebelled against the United States. It violated Federal and Constitutional Law.

1) Did the South have the right to succeed?

Yes. the tenth ammendment states that any powers not given in the constitution/bill of rights belong to the individual states. Sucession falls into this category. While insurection/treason is mentioned in the constituion, it is not clearly defined, and it does not expressly say that states can or cannot succeed, so, as per the tenth ammendment, they have the power to do so.



Incorrect. Texas v. White says that secession is unconstitutional.

Although this is probably the worst "reconstruction plan" that could have been (I'm sure the original poster is well aware of this...), it is interesting to think what would have been.

The plan has a high likelihood of killing the United States. I wonder what we would have been... (since none of us would have been americans)

OP, I am a Georgian. Descended equally from both (your distinctions) Saintly Yankee Dutch/Italians and Evil Racist Georgia Scotts (who were sharecroppers, never slaveholders...ahem, as were many of our ancestors), what culpability for these "crimes against the United States" would you assign me?

Just curious.

Did your ancestors fight against the United States?

So the various massacres and other brutal measures employed by the British Army against the colonists during the American war of indepence are prefectly fine, seeing as the American colonies were illegally rebelling against British rule.

I clarify this earlier in the thread. The Southern states had proper representation, and their citizens proper civil rights. The Americans of the Revolution did not have representation, and there is dispute over what rights they had compared to other British subjects.

Now, does this make the American Revolution "legitimate"? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I think it does make it more legitimate then the Southern Rebellion.

"States' rights" are invoked and tossed aside according to political convenience; that's been the historical tradition for all geographical areas and major political movements.



...to hold millions of people as chattel.



I don't either. I was making a point with regard to justification... and chose to use the words of Abraham Lincoln, who made the point more eloquently than I would have.

So this is where we disagree, slavery? Besides the fact that the Civil War was not started over slavery, I believe that, although slavery is very bad, the death and destruction of the civil war did not merit the abolition of slavery in 1866. My belief mostly stems from the idea that there would be no slavery in the South today if the civil war wasn't fought. How many other countries had civil wars to end slavery? Not any as far as I know.

It rebelled against the United States. It violated Federal and Constitutional Law.

No, it only violated Presidential law as far as I know. There is no article of the constitution that directly prohibits secession. The Federal Supreme Court case that prohibited secession of a state wasn't until 1869 according to White v Texas.

I challenge you to show me indisputable proof that any meaningful law or treaty was violated by the South's desire to secede.

No, it only violated Presidential law as far as I know. There is no article of the constitution that directly prohibits secession. The Federal Supreme Court case that prohibited secession of a state wasn't until 1869 according to White v Texas.

I challenge you to show me indisputable proof that any meaningful law or treaty was violated by the South's desire to secede.

As I said, Texas V. White.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it isn't as if you just all of a sudden have that right or don't have that right. You have ALWAYS had or not had that right.

It was NOT a civil war, it was a war between the states. With respect, Lincoln was much more concerned about southern sucession than he was about slavery. Slavery only became important when it was necessary to rally the northern states when a confederate victory looked like a possibility. While there were zealots on both sides, the south hung on under much worse conditions than we can imagine today. The war wasn't all that popular in many parts of the north either - remember the draft started there and you could buy your way out.

Sorry, you strike out on all counts...

You know, history is written by the people who win wars. I implore you to look at pre-civil war America from both sides a bit more objectively. You need to ask the question, why did the South want to secede? It wasn't about slavery in the South, it was about whether or not slavery was going to be allowed in the new territories like Kansas and Nebraska. It wasn't about random rebel millitias attacking the North, it was the state governments trying to back out of the agreement that they signed in 1776.

Ask yourself this. Do you want to live in a country where the highest branch of government has more power over your life than your local and state governments? If the answer is yes, then maybe you should move to Europe and get the hell out of America you socialist.

So this is where we disagree, slavery? Besides the fact that the Civil War was not started over slavery, I believe that, although slavery is very bad, the death and destruction of the civil war did not merit the abolition of slavery in 1866. My belief mostly stems from the idea that there would be no slavery in the South today if the civil war wasn't fought. How many other countries had civil wars to end slavery? Not any as far as I know.

As much as I disagree with the OP, this is revisionist bullshit.

The warp and woof of the Confederacy was slavery (and particularly the expansion of slavery).

The Declarations of Secession make this clear, as does Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone" speech.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi)

.... 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.
....

Alexander H. Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76):
...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

Did your ancestors fight against the United States?

Indeed, both for and against "the United States"

Indeed, both for and against "the United States"

Are you implying that fighting for the rebellion is the same as fighting for the United States.

As I said, Texas V. White.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it isn't as if you just all of a sudden have that right or don't have that right. You have ALWAYS had or not had that right.

This is not true

This is not true

Do share.

Are you implying that fighting for the rebellion is the same as fighting for the United States.

No, I have ancestors who fought for both the north and the south. In the sense that both the north and the south are the united states, sure, but technically- no, I meant both sides

No, I have ancestors who fought for both the north and the south. In the sense that both the north and the south are the united states, sure, but technically- no, I meant both sides

The Northern states and the Southern states are part of the United States. However, fighting for the rebellion is not fighting for the United States.

Anyway, I do not blame you. I blame your ancestors and your Culture. Your ancestors would have paid the price. You culture would not have.

Do share.

in a minute

As I said, Texas V. White.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it isn't as if you just all of a sudden have that right or don't have that right. You have ALWAYS had or not had that right.

Oh okay, I stand corrected. Clearly, the South should have known that its actions would be deemed a felony 4 years after the war ended by a supreme court justice appointed by Lincoln.

It seems that your deeply religious views toward the Supreme court of America stem from a belief structure that rights and freedoms are given to us by the government. I would like to point to the declaration of independence on my behalf which says that man is born with unalienable rights. I said it a while ago and I'll say it again, you should leave America and move to some kind of socialist paradise in Europe.

http://i22.tinypic.com/34zj8cp.png

260,000 Southern Men, Women and Childern died for this flag.

Sir, I hate to tell you but you have succeeded in making a true Son of the Confederacy very, very angry.

First of, let me say, By God your are an idiot.

OK, now, since you are obviously not educated enough to have a decent discussion of what acutally happened during the War of Northern Aggression (I don't want to hear it called the 'American Civil War' or any bullshit like that anymore, that name says what it is plainly and truthfully).

Now, between 1830-1865, we had a series of presidents, who did not too much care for states rights, therefore the South seceded from the Union. Lincoln’s puppet of a Supreme Court Judge obviously was gonna say that this was illegal so that Lincoln could make with the war and get the United States back together so he could get some more taxes and so that he did not loose the agricultural base that the south provided for the north.

Once again, might I remind you that the Constitution of the US is only an agreement between states, and it does not say that leaving that agreement is explicitly illegal.

The CSA was a sovereign nation in every way, it had its own government, its own laws, its own constitution, every thing needed to classify as a nation. And as a nation, it was invaded. Most terrible was of course Sherman’s march to the sea in which he wrecked the area where I now reside. The punishment you put forth for us probably means that I would not be alive today and could quite possibly have all of Europe and much of the rest of the world speaking German as there would have been no great force to stop Hitler’s war machine after he took Britain as he would have eventually.

And do remember that a government is kept in line by dissent and questioning by the governed.

I can’t talk to you any more right now, you probably need time to try and get this through your thick skull anyway.

Oh okay, I stand corrected. Clearly, the South should have known that its actions would be deemed a felony 4 years after the war ended by a supreme court justice appointed by Lincoln.

It seems that your deeply religious views toward the Supreme court of America stem from a belief structure that rights and freedoms are given to us by the government. I would like to point to the declaration of independence on my behalf which says that man is born with unalienable rights. I said it a while ago and I'll say it again, you should leave America and move to some kind of socialist paradise in Europe.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says. Sucession has always been illegal. Supreme court decisions are retroactive.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says. Sucession has always been illegal. Supreme court decisions are retroactive.

You idiot, no they are not.

You idiot, no they are not.

Yes, they are.

Civics class, my friend. The Legislature makes the law. The Executive enforces the law. The courts interpret the law.

The Northern states and the Southern states are part of the United States. However, fighting for the rebellion is not fighting for the United States.

Anyway, I do not blame you. I blame your ancestors and your Culture. Your ancestors would have paid the price. You culture would not have.


It doesn't matter what you want to call the move for secession. The point I'm making is that I am a product of my ancestors, which include those who fought on both sides, those of varying ethnicities, all of who were never American slaveholders (I can't say I don't have any slaveholding ancestors anywhere in my lineage as many societies have had them). I have never had the culture you're talking about. My recent ancestors (including the ones punishable under your plan) were not a part of that culture. It is arguable that not a single person I have descended from had that culture, there is a possibility that those persons fighting for the Confederacy were both abolitionists and believed in the right of the south to secede... who knows.

