NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to The Cat-Tribes's suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13312590&postcount=261), I created this thread for people to debate the CSA.

Glad they lost. Not about slavery my ass.

They were swell.

In response to The Cat-Tribes's suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13312590&postcount=261), I created this thread for people to debate the CSA.

The CSA lost the civil war, and no longer exists. End of discussion.

The CSA lost the civil war, and no longer exists. End of discussion.

No one alive today was there so you have no proof that it existed or existed and then went KAPLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

No one alive today was there so you have no proof that it existed or existed and then went KAPLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

psssst... there are pictures.

Why is this an issue? They fought to keep slavery legal, if you think differently you're either from the south or have read Gone with the wind way to many times.

The CSA was the US with slavery. NOBODY wants that. Well except for the KKK but they don't matter.

psssst... there are pictures.

Lies!

The CSA was the US with slavery. NOBODY wants that. Well except for the KKK but they don't matter.

With more slavery, anyway. There was still slavery in the US during the Civil War.

With more slavery, anyway. There was still slavery in the US during the Civil War.

Until 1863...

Until 1863...

You mean 1865...

In response to The Cat-Tribes's suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13312590&postcount=261), I created this thread for people to debate the CSA.

CSA? Clan Star-Adder?? Those clanners are all scum. Inner sphere rules!

You mean 1865...

Techincaly, your right, but in the US, not in the CSA they were freed in 1863. However border states still had slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Traitorous warmongers preserving an archaic and backward social system.

Techincaly, your right, but in the US, not in the CSA they were freed in 1863. However border states still had slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm sorry, your first sentence is a bit confusing. Are you trying to say that the slaves were freed in the US in 1863 by the Emancipation Proclamation? If so, that's completely false, as the Proclamation only covered those areas not under Union control at the time, going so far as to name specific parishes of Louisiana that were under Union military control as being exempt. Kentucky and Delaware were loyal Union states and they had slaves right up until the passage of the 13th Amendment. Also note that Delaware refused to ratify the 13th Amendment until 1905. Missouri voluntarily gave up their slaves in early 1865.

Of course, if that's not what you were saying, please feel free to ignore all that.

Also note that Delaware refused to ratify the 13th Amendment until 1905.
*1901

good to note that Mississippi didn't ratify until 1995, so using these dates are ridiculous



Ratification was considered "complete" in 1865

*1901

good to note that Mississippi didn't ratify until 1995, so using these dates are ridiculous



Ratification was considered "complete" in 1865

I'm just making the point that the US wasn't devoid of slavery itself during the Civil War. True, it held the moral high ground over the Confederacy, but not by a whole lot.

The average man of the CSA did not own slaves, and fought for their states and families. They fought well, and came within an inch of victory. They fought long and hard, and were constantly out-gunned and out-manned.

Long live the glorious Confederate States of America.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6406/coflag10jt0.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coflag10jt0.jpg)

The average man of the CSA did not own slaves, and fought for their states and families. They fought well, and came within an inch of victory. They fought long and hard, and were constantly out-gunned and out-manned.

Long live the glorious Confederate States of America.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6406/coflag10jt0.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coflag10jt0.jpg)

Please report to the nearest police station and submit yourself to be tried for treason. Since you seem to think that armed rebellion and the like qualifies as treason, and you support the Confederate States...

Please report to the nearest police station and submit yourself to be tried for treason. Since you seem to think that armed rebellion and the like qualifies as treason, and you support the Confederate States...

Come and get me.

Please report to the nearest police station and submit yourself to be tried for treason. Since you seem to think that armed rebellion and the like qualifies as treason, and you support the Confederate States...

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041028southernman.gif
:D

Of course, there are still those hardliners who say that Appomattox was just a ceasefire, but for all practical purposes, the Civil War is over. The Union won, and the former Confederate states were readmitted into the Union. End of story.

By the way, slavery wasn't the big issue at first. It only became an issue in 1863, when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an interesting document in that it freed slaves in areas that were not under Union control, and did nothing to abolish slavery in areas that were under Union control or loyal to the Union.

The end of the Civil War basically settled the question of whether or not states had the right to secede. Namely, they didn't and don't.

That said, slave owners were a minority, even in the former Confederacy, and most people in the Confederate armies fought for state rather than for slavery. I think we can agree that the Confederacy and the system of slavery stank, while the average Confederate soldiers were good, decent men.