Aristocracy= Elite. A small few can comprise an elite.

How then could you justify punishing even the children of those fighting in the rebellion when the evildoers were a remote few?

You idiot, no they are not.

Lol, I was going to try for a much nicer approach, I guess there is no point anymore

Yes, they are.

Civics class, my friend. The Legislature makes the law. The Executive enforces the law. The courts interpret the law.

Mate, did you just come from North Korea? Ever heard of being Grand Fathered in? I'm not saying that none of them are, just not all of them are nessessarily 100% retroactive.

Yes, they are.

Civics class, my friend. The Legislature makes the law. The Executive enforces the law. The courts interpret the law.


Then how can there be an overruled decision?
(The courts are law-making bodies. The law changes through legislation as well as through the courts (common law))

260,000 Southern Men, Women and Childern died for this flag.

How moving... hundreds of thousands of people dying so that other people can remain slaves.

:rolleyes:

http://i22.tinypic.com/34zj8cp.png

Oooh, the Battle Flag. Pretty, I must say.

260,000 Southern Men, Women and Childern died for this flag.

No, they died for this (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/slavery.jpg).

Sir, I hate to tell you but you have succeeded in making a true Son of the Confederacy very, very angry.


Mmkay.

First of, let me say, By God your are an idiot.


I rather liked being called a Federalist more.

OK, now, since you are obviously not educated enough to have a decent discussion of what acutally happened during the War of Northern Aggression (I don't want to hear it called the 'American Civil War' or any bullshit like that anymore, that name says what it is plainly and truthfully).


Hmm...who fired first? I'll give you a hint. He's French, a chemist, and the ex-commandant of West Point.


Now, between 1830-1865, we had a series of presidents, who did not too much care for states rights, therefore the South seceded from the Union. Lincoln’s puppet of a Supreme Court Judge obviously was gonna say that this was illegal so that Lincoln could make with the war and get the United States back together so he could get some more taxes and so that he did not loose the agricultural base that the south provided for the north.


So...the south tried to seceded because their candidate didn't win. Got it.

Oh, and the North was pretty much agriculturally self-suficcient at that time. The majority of southern Exports went to France and Great Britian.

Once again, might I remind you that the Constitution of the US is only an agreement between states, and it does not say that leaving that agreement is explicitly illegal.

Texas v. White says it does.

The CSA was a sovereign nation in every way, it had its own government, its own laws, its own constitution, every thing needed to classify as a nation. And as a nation, it was invaded. Most terrible was of course Sherman’s march to the sea in which he wrecked the area where I now reside. The punishment you put forth for us probably means that I would not be alive today and could quite possibly have all of Europe and much of the rest of the world speaking German as there would have been no great force to stop Hitler’s war machine after he took Britain as he would have eventually.


I declare myself Mattopia. There, now I have as much legitimacy as the CSA did.

And do remember that a government is kept in line by dissent and questioning by the governed.

Aye. No disagreement there.

I can’t talk to you any more right now, you probably need time to try and get this through your thick skull anyway.

K, bai.

:upyours:How moving... hundreds of thousands of people dying so that other people can remain slaves.

:rolleyes:

As much as I disagree with the OP, this is revisionist bullshit.

The warp and woof of the Confederacy was slavery (and particularly the expansion of slavery).

The Declarations of Secession make this clear, as does Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone" speech.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi)

.... 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.
....

Alexander H. Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76):
...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

Do you really think that slavery would have survived in the South to this day if it wasn't for the Civil War? I suppose that no one can prove definitively what an alternate course of history would lead to, but I would like to remind you that many Northerners owned slaves during the civil war and many of them would have agreed with the parts of that speech that you highlighted. No country that I know of today permits owning slaves, unless you consider the status of middle-eastern women to be slavery. Is this a result of the American civil war? I would say no, because no other country that I know of had a civil war over slavery.

Then how can there be an overruled decision?
(The courts are law-making bodies. The law changes through legislation as well as through the courts (common law))

The law itself does not change. The interpretation of it does.

Mate, did you just come from North Korea? Ever heard of being Grand Fathered in? I'm not saying that none of them are, just not all of them are nessessarily 100% retroactive.

Doesn't apply. Nothing in the constitution was "grandfathered in". Decisions of the supreme court are retroactive to the ratification of the constitution. Think of it as invisible ink. Just because one cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

Oooh, the Battle Flag. Pretty, I must say.

No, they died for this (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/slavery.jpg).


Mmkay.


I rather liked being called a Federalist more.


Hmm...who fired first? I'll give you a hint. He's French, a chemist, and the ex-commandant of West Point.



So...the south tried to seceded because their candidate didn't win. Got it.

Oh, and the North was pretty much agriculturally self-suficcient at that time. The majority of southern Exports went to France and Great Britian.

Texas v. White says it does.


I declare myself Mattopia. There, now I have as much legitimacy as the CSA did.

Aye. No disagreement there.


K, bai.

Listen, I'll sit back and hear some extremist bullshit, with an open mind as well, but you are sitting there insulting me and its pissing me off. You don't seem to have any concept of what is right and wrong, if your were president in 1865, the American government would be much like the North Korean, and you are so absolutely sure you are right you won't listen to anyone's opinion.

Do you really think that slavery would have survived in the South to this day if it wasn't for the Civil War? I suppose that no one can prove definitively what an alternate course of history would lead to, but I would like to remind you that many Northerners owned slaves during the civil war and many of them would have agreed with the parts of that speech that you highlighted. No country that I know of today permits owning slaves, unless you consider the status of middle-eastern women to be slavery. Is this a result of the American civil war? I would say no, because no other country that I know of had a civil war over slavery.

Northerners as in those in the boarder states that, most importantly, stayed loyal. While Abe Lincoln may not have run as an abolitionist candidate, the Republican Party was the abolitionist party. If the majority of the nation did not agree with abolition, why would they have voted an abolitionist party into the majority in the house?

:upyours:

What, does the truth offend you?

The "Confederacy" was a racist institution to the core, a "nation" founded on the enshrinement of chattel slavery and white superiority. The war fought in its defense was fought to protect those things, because the fear was that the North was restricting them too heavily (in the case of slavery, anyway.)

"States' rights" was just a propagandistic excuse--as usual, its invocation was a matter of political convenience.

Doesn't apply. Nothing in the constitution was "grandfathered in". Decisions of the supreme court are retroactive to the ratification of the constitution. Think of it as invisible ink. Just because one cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

Soooooo, when prohibition was put in they went back and punished everyone who had ever had a drink in their life or had sold alcohol?

Listen, I'll sit back and hear some extremist bullshit, with an open mind as well, but you are sitting there insulting me and its pissing me off. You don't seem to have any concept of what is right and wrong, if your were president in 1865, the American government would be much like the North Korean, and you are so absolutely sure you are right you won't listen to anyone's opinion.

Insulting you? I don't recall calling you an idiot for your views. I don't recall calling anyone in this thread an idiot. And yet I am insulting you?

Soooooo, when prohibition was put in they went back and punished everyone who had ever had a drink in their life or had sold alcohol?

Different. The Prohibition amendments were just that, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Literal changes in the writing, not interpretation.

Do you really think that slavery would have survived in the South to this day if it wasn't for the Civil War? I suppose that no one can prove definitively what an alternate course of history would lead to, but I would like to remind you that many Northerners owned slaves during the civil war and many of them would have agreed with the parts of that speech that you highlighted. No country that I know of today permits owning slaves, unless you consider the status of middle-eastern women to be slavery. Is this a result of the American civil war? I would say no, because no other country that I know of had a civil war over slavery.

1. I notice you have changed your tune about the true nature of the Confederacy and now want to engage in alternative history instead of real history.

2. Should blacks have simply waited 100 years or more for slavery to end peacefully in the South?

What, does the truth offend you?

The "Confederacy" was a racist institution to the core, a "nation" founded on the enshrinement of chattel slavery and white superiority. The war fought in its defense was fought to protect those things, because the fear was that the North was restricting them too heavily (in the case of slavery, anyway.)

"States' rights" was just a propagandistic excuse--as usual, its invocation was a matter of political convenience.

No, I disagree with slavery completely; however, we must examine the exact cultural differences in each nation to completely understand the motivations behind each action.

In brief that is put as:

South: Aristocratic, higher and lower classes clearly defined the belief that chivalrous ideals had a chance across the pond.

North: Struggle for equality, all allowed falling or rise on what they can hope to gain a foothold on in an extremely fast paced, corporation dominated society.

Do remeber that both sides of the argument are much deeper than that.

You cannot compare the Constitution with the AoC. 2 completely different documents.

Yes I can, if you're arguing session is illegal. Then the acts taken by the states to secede from the "perpetual" union under the Articles of Confederation, and their holding of a constitutional convention (in direct conflict with Article XIII of the AoC) was also illegal; meaning that the United States Federal Government, her constitution, troops and laws are illegal, being a direct violation of provisions set out in the governing document (AoC) of the United States as formed in 1777...

This is besides the point. The US Constitution was FORMED by a secession.

Lincoln supported Massachusetts attempted secession in 1820... Because he KNEW secession was perfectly constitutional, and inline with the concept of the former Colonies.

Not that Lincoln cared all that much for the US Constitution; he was out to create a new United States during the War of Northern Aggression... A new form of government where the President can take it upon himself to arrest the people's representatives that did not agree with him. Where the president has the power to create new states from the territories of existing ones. Where the president has the power to arrest press officials who print things contrary to his goals. The power to suspend Habeus Corpus without the consent of congress..... I'm just glad that the last thing Lincoln heard was "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS"... Such fit him well...

Insulting you? I don't recall calling you an idiot for your views. I don't recall calling anyone in this thread an idiot. And yet I am insulting you?

You have basically said that everything I stand for should have been destroyed by 1965. Including my family. I'd take that as quite an insult.

And you do realize that your 'reconstruction plan' is more of a 'deconsturction until nothing is left and basically do what we did to the Native Americans to the people of the South because they didn't listen well enough' plan.

No, they died for this (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/slavery.jpg).


That is not what the civil war was started over.


I rather liked being called a Federalist more.

haha, yeah I thought that was clever.

Hmm...who fired first? I'll give you a hint. He's French, a chemist, and the ex-commandant of West Point.

I don't give a damn who shot first at Fort Sumpter, the war started as soon as the North told the South it would not be allowed to seceed.


So...the south tried to seceded because their candidate didn't win. Got it.

Basically, yeah you got it. The Federal government became oppressive and the South wanted out.


Oh, and the North was pretty much agriculturally self-suficcient at that time. The majority of southern Exports went to France and Great Britian.

Yes, thats right, and it was Lincoln's ridiculous tariffs that threatened to destroy the economic prosperity of the south.


Texas v. White says it does.

yes but didn't we already find out that that was very bias decision was a direct product on Lincoln's administration? Law or not, its bullshit as far as I am concerned.


I declare myself Mattopia. There, now I have as much legitimacy as the CSA did.

Not at all! You are not a State government and you did not sign any multilateral treaties in 1776.

Incorrect. Texas v. White says that secession is unconstitutional.

Texas vs. White was in 1869.... AFTER the war was over...

Though, I'm not really interested in Texas v. White... It's completely void of any substance which gives it any credibility what-so-ever... It's not based on any constitutional provisions... It's a true case of judicial activism.

Dude wasnt the point of the Cival war to Preserve cival rights? The South felt that there cival freedoms were being taken away by the more industrialized north and broke off. Which given how many freedoms america offers was there right. Lincoln did not want to be responsible for dissolving the united states and so he refused to allow them this freedom. The actions you suggest negate the points of fighting the war. Christ if we were gonna turn all the white southerners into slaves why free the blacks. Your suggest lacks any sense given there will be no deffinate way to distinguish between loyalist and traitors. Second the south SURRENDERED meaning they willing set down there guns and agreed to the northern policies. After that striping them of there pride and dignity will simple create more hatred and resentment to the north and wouldnt ya know it another war. Third killing off any SOLIDER above the Rank of Captian is a complete violation of any kind of respect the United States of other countries. We would not tolerate any one taking soliders who surrendered and killing them. And last the finaces for your policies would never be able to support any kind of reconstruction project. Giving money to former slaves is a nice thought but where will that money come from? Certianaly not the south given that you would strip them of every thing. Then you have Half of the population in the united states not paying taxs so the revenue will bottom out. Sending blacks back to Africa would not be cheap. Southerners wouldnt pay taxs for 100 years because they arent citizens. THe america we know would never exist. We would never be able to Expand like we did because our armies would be stuck in the south occupying the southern states to prevent a rebelion. WWI would have gone differently as would world war II (If it still happened) you would basically create another Russia or maybe China:mp5::mp5:. So lets all thank god you will never amount to anything:upyours:

The law itself does not change. The interpretation of it does.

The law does not change?!?!:p

Different. The Prohibition amendments were just that, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Literal changes in the writing, not interpretation.

The law does not change.
It is only re-interpreted, right?

Yes I can, if you're arguing session is illegal. Then the acts taken by the states to secede from the "perpetual" union under the Articles of Confederation, and their holding of a constitutional convention (in direct conflict with Article XIII of the AoC) was also illegal; meaning that the United States Federal Government, her constitution, troops and laws are illegal, being a direct violation of provisions set out in the governing document (AoC) of the United States as formed in 1777...


And so is one of the major flaws of the Articles of Confederation. One could argue that the "perpetual union" was not just union under the Articles of Confederation. The union has been perpetual. There has been no break in the union between the states.

This is besides the point. The US Constitution was FORMED by a secession.

By this you mean the American Revolutionary war. I address this earlier in the thread.

Lincoln supported Massachusetts attempted secession in 1820... Because he KNEW secession was perfectly constitutional, and inline with the concept of the former Colonies.

Source?

Not that Lincoln cared all that much for the US Constitution; he was out to create a new United States during the War of Northern Aggression... A new form of government where the President can take it upon himself to arrest the people's representatives that did not agree with him. Where the president has the power to create new states from the territories of existing ones. Where the president has the power to arrest press officials who print things contrary to his goals. The power to suspend Habeus Corpus without the consent of congress..... I'm just glad that the last thing Lincoln heard was "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS"... Such fit him well...

It was legal for Lincoln to suspend Habeus Corpus. It expressly states that Congress has the power to suspend Habeus Corpus in times of war and rebellion. Since Congress was not in session, it is thought that such legislative matters could be handled by the president, in much the same way Recess Appointments are.

Either way, I'm not that big a fan of Lincoln the president. He did some nasty things. Silencing loyal opposition is not the way to go. But, sometimes desperate times do call for desperate measures. No matter if he stretched the law to accomplish his goals, those were most certainly desperate times.

Texas vs. White was in 1869.... AFTER the war was over...

Though, I'm not really interested in Texas v. White... It's completely void of any substance which gives it any credibility what-so-ever... It's not based on any constitutional provisions... It's a true case of judicial activism.

As I had stated before, Supreme Court decisions are retroactive.

Northerners as in those in the boarder states that, most importantly, stayed loyal. While Abe Lincoln may not have run as an abolitionist candidate, the Republican Party was the abolitionist party. If the majority of the nation did not agree with abolition, why would they have voted an abolitionist party into the majority in the house?

Well if anti-slavery sentiment was so popular, then why did The entire South part of the country secede? The constitution does not say anything about slavery,(before it was amended) therefore neither president Lincoln nor the republican party had the right or ability to force emancipation onto the Southern states. The Southern states reserved the legal right to own slaves under the constitution and were correct to secede when the North started pushing its laws and outrageous taxes on the South.

At the OP:

Damn. Would you have wanted to see a gurrilla war for 20+ years raging across the US? Would you want to see a second Civil War in a generation or two?

You are so full of northern bias and bullshit it is astounding.

I was born in the South, have had family in the South since before the Civil War, and had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. As such, I say with every fiber of my being: Fuck You.

It is people like you who fuel hatred in Southern hearts. Ignorant fools so full of bullshit they can't smell the truth if its right in front of them. When I lived in Pennsylvania I dealt with people like you all the time, dumbasses.

For your benefit:
http://www.victorystore.com/Flags/images/confederate_flag.jpg

That is not what the civil war was started over.


Yes, it was. Soheran has done a fantastic job demonstrating that. Better then I could have done.


haha, yeah I thought that was clever.

Indeed, I give originality points for that.


I don't give a damn who shot first at Fort Sumpter, the war started as soon as the North told the South it would not be allowed to seceed.


Funny, I recall it starting when the Southerners tried to deny food supplies to Federal troops.

Basically, yeah you got it. The Federal government became oppressive and the South wanted out.


And you simply cannot do that. If states could just pack up and leave when they didn't like what was going on, we'd be seperated into the Democratic Republic of Canuckistan and the Theocracy of Jesusland after the last election.




Yes, thats right, and it was Lincoln's ridiculous tariffs that threatened to destroy the economic prosperity of the south.

Presidents don't set tarrifs. Congress does.

yes but didn't we already find out that that was very bias decision was a direct product on Lincoln's administration? Law or not, its bullshit as far as I am concerned.

Same logic the Abortion Clinic Bombers use. Like it or not, it is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United State. You are bound by law to obey it. So are the states.