No one alive today was there so you have no proof that it existed or existed and then went KAPLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.
The proof is everywhere; in monuments, parks and memorials. Some things have been presented from a biased view but history is written by the victors. Most everyone knows of the CSA`s Andersonville P.O.W. Camp but few have heard of the Union`s Camp Douglas (located in Chicago, Illinois), which was every bit as bad. 6000 Confederate Dead buried in a mass grave in Oakwood Cemetary (in Chicago), a member of my family among them. How many have heard of the North`s atrosities? Very few.

Before I get blasted on this let me clairify some facts: My family fought on both sides as they were from a border region. My Union ancestors where slave-owners (family legend is my Great-Great Grandfather kept his for 3 years after wars end as indentured servants), My Confederate ancestors were not. The region of Kentucky they were from was not a prosperous plantation society, they were (and still are) dirt poor, trying to scratch a living out of the wilderness. They were descended from a revolutionary war veteran, they had concepts of their own about how controling and intrusive that the government should be in their lives and were capible of taking up arms against that government if need be. If the CSA would have won, the plantation/slavery system would have colapsed anyways.

The average man of the CSA did not own slaves, and fought for their states and families. They fought well, and came within an inch of victory. They fought long and hard, and were constantly out-gunned and out-manned.

Long live the glorious Confederate States of America.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6406/coflag10jt0.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coflag10jt0.jpg)

You guys got your asses kicked by an army of untrained greenhorns while your 'average' man was merely the means for the slave owners to continue to do so. The war is over buddy.

Weren't as stable as the Union, which is ironic when you considered the fact that half the Union wanted to leave. In the Union, the federal government had the final say when it came to issues, such as military draft and taxes (though the feds didn't start taxing income until the early 20th century). In the Confederacy, the Confederate government was almost powerless against the Confederate states. Plus, if they had succeeded, what would stop, say, Florida and Texas from simply leaving? Alabama could leave at any time. They would be vulnerable to imperial nations looking for a new colony. Extremely vulnerable.

Lincoln saw the importance of a strong, united nation. A united nation puts up a strong defence. If you think imperial conquests were a thing of the past by then, try telling that to Poland and China. The Japanese could have had most of China had they left Pearl Harbor alone. All that American manpower and good old fashioned blind American patriotism. Not something you'd want to deal with when you've already got your hands full conquering smaller, weaker nations.

Until 1863...

No until the abolition of slavery in the Constitution. Kentucky (which had more slaves than any other state in 1859), Missouri, and Maryland all three allowed the continuation of slavery until that point. The Emancipation Proclamation was a fraud that only declared slaves to be free where in fact the United States government had no power, the document even went so far as to exclude the few areas that the Federal government had managed to conquer by 1863 (such as New Orleans), the document was only passed in an effort to attempt to make the war about slavery in order to keep France and Britian (which had already abolished slavery) out.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Democrats feared that the Republican party would attempt to strengthen the central government and force states against their will to give up their slaves, because at this time states were still able to resist laws passed by the central government (nullification). The war was fought over states rights as well as the Norths greed. The South at this time was far wealthier than the north. The South's cotton exports alone were something in the range of 150 million dollars in 1859 while all of the norths exports were something like 80 million dollars in the same year. If the Confederacy was allowed to secede (which it nearly was until Lincoln deliberately started the war) the United States would lose most of its exports as well as control of the Mississippi. As you can see an independent South would have crushed the United States.

(Coincidentally Lincoln only won the white house because of the electoral college, was a racist, barred habeous corpeous, arrested the Cheif Justice of the Supreme court, closed down newspapers, and also barred the Maryland State Legislature from voting on Secession, which is very much legal)

You guys got your asses kicked by an army of untrained greenhorns while your 'average' man was merely the means for the slave owners to continue to do so. The war is over buddy.

The Confederate forces weren't that experienced either. They had better generals, but the average soldier wasn't a veteran. Plus, the North had more than double the South's population, I think it was more than 3 times even, if not more. The South fought damned well with scant men and resources. I know the war is over, but I'll not let the South be slandered by a bunch of yankee bastards.

The CSA did have more catchier songs though

No until the abolition of slavery in the Constitution. Kentucky (which had more slaves than any other state in 1859), Missouri, and Maryland all three allowed the continuation of slavery until that point. The Emancipation Proclamation was a fraud that only declared slaves to be free where in fact the United States government had no power, the document even went so far as to exclude the few areas that the Federal government had managed to conquer by 1863 (such as New Orleans), the document was only passed in an effort to attempt to make the war about slavery in order to keep France and Britian (which had already abolished slavery) out.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Democrats feared that the Republican party would attempt to strengthen the central government and force states against their will to give up their slaves, because at this time states were still able to resist laws passed by the central government (nullification). The war was fought over states rights as well as the Norths greed. The South at this time was far wealthier than the north. The South's cotton exports alone were something in the range of 150 million dollars in 1859 while all of the norths exports were something like 80 million dollars in the same year. If the Confederacy was allowed to secede (which it nearly was until Lincoln deliberately started the war) the United States would lose most of its exports as well as control of the Mississippi. As you can see an independent South would have crushed the United States.