Not at all! You are not a State government and you did not sign any multilateral treaties in 1776.
...which were rendered null and void by the Constitution. Seeing as how it says that the Federal Government is the only one that can conduct foreign policy.

Although such actions are unfourtunate, Georgians can't say they didn't deserve it.

I was born in Atlanta, and now you've really pissed me off, more than your OP. If the British had burned whatever shit hole town you crawled out of down during the revolution and had won, it would have been alright? Might is right?

-Execute all Confederate Officers above the rank of Captain.

Why? Because they fought for their country?


-Forbid all men who joined the Confederate military, and all militia members who actively participated in actions against the US, from voting or holding public office.

So you advocate denying African-Americans the right to vote or hold office?


-The south is now an occupied territory. Citizens of southern states (aside from freed slaves) are no longer citizens of the United States. They are subjects, with no constitutional, legal, or civil rights. The Union army, while downsized, will act as the occupying army.

Since your argument is that secession was illegal. This is unconstitutional, a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, as well as Article IV Section 4.


-All estates over 40 acres will be seized by the Federal government, to be auctioned off to nonsoutherners.

Including estates owned by African Americans?
Also, Unconstitutional, 5th Amendment.


-For 100 years, decendants of those who took up arms against the United States are forbidden from Voting in federal Elections, holding federal office, or working for the Federal government in any respect.

Unconstitutional... As mentioned before... It's amazing. You seem to place yourself on a high-horse, while at the same time becoming more of a monster than the people you supposedly are so blood-thirsty at.... Like most other well-intentioned wannabe petty tyrants, your idea of defending the United States is to destroy it and abandon every principle which does not suit your quest for DEATH and DESTRUCTION of your supposed enemies... Totally blind and pathetic.


-All Union troops will receive a large (by that day) pension. Large sums will be paid to those wounded, and the widows/families of those killed.

Wow, a monster like you is capable of showing some light.


-Special taxes will be levied on all production in the Occupied Territories. These, along with estate sales, will fund the ex-slave resettlement program, as well as the Northern pension plan.

Yep, let's keep them southerners down... Of course you've wrecked their economy, so heavy taxes will do nothing but keep them suppressed for a century... Not to mention the heavy impact this would have on those (in the North) needing these goods... But of course, you're understanding of economic impacts is between nil and void.


-There will be no court system in the Occupied South for at least 30 years. Trials will be conducted by military tribunal.

Violation of Amendments 5, 6 and 7... How much of the Constitution are you planning on defecating upon in your attempt to uphold the Constitution?


-The display of the Confederate Battle Flag, Civil Flag, or Naval Jack will be punishable by death and seizure of all assets.

Violation of the 1st Amendment. I guess this answers my question about defecation aforementioned.


-All firearms are to be confiscated, and all militias, state or otherwise, are to be disbanded

Violation of the 2nd Amendment.

mmm heres a good way to fight a gurilla insurgency for the next 50 years.

Thank god our founding fathers didn't have you at the helm or the US might look much more like Israel today O.o

It would have probably been worse. At least one thing, this might have made reading about "Reconstruction" at least palpable. Good lord that is one of the most boring segments of our history books.

Well if anti-slavery sentiment was so popular, then why did The entire South part of the country secede?


Because the Aristocratic South didn't much like democracy. Simple as that.

The constitution does not say anything about slavery,(before it was amended) therefore neither president Lincoln nor the republican party had the right or ability to force emancipation onto the Southern states.


Lincoln didn't. Thats why he didn't free slaves in the Loyal States or in the area the Union controlled in the South. He did free slaves as Commander in Chief of US forces fighting the rebellion.


The Southern states reserved the legal right to own slaves under the constitution and were correct to secede when the North started pushing its laws and outrageous taxes on the South.

And Lincoln DID NOT campaign on an abolitionist platform. He didn't like slavery, but he never once said publically that he would ban it. The south, as usual, overreacted.

Well if anti-slavery sentiment was so popular, then why did The entire South part of the country secede? The constitution does not say anything about slavery,(before it was amended) therefore neither president Lincoln nor the republican party had the right or ability to force emancipation onto the Southern states. The Southern states reserved the legal right to own slaves under the constitution and were correct to secede when the North started pushing its laws and outrageous taxes on the South.

1. You must use rather funny definitions of the terms "right" and "correct."

2. I'm glad to see you are finally admitting the motivations of the Confederacy were to preserve slavery.

1. I notice you have changed your tune about the true nature of the Confederacy and now want to engage in alternative history instead of real history.


What? okay I guess. Have I been avoiding real history or something?


2. Should blacks have simply waited 100 years or more for slavery to end peacefully in the South?

Now if that is not alternative history, I don't know what is. That slavery would have lasted another 100 years in the South without the civil war. Pure conjecture! I don't like making moral decisions based on conjecture or alternative history. I mean, its not hard to imagine the South being able to secede peacefully, but beyond that, eh...

The south, as usual, overreacted.

Overreacted? Let me ask you a question... When did Virginia secede, was it before or AFTER Lincoln declared war without the consent of congress?

1. You must use rather funny definitions of the terms "right" and "correct."

Websters-Merriam. Look it up.


2. I'm glad to see you are finally admitting the motivations of the Confederacy were to preserve slavery.

When did I ever deny it? I do maintain that Lincoln never tried to emancipate slaves before the war and that the civil war was more about states rights than slavery. Do you disagree?

Now if that is not alternative history, I don't know what is. That slavery would have lasted another 100 years in the South without the civil war. Pure conjecture! I don't like making moral decisions based on conjecture or alternative history. I mean, its not hard to imagine the South being able to secede peacefully, but beyond that, there really is no reference as to what would happen in North America as late as the 1940's.

You are the one speculating about what would have happened if the South were "able to secede peacefully."

But, let's see, it took about 100 years after the Civil War to end segregation -- something that had to be imposed by the North upon the South as well. Is it really unrealistic to think other racist regimes would have flourished in a seceded South?

Good list, but *snip*

Those that engage in armed rebellion against the United States will no longer be considered citizens. Oh, and with no court system, there would be no way for Southerners to challenge this. And any Yankee silly enough to challenge on behalf of the Occupied South wouldn't get past my stacked court.

Life is good.

Overreacted? Let me ask you a question... When did Virginia secede, was it before or AFTER Lincoln declared war without the consent of congress?

There was no war. Indeed, the "Civil War" is a bit of a misnomer. It was simply putting down a large rebellion within the United States. A declaration of war implies war between 2 sovereign nations.

When did I ever deny it? I do maintain that Lincoln never tried to emancipate slaves before the war and that the civil war was more about states rights than slavery. Do you disagree?

Yes. And so did Alexander Stephens and the Declarations of Secession.

:headbang:

Because the Aristocratic South didn't much like democracy. Simple as that.


Lincoln didn't. Thats why he didn't free slaves in the Loyal States or in the area the Union controlled in the South. He did free slaves as Commander in Chief of US forces fighting the rebellion.



And Lincoln DID NOT campaign on an abolitionist platform. He didn't like slavery, but he never once said public ally that he would ban it. The south, as usual, overreacted.

What is that suppose to mean? As usual the south overreacted? I am starting to lose track of your meanings. Are you now trying to perpetuate a stereotype that Southerners tend to overreact about politics?

May I be allowed to repeat myself.

The South did not secede because Lincoln or the Federal Government tried to emancipate the slaves in the South. The South was not anti-democratic either. The Southern States left the Union and Lincoln declared war on them. It is in fact the war over State's rights.

I'm sorry if I am beginning to sound repetitive but you are starting to sound like a goddamn parrot. "wark, white v Texas, wark, retroactive, wark"

Thats what you would sound like, if you were a parrot, nevermind.

Those that enguage in armed rebellion against the United States will no longer be considered citizens. Oh, and with no court system, there would be no way for Southerners to challenge this. And any Yankee silly enough to challenge on behalf of the Occupied South wouldn't get past my stacked court.

Life is good.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

So you perfectly admit that your idea of preserving the Constitution is by defecating upon it... And that further you admit that you are breaking the law, but only doing so by specifically appointing fellow traitors to tribunal-ships to prevent the Constitution from being lawfully applied. In addition, you're fully admitting that your intention is to DESTROY the Constitution of the United States where you see fit...

Now, how does all of this make you better than those in rebellion. Near as I can tell you've merely executed a military coup against the lawful government, replaced it with like-minded traitors, and succeeded in doing much more damage to the United States than a handful of seceding states could ever have done. One must ask why you hate the United States so much.

What is that suppose to mean? As usual the south overreacted? I am starting to lose track of your meanings. Are you now trying to perpetuate a stereotype that Southerners tend to overreact about politics?


Look throughout the early history of the Republic. Once you get away from the Virginia dynasty, southern politics kinda goes downhill from there.