(Coincidentally Lincoln only won the white house because of the electoral college, was a racist, barred habeous corpeous, arrested the Cheif Justice of the Supreme court, closed down newspapers, and also barred the Maryland State Legislature from voting on Secession, which is very much legal)

No, it was not a fraud. It was an attempt to push the Secessionists back to the negotiating table.

Nor was it about states' rights, despite that being the rallying cry of the Confederacy. It was about economics and political power.

If it had been about states' rights, the South would not have berserkly and prematurely dived for secession upon Lincoln's election. Remember that most of the votes to secede were begun prior to his even being inaugurated, and despite his repeated assurances that he had no intention of using federal power against slavery, and that he considered slavery to be a matter for individual states.

The real issue was that the North was getting richer and the South was getting poorer. The South had one, and only one, cash crop - cotton. And while "Cotton is King" had been the economic war-cry of the 1830's, by the 1860's it simply wasn't anywhere near as valuable in real terms. One of the main reasons for this was the decline of the sailing ship - and the subsequent decline in use of cotton in sails. In addition, cotton production was up worldwide - the Indian production was back up after the disasters of the 1820's-1840's, and Brazil had gotten into the act as well, creating a glut on the market.

Comparatively, the Northern states, with their emphasis on industrialization and modernisation, were going from strength to strength. The foundations of what would be called the "Arsenal of Democracy" in WWII were being laid, and the factories needed every worker they could get. The result was a population boom almost unprecedented in world history - and with greater population, the northern states gained greater and greater political power.

The South had once dominated US politics, and within living memory had been the deciding factor of who sat in the White House. For the first time, with the Lincoln election, the Northern states had flexed their political muscles and put THEIR man in the driving seat, even if by only a hair.

The South saw it's influence waning, it's dominance in House and Senate slipping away (why do you think they insisted upon a slave state enetering whenever a free state did? Maintenance of the balance of power in the Senate). The West was coming into it's own - and they were not the lapdogs of either North or South, but they by and large weren't pro slavery. So the future clearly held a time when the South would go from being the dominant region to being one of three - and likely the weakest of the three, besides being despised for their 'peculiar institution'.

Power and economy are behind most wars. This was no different.

Something tells me that even if the CSA had won, that the slaves would have been freed by now anyway - if not quite as early on as they were. I'm not really sure what the modern-day difference would be, aside from the ugliest flag ever created.

Traitorous warmongers preserving an archaic and backward social system.

Pretty much my opinion as well. Glad they lost.

Come and get me.

No no, if you have principles at all, you will report yourself and confess treason rather than be a hypocrite. Hey, aren't you that silly 13 year old primitivist kid who hypocritically posts on an internet forum instead of going off, living in the woods and leaving the rest of us who don't agree with your retarded ideology the hell alone?

The only Confederate who didn't whole-heartedly support slavery was Robert E. Lee. But just because he had morals doesn't mean that he was a supporter of the Union and that we should've been sympathetic towards him and/or the Confederacy.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041028southernman.gif
:D

And you know what's true about this? Only us Bostonians (people from Massachusetts) would ever say something like that.

Techincaly, your right, but in the US, not in the CSA they were freed in 1863. However border states still had slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Um the Emancipation Proclaimation was to the South. It had no bearing on the Southern States in legality even if they were still part of the Union.

(Coincidentally Lincoln only won the white house because of the electoral college,

Abe Lincoln got 1.8 million votes. His closest cadidate was Stephen Douglas at 1.4 Million votes. You lose there.

barred habeous corpeous

Can be done in a time of rebellion (which this was)

closed down newspapers, and also barred the Maryland State Legislature from voting on Secession, which is very much legal)

See above. As to Maryland, he declared Martial Law in the state to keep it in the Union. That was also legal.

The CSA was the US with slavery. NOBODY wants that. Well except for the KKK but they don't matter.

That's funny, since the US at the time had slavery as well... And Lincoln's "Emancipation" only freed slaves who were not in states which remained in the Union.

Two major factors against the CSA during the war were a lack of strategic materials and a non-uniform logistics system. Most of the S. States had different guage railroads so they had to stop and transfer loads at each boarder., slowing down the system enormously.