May I be allowed to repeat myself.


Yes, you may. After all, this is a free, undivided country.


The South did not secede because Lincoln or the Federal Government tried to emancipate the slaves in the South. The South was not anti-democratic either. The Southern States left the Union and Lincoln declared war on them. It is in fact the war over State's rights.


1. Show me the Declaration of War. Oh wait, there isn't one, because that would emply that the CSA was a legitimate nation.

2. The South was very undemocratic. Representatives from the south were pretty much wealthy slaveholding planters who's minions ran you up a pole if you didn't vote for him in the semiannual "elections".

3. Soheran and Cat-Tribes have done a fantastic job of illustrating that the civil war was over Slavery, and not these so-called "States Rights".

I'm sorry if I am beginning to sound repetitive but you are starting to sound like a goddamn parrot. "wark, white v Texas, wark, retroactive, wark"

Thats what you would sound like, if you were a parrot, nevermind.

I see you have still not come up with a counter to the Supreme Court decision.

Yes. And so did Alexander Stephens and the Declarations of Secession.

:headbang:

I guess the way I see it, there was always this looming prospect of a state trying to seceed from the union. States were threatening to do it ever since the Constitution was ratified. The constitution is not really difinatively for or against state secession, it is kind of purposely vague. The question of secession was waiting to explode and slavery is the issue that sent it over the edge. Of course, we all know how Lincoln responded. Not only did he not recognize their right to separate, he fuckin started a war. Was that really necessary?

So you perfectly admit that your idea of preserving the Constitution is by defecating upon it... And that further you admit that you are breaking the law, but only doing so by specifically appointing fellow traitors to tribunal-ships to prevent the Constitution from being lawfully applied. In addition, you're fully admitting that your intention is to DESTROY the Constitution of the United States where you see fit...

Now, how does all of this make you better than those in rebellion. Near as I can tell you've merely executed a military coup against the lawful government, replaced it with like-minded traitors, and succeeded in doing much more damage to the United States than a handful of seceding states could ever have done. One must ask why you hate the United States so much.

Actually, I could probably force through an Amendment to the constitution saying that those people are no longer citizens of the US. That would be more legal, I think. Yes, that would be better.

I guess the way I see it, there was always this looming prospect of a state trying to seceed from the union. States were threatening to do it ever since the Constitution was ratified. The constitution is not really difinatively for or against state secession, it is kind of purposely vague. The question of secession was waiting to explode and slavery is the issue that sent it over the edge. Of course, we all know how Lincoln responded. Not only did he not recognize their right to separate, he fuckin started a war. Was that really necessary?

Who Fired First?

Another hint: He took over command of Rebel forces at Shiloh after A. S. Johnson was killed.

Those that engage in armed rebellion against the United States will no longer be considered citizens. Oh, and with no court system, there would be no way for Southerners to challenge this. And any Yankee silly enough to challenge on behalf of the Occupied South wouldn't get past my stacked court.

Life is good.

Yeah, just like those damn Filipinos. Civilize 'em with a krag, why don't we! The best way to prove is our moral superiority is by being bloodthirsty tyrants!

At any rate, this post pretty much destroyed any notion I might have been carrying that the OP was serious. This is all an elaborate joke, and I'm rather amused by the number of saps he's managed to troll in.

I first had my suspicions when he linked that book back on page two or so. I don't know if anyone else checked it out, but I was curious to see what might have inspired such blindly rabid hatred. Turns out that the book has been rejected by nearly all even mildly-competent historians and, in fact, is premised on racial theory that I was almost positive had been extinct in the main-stream for more than fifty years. "Celts are predisposed to take the offensive." "Anglo-Saxons predisposed to think things through rationally." For that matter, African-Americans are predisposed to commit crime and Latinos are predisposed to join gangs. It's pretty much the same theory and it's been discredited more times than I care to count. No one with two brain cells to knock together would fall for that. Right?

So anyway, the OP obviously knew there were a few southerners on NSG and wanted some attention. The South Islands: congratulations on a brilliantly successful bit of troll-foolery. Everyone else: let's stop feeding him, shall we?

Actually, I could probably force through an Amendment to the constitution saying that those people are no longer citizens of the US. That would be more legal, I think. Yes, that would be better.

Which would be moot, since:

1. You would need this to prevent citizenship and voting.

and

2. You would not be able to pass this without confederates voting, since you would be unable to reach the 26 state minimum (at the time) to enact such an amendment, without at least one former Confederate state voting for it.

Of course, one would argue what the purpose of the entire conflict was. Why did you send troops in to die for the purpose of oppression... Which is exactly what you're proposing. Slaughtering whites, blacks and natives in mass acts of genocide to make yourself feel better... Disenfranchising them and their decedents for citizenship.

Yeah, just like those damn Filipinos. Civilize 'em with a krag, why don't we! The best way to prove is our moral superiority is by being bloodthirsty tyrants!

At any rate, this post pretty much destroyed any notion I might have been carrying that the OP was serious. This is all an elaborate joke, and I'm rather amused by the number of saps he's managed to troll in.

I first had my suspicions when he linked that book back on page two or so. I don't know if anyone else checked it out, but I was curious to see what might have inspired such blindly rabid hatred. Turns out that the book has been rejected by nearly all even mildly-competent historians and, in fact, is premised on racial theory that I was almost positive had been extinct in the main-stream for more than fifty years. "Celts are predisposed to take the offensive." "Anglo-Saxons predisposed to think things through rationally." For that matter, African-Americans are predisposed to commit crime and Latinos are predisposed to join gangs. It's pretty much the same theory and it's been discredited more times than I care to count. No one with two brain cells to knock together would fall for that. Right?

So anyway, the OP obviously knew there were a few southerners on NSG and wanted some attention. The South Islands: congratulations on a brilliantly successful bit of troll-foolery. Everyone else: let's stop feeding him, shall we?



The Above Post is not true. This is genuine. You fundimentally misunderstand the thesis of the book in question. It's not as if Celts are genetically predisposed to take the offensive, it theorizes that they are culturally predisposed to take the offensive. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but it does explain why the South went on the tactical offensive so much when they had fewer resources then the North.

Either way, that thesis only comes at the very, very end of the book. Other then the rather controversial ending, it is a very good general book of the civil war.

1. Show me the Declaration of War. Oh wait, there isn't one, because that would emply that the CSA was a legitimate nation.

Oh wait, thats how he got around the approval of congress isn't it, because he wouldn't recognize the CSA as a nation. Kind of like how The US didn't recognize China as a nation after Mao took over. I mean, the CSA was a completely sovereign nation when Lincoln attacked it. Lincoln didn't call it a nation out of convenience.

[/QUOTE]
2. The South was very undemocratic. Representatives from the south were pretty much wealthy slaveholding planters who's minions ran you up a pole if you didn't vote for him in the semiannual "elections".[/QUOTE]

So what! You think Lincoln was the pillar of truth and light.

James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

So don't start feeding me shit about how primitive and barbaric the South was compared to the North because that is just prejudice nonsense.


3. Soheran and Cat-Tribes have done a fantastic job of illustrating that the civil war was over Slavery, and not these so-called "States Rights".

I'm sorry, but you 3 do not seem to understand that the South was not invaded to end slavery.

Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

[/QUOTE]
I see you have still not come up with a counter to the Supreme Court decision.[/QUOTE]

I believe I said something along the lines of:

That is Bullshit law passed by the Lincoln administration 4 years after the civil war. It is indeed retroactive and it is indeed wrong imo. An America where the states do not have a right to secede from their union is an oligarchy similar to the Soviet Eastern Block States of the Cold war. And if you would like to go as far as to say that that was a good system of government, then I would recommend that you move to Europe because the founding fathers(except for Alexander Hamilton) of this country would be spinning in their graves if they knew how much power the federal government has today.

Now as far as I am concerned, you haven't responded to that or the several other insults and question I have posted.

Which would be moot, since:

1. You would need this to prevent citizenship and voting.

and

2. You would not be able to pass this without confederates voting, since you would be unable to reach the 26 state minimum (at the time) to enact such an amendment, without at least one former Confederate state voting for it.

Of course, one would argue what the purpose of the entire conflict was. Why did you send troops in to die for the purpose of oppression... Which is exactly what you're proposing. Slaughtering whites, blacks and natives in mass acts of genocide to make yourself feel better... Disenfranchising them and their decedents for citizenship.

Hm. This does pose a problem. Eh, I'll go with the stacked courts option. Fewer questions as long as the Ratical Republicans stay in power.

And what of this slaughter of Blacks? They will be the new elite of the south. The only ones with civil rights, and with the backing of the occupation army? I give them a good chance of succeeding in the Occupied South.