That's funny, since the US at the time had slavery as well... And Lincoln's "Emancipation" only freed slaves who were not in states which remained in the Union.

You can't blame him. He was trying to hold the country together. And the slaves in the border states were freed a mere two years later, so...

Abe Lincoln got 1.8 million votes. His closest cadidate was Stephen Douglas at 1.4 Million votes. You lose there.



Can be done in a time of rebellion (which this was)



See above. As to Maryland, he declared Martial Law in the state to keep it in the Union. That was also legal.


The Civil War wasn't a time a rebellion regardless of its misleading name. It was a secession which is hugely different. A rebellion attempts to take control of the government, a secession merely tries to leave the nation. Which coincidentally makes Confederates non-traitors.

The Civil War wasn't a time a rebellion regardless of its misleading name. It was a secession which is hugely different. A rebellion attempts to take control of the government, a secession merely tries to leave the nation. Which coincidentally makes Confederates non-traitors.

re·bel·lion [ri-bel-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.

There is no difference.

re·bel·lion [ri-bel-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.

There is no difference.

1. The CSA did not attack the United States until Lincoln (a warmonger) sent ships in to relieve a fortress which was on the sovereign ground of a foreign country (The Southern Confederacy). The United States would not have gotten involved in the war if Lincoln had not sent that ship into the harbor which he had been told the Confederacy would not allow to be relieved. The original secession was non-violent and democratic.


2. Because of the United States constitution and the way the United States was established (through secession), secession was and still technically is legal. The United States is a nation made up by the states, that is the states came together to form the nation, if the states want to leave it is within their rights (as they are supposed to be able to triumph the central governments power since they (the states) are closer to the people) to do so. Of course now-adays with the Constitution so screwed up and the Federal Governments messing with the Senate the states have lost alot of power.

The Civil War wasn't a time a rebellion regardless of its misleading name. It was a secession which is hugely different. A rebellion attempts to take control of the government, a secession merely tries to leave the nation. Which coincidentally makes Confederates non-traitors.

They illegally appropriated US Gov't property and fired upon US Gov't soldiers.

That makes them traitors whether secession was legal or not.

1. The CSA did not attack the United States until Lincoln (a warmonger) sent ships in to relieve a fortress which was on the sovereign ground of a foreign country (The Southern Confederacy). The United States would not have gotten involved in the war if Lincoln had not sent that ship into the harbor which he had been told the Confederacy would not allow to be relieved. The original secession was non-violent and democratic.


2. Because of the United States constitution and the way the United States was established (through secession), secession was and still technically is legal. The United States is a nation made up by the states, that is the states came together to form the nation, if the states want to leave it is within their rights (as they are supposed to be able to triumph the central governments power since they (the states) are closer to the people) to do so. Of course now-adays with the Constitution so screwed up and the Federal Governments messing with the Senate the states have lost alot of power.

1. They fired upon US troops in a US fort using stolen US weapons . Try again. Hell, even Cuba recognizes Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

2. No. An insurrection is "legal" if it is against an unconstitutionally established Gov't. The Gov't was elected legally with full representation by the South so that excuse is just as much crap as the others. It was about "States Rights to keep their n*ggers".

The Civil War wasn't a time a rebellion regardless of its misleading name.

WRONG!!

It was a secession which is hugely different.

Wrong. It was a rebellion.

A rebellion attempts to take control of the government, a secession merely tries to leave the nation. Which coincidentally makes Confederates non-traitors.

Funny. King George III declared us in Rebellion and we did not attempt to take control of the British Crown. Strike 3 Your out!

They illegally appropriated US Gov't property and fired upon US Gov't soldiers.

That makes them traitors whether secession was legal or not.

How is it illegal to demand the surrender of foreign forts on your own soil? That makes no sense. The fired upon US soldiers when provoked by the President who knew damn well that they would be fired upon if he sent those ships. He started the war.

And would we call the Germans of World War 2 traitors to America? If the secession was legal than the Confederacy was a foreign nation and nations wage war all the time and it makes no sense to call them traitors, however it would make sense to call America an Empire instead of a republic....

WRONG!!



Wrong. It was a rebellion.



Funny. King George III declared us in Rebellion and we did not attempt to take control of the British Crown. Strike 3 Your out!

You simply said wrong, wrong, and if I declare a dog to be a cow does that make it so? You have given no reasons..... So no you hit the player and he gets a base because you fail to follow the rules....

How is it illegal to demand the surrender of foreign forts on your own soil? That makes no sense. The fired upon US soldiers when provoked by the President who knew damn well that they would be fired upon if he sent those ships. He started the war.