On a more serious note, the reason for the Civil War is to prevent the formation of the Confederate States of America. No matter what constitutional aspects we have debated, it goes flying out the window if Lee wins at Sharpsburg. The Union fought to keep America together. The Confederates fought to tear it apart.

If the north adopted your views and put them into action, then the most likly thing that would have happened would have been a total vassle state. The southerers living in the exact same slavery they put apon the blacks.

An evil plus an evil don't make a good.

http://i22.tinypic.com/34zj8cp.png

260,000 Southern Men, Women and Childern died for this flag.

Sir, I hate to tell you but you have succeeded in making a true Son of the Confederacy very, very angry.


Um...if you are a "true Son of the Confederacy", you should know that not a single soldier died for the battle flag. If anything they died for one of the three (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/CSA_FLAG_4.3.1861-21.5.1861.svg/800px-CSA_FLAG_4.3.1861-21.5.1861.svg.png) national (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mai_1_1863_to_Mar_4_1865.svg/800px-Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mai_1_1863_to_Mar_4_1865.svg.png) flags (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg/800px-Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg.png)

Does not*. My apologies.

Oh wait, thats how he got around the approval of congress isn't it, because he wouldn't recognize the CSA as a nation. Kind of like how The US didn't recognize China as a nation after Mao took over. I mean, the CSA was a completely sovereign nation when Lincoln attacked it. Lincoln didn't call it a nation out of convenience.

Oh please. Nobody has the right to declare a nation out of another nation. Again, I declare myself Mattopia. I now have the same legitimacy as the Confederacy, ie, none.

So what! You think Lincoln was the pillar of truth and light.

Not really. He did some questionable things.

James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."


It is legal to suspend Habeus Corpus in times of rebellion. I spoke of this earlier in the thread.

As far as the rest, they are indeed questionable, to say the least. But, the controversy surrounding Lincoln's actions do not give the South's actions any more legitimacy. They formulated a Rebellion against the United States. Case Closed.

So don't start feeding me shit about how primitive and barbaric the South was compared to the North because that is just prejudice nonsense.


You had slavery. So did some Northern States. They got rid of it by democratic means. It took a war to shed you of that barbarism.


I'm sorry, but you 3 do not seem to understand that the South was not invaded to end slavery.


Yes, the Rebellion was crushed to keep the Union together. The south rebelled so their precious little "peticular institution" could exist without the mettling of Liberal Democracy.

Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

See above.

I see you have still not come up with a counter to the Supreme Court decision.

I believe I said something along the lines of:

That is Bullshit law passed by the Lincoln administration 4 years after the civil war. It is indeed retroactive and it is indeed wrong imo. An America where the states do not have a right to secede from their union is an oligarchy similar to the Soviet Eastern Block States of the Cold war. And if you would like to go as far as to say that that was a good system of government, then I would recommend that you move to Europe because the founding fathers(except for Alexander Hamilton) of this country would be spinning in their graves if they knew how much power the federal government has today.

Now as far as I am concerned, you haven't responded to that or the several other insults and question I have posted.
It's not a law. It's a binding and active Supreme Court decision.

And I do not respond to insults, nor do I give them.

An evil plus an evil don't make a good.

No, but retribution sure feels good. Abe Lincoln would have owed it to the 110,000 Northerners that died to keep the USA together to punish the south for their actions.

The Above Post is not true. This is genuine. You fundimentally misunderstand the thesis of the book in question. It's not as if Celts are genetically predisposed to take the offensive, it theorizes that they are culturally predisposed to take the offensive. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but it does explain why the South went on the tactical offensive so much when they had fewer resources then the North.

Either way, that thesis only comes at the very, very end of the book. Other then the rather controversial ending, it is a very good general book of the civil war.

No, no, I'm with you. Don't leave a paper trail! The key to trolling is to never admit that you're doing it. *wink*

I mean, I'm sure you're hoping that no one will point out that the vast majority of scholarly opinion considers 'Attack or Die' an extremely populist glossing-over of the war, replete with gross generalizations, poor research, worse analysis, lack of scope and a fundamentally flawed thesis. Whoops! I don't mean to blow your cover!

Hell, I guess I'll get in on the fun. You should add to your list:

"--Every soldier who can present the scalp of a Confederate officer gets a free Southern belle to take as a wife."

Fits right in with your other ones.

You know what makes me sad. I feel like neither side of this debate learned anything. I don't feel like I can take any of this to heart and learn from it. I'm just gonna finish smoking this joint and go to bed. Maybe tomorrow I'll have a revaluation.

I mean, I'm sure you're hoping that no one will point out that the vast majority of scholarly opinion considers 'Attack or Die' an extremely populous glossing-over of the war, replete with gross generalizations, poor research, worse analysis, lack of scope and a fundamentally flawed thesis. Whoops! I don't mean to blow your cover!


Source please.

If you use that logic we should have totally desimated japan after WW2.

If you can access JSTOR, look up Charles Roland's review. If not, the reviews on Amazon give you a pretty good impression of what's wrong.

If you can access JSTOR, look up Charles Roland's review. If not, the reviews on Amazon give you a pretty good impression of what's wrong.

A quote from Mr. Roland's Review:


However controversial, this is an excellent study. It embodies a high knowledge of Civil War leadership and tactics; it makes it's points cogently and clearly. The casual reader will be captivated by it, and the Civil War scholar cannot afford to ignore it's implications.


Link, if anyone has access to it. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00028762/di951430/95p0160n/1?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/AdvancedResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26q0%3dAttack%2band%2bDie%26f0%3d%26c0%3dAND%26q2%3dCharles%2bRol and%26f2%3dau%26c2%3dAND%26wc%3don%26sd%3d%26ed%3d%26la%3d&frame=noframe&currentResult=00028762%2bdi951430%2b95p0160n%2b0%2c03&userID=230bb75f@msu.edu/01cc993315354a115a75faa0e&dpi=3&config=jstor)

Sir, when you first posted this topic i was intreged. I even agreed with a few of your points, as i read on however it became more and more radical. I belive that most of your solutions and revenge situations would not have been plausible. It seems to me that the best way to reintegrate the south would have been allowing and helping the southerners to rebuild. As well as treating them like a long lost brother so to speak.

Well, I'm off to bed. It's been nice talking to you all. We can continue this tomorrow if you wish.

Goodnite.

Ok, you are Abraham Lincoln. No, you are not dead. You moved your head to snag some popcorn when the bullet wizzed past your head. So, in short, you're alive.

Now, the Civil War is over. The Confederacy has surrendered, etc etc. You are in charge of formulating "reconstruction" policy. You can do just about anything. How do you manage the occupied southern states? Do you focus on reconciliation or retribution?

My Plan:

-Free all slaves (offer compensation for those slaveowners that stayed loyal), offer government paid passage to Liberia. If freed slaves do not want to return to africa, offer government paid resettlment out west for any and all peoples of african descent.

-Execute all Confederate Officers above the rank of Captain.

-Forbid all men who joined the Confederate military, and all militia members who actively participated in actions against the US, from voting or holding public office.

-The south is now an occupied territory. Citizens of southern states (aside from freed slaves) are no longer citizens of the United States. They are subjects, with no constitutional, legal, or civil rights. The Union army, while downsized, will act as the occupying army.

-All estates over 40 acres will be seized by the Federal government, to be auctioned off to nonsoutherners.

-For 100 years, decendants of those who took up arms against the United States are forbidden from Voting in federal Elections, holding federal office, or working for the Federal government in any respect.

-All Union troops will recieve a large (by that day) pention. Large sums will be paid to those wounded, and the widows/families of those killed.

-Special taxes will be levied on all production in the Occupied Territories. These, along with estate sales, will fund the ex-slave resettlment program, as well as the Northern pention plan.

-There will be no court system in the Occupied South for at least 30 years. Trials will be conducted by military tribunal.

-The display of the Confederate Battle Flag, Civil Flag, or Naval Jack will be punishable by death and seizure of all assets.

-All firearms are to be confiscated, and all militias, state or otherwise, are to be disbanded

Thats all I can think of now.

Comments?



The South wouldn't have left the Union if the Union wasn't treating the South the way the British treated America prior to the Revolutionary War. Many Southern families who fought for the Confederacy had ancestors who fought for Independence during the Revolution. They fought for the Confederacy because they saw the United States as they knew it crumbling and turning into Britain. Slavery was being toned down as each year passed, and would have ended well before the turn of the century. Regardless of the moral reasons (or lack thereof) for ending slavery, it was simply not economically reasonable anymore. Perhaps, before spewing forth your ideas on the matter, you should do a little research. Otherwise, you sound like the fool you apparently are.

On another note, I shall respond to more of your idiocy, because frankly, its fun to watch you attempt to justify your unjustifiable comments.

The Above Post is not true. This is genuine. You fundimentally misunderstand the thesis of the book in question. It's not as if Celts are genetically predisposed to take the offensive, it theorizes that they are culturally predisposed to take the offensive. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but it does explain why the South went on the tactical offensive so much when they had fewer resources then the North.

Since I didn't bother to read through this entire thread, I will assume you brought up the mention of Celts because you believe the South was mostly inhabited by people of Celtic orgin. True, the South is full of Celtic roots. Myself included. My Celts, directly from Scotland and Ireland, fought for the American Revolution and are listed as patriots by the DAR. They fought directly under George Washington, who found them particularly invaluable. Yep, the Celts did that. The people who'se descendants you would have liked to have seen enslaved, slaughtered, tortured, and generally raped and pillaged half a century later. But alas. To say the South "went on the offensive" (which is debatable, learn your history) because of the Celtic blood in the South, is laughable and baseless. To say Celts are predisposed at striking first is pure speculation. Really, I understand you're grasping at straws to give your point of view some validity, but you can surely do better than that.

And what of this slaughter of Blacks? They will be the new elite of the south. The only ones with civil rights, and with the backing of the occupation army? I give them a good chance of succeeding in the Occupied South.

The slaughter of the blacks. Did you not hear of the riots in your precious Northern city of New York, when the men heard they would be drafted into the War? When they ran through the streets beating and killing black women, men, and children? Screaming "I'm not dying for no n***ers!"? And at least in the South, black men fought right beside white men, not in segregated groups like in the North.

No, but retribution sure feels good. Abe Lincoln would have owed it to the 110,000 Northerners that died to keep the USA together to punish the south for their actions.

How about the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who died in the South? How about the rape of the Southern women? How about the starvation, the utter destruction of Southern homes and farms? That was acceptable? The loss of the complete United States of America would have been tragic - but that tragedy is far less than the reasons the South turned from the Union in the first place.

P.S.
You really must be British. Considering your opinions (which show a breathtaking lack of brain cells) you would fit right in with Cromwell's ilk. Are you a descendant of his, perhaps?

Wow - if the suggestions made at the start had any cedibility, they have been totally eroded now. Despite arguing that the South deserved what happened to them for daring to violate the esteemed document that is the constitution, you advocate the mangling of that very same constitution to suit your own personal desires. You seem to despise the elitist society created by white southerners then advocate the creation of a black elitist society. So it seems that rather than wanting retribution against the south because of principles or ideals, you want retribution for jingoist reasons.

However, what has become clear throughout this topic is that you dont actually believe what you are espousing, you are merely stating the most extreme view you can think of then arguing it for your own entertainment. So I shall refrain from posting again in this thread, as I have better things to do than entertain half wits.

The CSA has surrendered: now I give them independence, with some conditions:
1.End of slavery and racial segregation, both in USA and CSA.
2.Former slaves get reparations from the USA and CSA governments.
3.Free immigration to the USA for all CSA citizens and former slaves.
4.Former slaves will get USA citizenship if they request it.
5.No trade barriers between USA and CSA.
6.All USA and CSA real estate can be bought and sold freely by and to USA and CSA citizens alike.
7.Non-aggression pact between USA and CSA, granted by the British Empire, France and Mexico.
8.Military defensive alliance between USA and CSA.
9.CSA must buy 66% of its military import from USA.
10.US$ vs CS$ ratio fixed initially at 2:1, then it will fluctuate freely.
11.All USA and CSA adult citizens, including women, blacks, natives, get full political rights.

That's enough.

And what of this slaughter of Blacks? They will be the new elite of the south. The only ones with civil rights, and with the backing of the occupation army? I give them a good chance of succeeding in the Occupied South.

What, do you think whites were the only ones in the south who owned slaves?
Did you think only whites owned plantations?
Did you think the Confederate forces were only composed of white soldiers?

Dude, you've got some studying to do.

My Plan:

-Forbid all men who joined the Confederate military, and all militia members who actively participated in actions against the US, from voting or holding public office.

-For 100 years, decendants of those who took up arms against the United States are forbidden from Voting in federal Elections, holding federal office, or working for the Federal government in any respect.

Thats all I can think of now.

Comments?

Uh, some southerners were fighting to defend their family and lands form the "northern black brigades"

and your country would now be like iraq or afganistan, and no one would like you any more

Y'know, I realize that WWII came 80 years after the American Civil War, but the lessons remain. What the U.S. and other Allied powers did with Germany and Japan after WWII should teach us a lot about how to handle defeated powers. (Well, the Soviets could have handled East Germany a lot better, but it was the Cold War and we can't win 'em all.)

On that principle, some ideas:

1. De-rebelization. Southerners shall be made to understand the ramifications of the war and of the causes for their secession. It shall be made clear that no state is authorized to leave the Union.

2. Permanent abolition of slavery as well as economic programs to enable freed slaves to start a new life.

3. So as not to cause resentment, a full-scale economic revitalization of the South in which opportunities exist for poor whites as well as freed blacks.

4. A strong discouragement of segregation, at least as far as opportunities go - churches can denounce interracial marriage or what-not, but in terms of job opportunities, availability of education, and housing, there will be no "separate but equal." Economic interests will come before racial bickering.

5. Until 1872, all representatives to Congress from the Southern states shall have observer status and shall not be permitted to vote. All votes cast from Southern states for the Office of the President shall not count until the election of 1876. As such, there will be a moratorium on all federal taxation of individuals and businesses in Southern states until July of 1872 and a partial moratorium on taxation shall continue until July of 1876. This step is taken to encourage economic growth and diffuse potential resentment from the Southern states.

6. All freed blacks under the age of 30 shall be taught to read and write. Whites and those over 30 may take advantage of these programs if they desire, as may anyone, though the aim is to educate illiterate freed blacks. All Southern universities will be under federal watch to ensure that freed blacks receive opportunities to attend.

7. All Confederate insignia shall be outlawed until further notice.

8. All Confederate officers and politicians shall be barred from holding public office at the state or federal level.

9. In all Southern states, there will be a complete and total moratorium on capital punishment. Murder and all other previous capital crimes will be punishable by a life sentence, and solitary confinement shall be the highest sentence. The matter will be reviewed in 1884 for all states, not just the South.

10. All elections shall be supervised, and such vote-barring methods as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses will be stopped. Those who attempt to intimidate voters will be sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

11. The Ku Klux Klan will be treated as a militia group and forcibly broken up. All KKK memorabilia and insignia will be banned.

12. From a young age, all Southerners will be trained in basic self-defense, including how to fire a gun and how to fend off an ambush. People will be discouraged from traveling alone.

13. All police officers and National Guardsmen will receive standard training from the federal government and be trained to work alongside those of a different race. For as long as it takes, the government will fight on-the-job segregation in all professions.

14. Travel between Northern and Southern states shall be encouraged and made feasible so as to allow the various states to co-mingle.

15. All reforms made in the South shall be reviewed in the 1880s, and if they appear successful, they will be introduced as necessary to the remainder of the Union.

Y'know, I realize that WWII came 80 years after the American Civil War, but the lessons remain. What the U.S. and other Allied powers did with Germany and Japan after WWII should teach us a lot about how to handle defeated powers. (Well, the Soviets could have handled East Germany a lot better, but it was the Cold War and we can't win 'em all.)

On that principle, some ideas:

They are lofty goals, but would never have worked, and I will state why:


1. De-rebelization. Southerners shall be made to understand the ramifications of the war and of the causes for their secession. It shall be made clear that no state is authorized to leave the Union.

I believe they already knew the causes of their secession...


2. Permanent abolition of slavery as well as economic programs to enable freed slaves to start a new life.

I'll assume this would be in union states as well...


3. So as not to cause resentment, a full-scale economic revitalization of the South in which opportunities exist for poor whites as well as freed blacks.

Noble, and right.


4. A strong discouragement of segregation, at least as far as opportunities go - churches can denounce interracial marriage or what-not, but in terms of job opportunities, availability of education, and housing, there will be no "separate but equal." Economic interests will come before racial bickering.

This I could agree with as well, in hindsight. However, at the time, it would never have been implemented... Northern states were actually WORSE in terms of how they treated free-blacks than southern states were... Some states even forbade the immigration of free-blacks into their state (Indiana, for example, a free-black could not even BE in the state for longer than 3 days...) Free-blacks in southern states were actually MORE integrated BEFORE and during the war than they were in the North; and segregation only began after the imposition of occupational governments during reconstruction.


5. Until 1872, all representatives to Congress from the Southern states shall have observer status and shall not be permitted to vote. All votes cast from Southern states for the Office of the President shall not count until the election of 1876. As such, there will be a moratorium on all federal taxation of individuals and businesses in Southern states until July of 1872 and a partial moratorium on taxation shall continue until July of 1876. This step is taken to encourage economic growth and diffuse potential resentment from the Southern states.