He started the war by supplying US troops on US Gov't property? Right. You keep believing that.

And would we call the Germans of World War 2 traitors to America? If the secession was legal than the Confederacy was a foreign nation and nations wage war all the time and it makes no sense to call them traitors, however it would make sense to call America an Empire instead of a republic....

Wow, now that's just stupid. They were US citizens (as secession is not legal) who fired upon US troops. Just because you want to defend owning slaves does not make the actions of the CSA legal in any way.

1. The CSA did not attack the United States until Lincoln (a warmonger) sent ships in to relieve a fortress which was on the sovereign ground of a foreign country (The Southern Confederacy). The United States would not have gotten involved in the war if Lincoln had not sent that ship into the harbor which he had been told the Confederacy would not allow to be relieved. The original secession was non-violent and democratic.

Actually, it was Buchanan who sent the first ships in to Sumter. Lincoln would not take office for a few months. Plus, the South didn't have to fire on the ship or Ft. Sumter, and they could have kept it peaceful. If the fort were in fact on sovereign territory, why did they choose to attack instead of peacefully negotiating?

Hey, aren't you that silly 13 year old primitivist kid who hypocritically posts on an internet forum instead of going off, living in the woods and leaving the rest of us who don't agree with your retarded ideology the hell alone?

nothing inherently wrong with primmies posting on the internet. if they think primmieism ought be adopted by everybody, and moreover, that small-scale dropping out won't actually solve the real problems that make primmieism necessary, then they are pretty much required to use mass communication for at least the near future.

1. The CSA did not attack the United States until Lincoln (a warmonger) sent ships in to relieve a fortress which was on the sovereign ground of a foreign country (The Southern Confederacy). The United States would not have gotten involved in the war if Lincoln had not sent that ship into the harbor which he had been told the Confederacy would not allow to be relieved. The original secession was non-violent and democratic.


2. Because of the United States constitution and the way the United States was established (through secession), secession was and still technically is legal. The United States is a nation made up by the states, that is the states came together to form the nation, if the states want to leave it is within their rights (as they are supposed to be able to triumph the central governments power since they (the states) are closer to the people) to do so. Of course now-adays with the Constitution so screwed up and the Federal Governments messing with the Senate the states have lost alot of power.

A) The Confederacy started the war. Period. They opened fire on ships that carried only rations for the soldiers, no ammunition.
B) The secession was not as democratic as you'd like to believe, seeing as it supported the interests of wealthy slave holders and completely shitted on the interests of the poor man (most of Appalachia was against secession.
C) If you think that states' rights and interests take precedence over federal right and interests, take a good, hard look at the Articles of Confederation.
D) Seeing as 60-65% of South Carolina's population was enslaved at the time, I don't think the state government was any closer to the people.

1. They fired upon US troops in a US fort using stolen US weapons . Try again. Hell, even Cuba recognizes Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

2. No. An insurrection is "legal" if it is against an unconstitutionally established Gov't. The Gov't was elected legally with full representation by the South so that excuse is just as much crap as the others. It was about "States Rights to keep their n*ggers".


Yes, Cuba recognizes it and if they attacked it without reason we would be infuriated, but if we declared that we were going to try and invade Cuba from that Naval Station (and began a buildup suitable for that purpose there when Cuba demands that we not or it will mean war) wouldn't Cuba be justified in assaulting it?

And the Confederacy did not recognize the forts belonging to the US and promptly demanded their surrender, something which makes alot of sense in doing and they were totally justified in doing. They also didn't steal the weapons, the weapons were surrendered willingly and according to the mind set at the time they really belonged to the state and not to the federal government.

And it matters not if the country is constitutional or not, there are plenty of constitutional dictatorships or authoritarian regimes out there, secession against those is just as justified. Our own documents of independence state that if the government no longer serves the purposes of the people than the people are justified in starting a new government. The South did just that, they did not believe that the government was serving their purposes and so started a new government. (the majority of southerners did not own slaves and still voted for secession.) So the secession was very much legal.

Our own documents of independence state that if the government no longer serves the purposes of the people than the people are justified in starting a new government. The South did just that, they did not believe that the government was serving their purposes and so started a new government.

you are aware that your position only makes sense if you refuse to recognize black people as people, right?

oh, and the idea that they let poor whites vote on secession is hilarious.

Yes, Cuba recognizes it and if they attacked it without reason we would be infuriated, but if we declared that we were going to try and invade Cuba from that Naval Station (and began a buildup suitable for that purpose there when Cuba demands that we not or it will mean war) wouldn't Cuba be justified in assaulting it?