The northern states could not help but to overtax southern industry as well as impose high import tariffs upon goods they needed; and I doubt they would surrender such goals of raping the economy afterwards.


6. All freed blacks under the age of 30 shall be taught to read and write. Whites and those over 30 may take advantage of these programs if they desire, as may anyone, though the aim is to educate illiterate freed blacks. All Southern universities will be under federal watch to ensure that freed blacks receive opportunities to attend.

Noble... and good.


7. All Confederate insignia shall be outlawed until further notice.

This is likely a constitutional violation.


8. All Confederate officers and politicians shall be barred from holding public office at the state or federal level.

This has constitutional problems as well. If we're to assume that the rebellion was illegal; they are still citizens of the United States... This theoretically COULD be valid, if secession was legal (and therefore their US citizenship was surrendered); but then that begs the question for the intent of the Union, since it would no longer be a "rebellion" but an "invasion" of foreign soil.


9. In all Southern states, there will be a complete and total moratorium on capital punishment. Murder and all other previous capital crimes will be punishable by a life sentence, and solitary confinement shall be the highest sentence. The matter will be reviewed in 1884 for all states, not just the South.

This is noble, and I hope it would have applied to opperations of occupational tribunals post-war... Seeing as how they executed many fine people as scape-goats for some of their own horrendous acts.


10. All elections shall be supervised, and such vote-barring methods as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses will be stopped. Those who attempt to intimidate voters will be sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Good; and I hope these would be applied to Union states who sought some of the same things in their states.


11. The Ku Klux Klan will be treated as a militia group and forcibly broken up. All KKK memorabilia and insignia will be banned.

The first part is possible; the second likely raises constitutional issues.


12. From a young age, all Southerners will be trained in basic self-defense, including how to fire a gun and how to fend off an ambush. People will be discouraged from traveling alone.

Actually, this was already quite common during that time period...


13. All police officers and National Guardsmen will receive standard training from the federal government and be trained to work alongside those of a different race. For as long as it takes, the government will fight on-the-job segregation in all professions.

This seems unlikely to have worked. (Note some of the above problems) the occupational forces were even more opposed to integration that the rebel-veterans... It was quite common for black and white confederates to serve alongside one another in sections of the confederate state militia forces; while Union units were heavily segregated... It was also common for the white union officers of these segregates units to have been given their position as a punishment due to poor performance...


14. Travel between Northern and Southern states shall be encouraged and made feasible so as to allow the various states to co-mingle.

Good...


15. All reforms made in the South shall be reviewed in the 1880s, and if they appear successful, they will be introduced as necessary to the remainder of the Union.

Who knows, maybe if this happened; when the black-confederates veterans of Gettysburg showed up at the reunion in 1913, they may have been given space to tent in, rather than being shunned by union officials (luckily their fellow confederate veterans shared their tents with them).

Gonna throw this out there randomly,

Which general, Grant or Lee, kept a slave through the entire war even after the Emancipation Proclamation?

You guessed it: Grant

Ok, you are Abraham Lincoln. No, you are not dead. You moved your head to snag some popcorn when the bullet wizzed past your head. So, in short, you're alive.

Now, the Civil War is over. The Confederacy has surrendered, etc etc. You are in charge of formulating "reconstruction" policy. You can do just about anything. How do you manage the occupied southern states? Do you focus on reconciliation or retribution?

My Plan:

-Free all slaves (offer compensation for those slaveowners that stayed loyal), offer government paid passage to Liberia. If freed slaves do not want to return to africa, offer government paid resettlment out west for any and all peoples of african descent.

-Execute all Confederate Officers above the rank of Captain.

-Forbid all men who joined the Confederate military, and all militia members who actively participated in actions against the US, from voting or holding public office.

-The south is now an occupied territory. Citizens of southern states (aside from freed slaves) are no longer citizens of the United States. They are subjects, with no constitutional, legal, or civil rights. The Union army, while downsized, will act as the occupying army.

-All estates over 40 acres will be seized by the Federal government, to be auctioned off to nonsoutherners.

-For 100 years, decendants of those who took up arms against the United States are forbidden from Voting in federal Elections, holding federal office, or working for the Federal government in any respect.

-All Union troops will recieve a large (by that day) pention. Large sums will be paid to those wounded, and the widows/families of those killed.

-Special taxes will be levied on all production in the Occupied Territories. These, along with estate sales, will fund the ex-slave resettlment program, as well as the Northern pention plan.

-There will be no court system in the Occupied South for at least 30 years. Trials will be conducted by military tribunal.

-The display of the Confederate Battle Flag, Civil Flag, or Naval Jack will be punishable by death and seizure of all assets.

-All firearms are to be confiscated, and all militias, state or otherwise, are to be disbanded

Thats all I can think of now.

Comments?

You want to punish southerners for seceding from the union? What you're proposing (denying them any rights they would otherwise have) will just make them try to secede again. A "reconciliation" approach would be much more productive and humane.

Your plan sounds to me like little more than hatemongering. I think you're just bigoted against the south because the south tends to be more conservative and you hate conservatives for no good reason.

I thank God that you are not among the "powers that be".

For that matter, that you are NOT in charge of the country proves there is a God. lol :D

But if I were Lincoln and I were still alive. I would apologize to the South and to the rest of America for being such a fascist dictator and try to pass an amendment that gives states the right to secede from the union if they want. And then I would resign and appoint Jefferson Davis to the presidency. Fuck Lincoln and fuck the fascist federal government that he started.

QFT. That is much better and more humane than The South Islands' plan.

Reconstruction was a failure. The south was not punished enough for making war against the United States. This aims to remedy it.

Wrong; the south was punished TOO MUCH. And besides, the Southern States didn't even START the war; the North attacked them first. The southerners were merely defending themselves from Northern aggression, like Israel has to do against Palestinian aggression today. If you want the Southerners back in the Union, you shouldn't make their lives so miserable as to cause them to want to secede again.

I think you just dislike rednecks.

I think he HATES them with a passion.

You know, I thought alot about this and I read some of the posts again and I realized something. The South Islands is an asshole.

You know, I thought alot about this and I read some of the posts again and I realized something. The South Islands is an asshole.

I love you too.

As I recall my history, Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the Southern states into the union with a minimum of fuss. He had already freed the slaves in the states that had seceded (note, the slaves in the slave holding states that remained with the Union were not freed at that time). If he had lived, much of the racial tension we have today would not exist because the freed slaves would have been educated and slowly integrated into society and not immediately given primacy over the conquered whites. Indeed, many of the slaves would have been sent to Liberia, a nation in Africa specifically established for freed slaves, there to set up their own government.

As I recall my history, Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the Southern states into the union with a minimum of fuss. He had already freed the slaves in the states that had seceded (note, the slaves in the slave holding states that remained with the Union were not freed at that time). If he had lived, much of the racial tension we have today would not exist because the freed slaves would have been educated and slowly integrated into society and not immediately given primacy over the conquered whites. Indeed, many of the slaves would have been sent to Liberia, a nation in Africa specifically established for freed slaves, there to set up their own government.

Liberia, :) I like where you are going with this.

Where in the constitution does it say that states can't secede from the union? Where does it say that in the Declaration of Independence? You are full of shit. The constitution is a multilateral treaty that derives its legal effect from the sovereign parties that voluntarily signed it.

The Civil War was not the congress' war, it was not the people's war, and it was not America's war. It was Lincoln's war. Lincoln instigated the bloodiest conflict in North American history so he could tax the Souther states.

It became the South's war when they attacked Fort Sumter, I'm afraid.

Liberia, :) I like where you are going with this.

Yeah... no. Lets see... we take a bunch of people, who had grown up in the US, had never even been anywhere near Africa before, had a chance to find lost family due to be traded away, and say to them "We're shipping you to Africa!" That not only isn't fair, it's downright stupid to even suggest. Most slaves, at the time of emancipation, had about as much knowledge of Africa, and were as similar to Africans, as the Plantation owners.

So no, that's not only a good idea, it's a terrible idea.

What, do you think whites were the only ones in the south who owned slaves?
Did you think only whites owned plantations?
Did you think the Confederate forces were only composed of white soldiers?

Dude, you've got some studying to do.

Eh, both sides employed the use of Native Americans as well.

Granted, both sides tended to treat them like shit, and give proper pay, as well.

It became the South's war when they attacked Fort Sumter, I'm afraid.

Actually, under his logic, it was Buchanan's.

Most of the OP is evil, retaliatory, vengefully unproductive nonsense bedding for a new schism - especially that whole thing about massacring people and oh, punishing their descendants! Because heaven knows how much responsibility semen holds... wtf? Ludicrous.

I gotta agree with Fass on this one.