Gimme a quote or something on the bolded that is true for the Ft. Sumter siege.

And the Confederacy did not recognize the forts belonging to the US and promptly demanded their surrender, something which makes alot of sense in doing and they were totally justified in doing.

according to the mind set at the time

Just because you think it does not make it right, nor true.

1. The CSA did not attack the United States until Lincoln (a warmonger) sent ships in to relieve a fortress which was on the sovereign ground of a foreign country (The Southern Confederacy). The United States would not have gotten involved in the war if Lincoln had not sent that ship into the harbor which he had been told the Confederacy would not allow to be relieved. The original secession was non-violent and democratic.

Oh brother! Gues what? The south fired on the FORT AND NOT THE FRIGGIN SHIP and it fired only after the fort refused to surrender. That's an act of war. I guess you failed history 101?

2. Because of the United States constitution and the way the United States was established (through secession), secession was and still technically is legal.

We tend to call it a revolution which was a um...oh yea...A REBELLION!!!!!

The United States is a nation made up by the states, that is the states came together to form the nation, if the states want to leave it is within their rights (as they are supposed to be able to triumph the central governments power since they (the states) are closer to the people) to do so. Of course now-adays with the Constitution so screwed up and the Federal Governments messing with the Senate the states have lost alot of power.

We have a central government that is strong. Not like the weak central government that we had under the Articles of Confederation.

A) The Confederacy started the war. Period. They opened fire on ships that carried only rations for the soldiers, no ammunition.
B) The secession was not as democratic as you'd like to believe, seeing as it supported the interests of wealthy slave holders and completely shitted on the interests of the poor man (most of Appalachia was against secession.
C) If you think that states' rights and interests take precedence over federal right and interests, take a good, hard look at the Articles of Confederation.
D) Seeing as 60-65% of South Carolina's population was enslaved at the time, I don't think the state government was any closer to the people.


A. There are plenty of documents which seem to indicate that the people of Charleston were sending food to the soldiers, remember this was a gentlemans war (even though there was no war at this time). They told the President that any ship entering the harbor would be fired upon as they could not know for sure what was on the ship. Ergo the South may have fired the first shot but in self defense of their interests, and so the Federal Government started the war. (There is also some indication that the ships carried ammunition and some soldiers for relief)

B) Where the people of appalachia in the majority?

C) Yes, to some degree they should for they are closer to the citizenry.

D) The governments perogative is to look out for the rights of its citizens, slaves are not citizens ergo still democratic.

You simply said wrong, wrong, and if I declare a dog to be a cow does that make it so? You have given no reasons..... So no you hit the player and he gets a base because you fail to follow the rules....

It is you who is not following anything being said.

The statement is Wrong for the reason listed. It is no different when Fat King George declared us in Rebellion in the mid-1770s. What we were fighting was a rebellion. Same with the South against the US. It was a rebellion.

D) The governments perogative is to look out for the rights of its citizens, slaves are not citizens ergo still democratic.

Willful ignorance to support a point?

And it matters not if the country is constitutional or not, there are plenty of constitutional dictatorships or authoritarian regimes out there, secession against those is just as justified. Our own documents of independence state that if the government no longer serves the purposes of the people than the people are justified in starting a new government. The South did just that, they did not believe that the government was serving their purposes and so started a new government. (the majority of southerners did not own slaves and still voted for secession.) So the secession was very much legal.

I'll reiterate point D
D) SEEING AS 60-65% OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S POPULATION WAS ENSLAVED, I DON"T THINK THE STATE GOVERNMENT WAS ANY CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE.

Damn right the government didn't serve the purposes of the people. The state government, that is.

A) The Confederacy started the war. Period. They opened fire on ships that carried only rations for the soldiers, no ammunition.

Actually it was the Fort itself and not the ships.

B) The secession was not as democratic as you'd like to believe, seeing as it supported the interests of wealthy slave holders and completely shitted on the interests of the poor man (most of Appalachia was against secession.

As were major portions of states that split from the Union. I know of parts of Tennesse that wanted to stay in the Union.

C) If you think that states' rights and interests take precedence over federal right and interests, take a good, hard look at the Articles of Confederation.

Indeed.

D) Seeing as 60-65% of South Carolina's population was enslaved at the time, I don't think the state government was any closer to the people.

We have a winner.

Oh brother! Gues what? The south fired on the FORT AND NOT THE FRIGGIN SHIP and it fired only after the fort refused to surrender. That's an act of war. I guess you failed history 101?



We tend to call it a revolution which was a um...oh yea...A REBELLION!!!!!



We have a central government that is strong. Not like the weak central government that we had under the Articles of Confederation.

1) The South fired on the fort only when the ship had entered the harbor after warning the Federal Government that if any ships entered the harbor the south would fire upon it. Classic self defense manuever.

2) A revolution and a rebellion are again considerably different from a secession. And again if it was legal so what? ( A revolution is a complete change in regime and government, such as the Communist Revolution in Russia. A rebellion is the attempt to use force to overthrow the government, The Beor War, or Boxer Rebellion, a secession is the attempt to leave the country or nation and start a seperate one, The American Revolution, The American Civil War)

3) We have a strong central government now. At the time of the Civil War it was much weaker, and if states came together to form a Union then they can just as legally leave it. The power of creation denotes the power of destruction.

Yes, Cuba recognizes it and if they attacked it without reason we would be infuriated, but if we declared that we were going to try and invade Cuba from that Naval Station (and began a buildup suitable for that purpose there when Cuba demands that we not or it will mean war) wouldn't Cuba be justified in assaulting it?

Ok! Show me where we threatened the South?

And it matters not if the country is constitutional or not,

Matters quite alot actually

there are plenty of constitutional dictatorships or authoritarian regimes out there, secession against those is just as justified. Our own documents of independence state that if the government no longer serves the purposes of the people than the people are justified in starting a new government.

Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

The South did just that, they did not believe that the government was serving their purposes and so started a new government. (the majority of southerners did not own slaves and still voted for secession.) So the secession was very much legal.

And then they fired on the United States and got their asses whipped.

You just used the Declaration of Independence to justify the natural right of man to overthrow a government that no longer serves the people's purposes. How is it now that you reject the claim by the same Declaration of Independence that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL?

I'm not rejecting that claim. I don't agree with slavery and I don't agree with racism. I'm simply stating a fact: slaves are not citizens.

D) The governments perogative is to look out for the rights of its citizens, slaves are not citizens ergo still democratic.

You just used the Declaration of Independence to justify the natural right of man to overthrow a government that no longer serves the people's purposes. How is it now that you reject the claim by the same Declaration of Independence that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL?

1) The South fired on the fort only when the ship had entered the harbor after warning the Federal Government that if any ships entered the harbor the south would fire upon it. Classic self defense manuever.

Classic self defense? From a food ship?

D) The governments perogative is to look out for the rights of its citizens, slaves are not citizens ergo still democratic.

how do you keep those white robes so bright?

Ok! Show me where we threatened the South?



Matters quite alot actually



Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.



And then they fired on the United States and got their asses whipped.

1) The fort could have been used to mount an assault on the city. (unlikely but still possible, the fort could have also fired on the city)

2) Saying it matters quite alot doesn't make it so. A government can still be repressive or go in a direction the people don't want it to go and be constitutional.

3) True but it does give us remarkable insight into how we should translate the constitution.

4) They were beaten.

Classic self defense? From a food ship?

Again, the southerners could not have known the contents of the cargo, they had deliberately warned that any ship would be reason to fire on the fort. There is evidence that the ship contained armarments, and there is evidence that the people of Charleston were sending food to the soldiers on the fort (because undoubtedly many of them would have had personal relationships with the defenders).

how do you keep those white robes so bright?

Bleach :)

Again, the southerners could not have known the contents of the cargo, they had deliberately warned that any ship would be reason to fire on the fort. There is evidence that the ship contained armarments, and there is evidence that the people of Charleston were sending food to the soldiers on the fort (because undoubtedly many of them would have had personal relationships with the defenders).

Govenor Pickens was informed by President Lincoln that the ships only contained food and provisions, no ammunition. Pickens was also informed that there would be no attack by Sumter, except in self-defense

1) The South fired on the fort only when the ship had entered the harbor after warning the Federal Government that if any ships entered the harbor the south would fire upon it. Classic self defense manuever.

Except that it was the Fort itself that was fired upon.

2) A revolution and a rebellion are again considerably different from a secession.

Take a collegiate history class and defend that point. I believe it has been stated no fewer than 3 times that Secession, Revolution, and Rebellion are all the same damn thing.

And again if it was legal so what? ( A revolution is a complete change in regime and government, such as the Communist Revolution in Russia.)

The American Revolutionary War. Jee...does not sound like to me that there was a complete change in Regime or government there. In truth, our revolt was much like the South. We seceded from the British Empire (declaration of Independence) and with help, drove the Brits from our new nation. The South declared themselves Independent as well and they too fought a war of independence. Guess what? They lost. So tell me, what is the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War when both were rebellions?

A rebellion is the attempt to use force to overthrow the government, The Beor War, or Boxer Rebellion, a secession is the attempt to leave the country or nation and start a seperate one, The American Revolution, The American Civil War)

You really have no clue as to what you're talking about do you?

3) We have a strong central government now. At the time of the Civil War it was much weaker, and if states came together to form a Union then they can just as legally leave it. The power of creation denotes the power of destruction.

Um son? You cannot compare today to yesterday.

Govenor Pickens was informed by President Lincoln that the ships only contained food and provisions, no ammunition. Pickens was also informed that there would be no attack by Sumter, except in self-defense

So attempting to relieve a fort is no longer to be considered an offensive action. Maybe we should have told the Germans that in Bastogne. And national leaders don't lie? Wow.... maybe we should have slapped Hitler on the wrist.... No Hitler bad, you said you would annex no more countries!

It was a secession and it was a rebellion.... Our war of Independence was also a "rebellion" under the same concept... The only difference between a "patriot" and a "traitor" is what particular side you are on.

Except that it was the Fort itself that was fired upon.



Take a collegiate history class and defend that point. I believe it has been stated no fewer than 3 times that Secession, Revolution, and Rebellion are all the same damn thing.



The American Revolutionary War. Jee...does not sound like to me that there was a complete change in Regime or government there. In truth, our revolt was much like the South. We seceded from the British Empire (declaration of Independence) and with help, drove the Brits from our new nation. The South declared themselves Independent as well and they too fought a war of independence. Guess what? They lost. So tell me, what is the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War when both were rebellions?



You really have no clue as to what you're talking about do you?



Um son? You cannot compare today to yesterday.

1)I said fort.

2) Take a collegiate Political Science course, perferably in Comparative Politics, there is a difference between those three terms.

5) (your fifth point) I was about to say the same thing to you. We are talking about the Civil War, we are discussing the legality of it and who started what, we are not talking about the way we look at government today since there is no Civil War currently happening.

I'm not rejecting that claim. I don't agree with slavery and I don't agree with racism. I'm simply stating a fact: slaves are not citizens.

Then the southern states weren't democratic in any way, shape, or form.

It was a secession and it was a rebellion.... Our war of Independence was also a "rebellion" under the same concept... The only difference between a "patriot" and a "traitor" is what particular side you are on.

No a traitor is someone who claims to be on one side and then really serves the other (Benedict Arnold), no Southerner claimed to be on the Federal Governments side, ergo not traitors.

Then the southern states weren't democratic in any way, shape, or form.

How so? Democracies take votes from citizens not slaves. The majority of citizens, not the majority of people. There is a big difference.

1)

2) Take a collegiate Political Science course, perferably in Comparative Politics, there is a difference between those three terms.



The real question is: does it matter? The Civil War/ Confederacy fits the criterion for all three definations.

The real question is: does it matter? The Civil War/ Confederacy fits the criterion for all three definations.

No, it was not an attempt by the South to overthrow the United States, they just didn't wish to be a part of it anymore.

And it was not a huge change in government. (government being the style of ruling, regime being the rulers)

The South Wil Ries Agin!!1!

How so? Democracies take votes from citizens not slaves. The majority of citizens, not the majority of people. There is a big difference.

There are no slaves in a democracy. All men are created equal.

No a traitor is someone who claims to be on one side and then really serves the other (Benedict Arnold), no Southerner claimed to be on the Federal Governments side, ergo not traitors.

The terms are totally subjective... From a union standpoint the rebels were traitors... From a Confederate standpoint they were themselves patriots... Though, even then, no one of matter would have used the term "traitor" as people in this thread do upon the Confederate soldiers and officers... The general people of that time had enough class to realize the situation many people were put in was a difficult one... Given at the way people would view loyalty to their "home"... People of the time viewed loyalty somewhat differently... Loyalty was extended to their state, and then subsequently to the Federal government... When certain states seceded, it put particular people in a tough position between loyalty to their home (state) [their "country"] and to the USA as a larger entity.

There are no slaves in a democracy. All men are created equal.

Athens, where democracy originated knew slaves (that is owned slaves). So point defeated.

The terms are totally subjective... From a union standpoint the rebels were traitors... From a Confederate standpoint they were themselves patriots... Though, even then, no one of matter would have used the term "traitor" as people in this thread do upon the Confederate soldiers and officers... The general people of that time had enough class to realize the situation many people were put in was a difficult one... Given at the way people would view loyalty to their "home"... People of the time viewed loyalty somewhat differently... Loyalty was extended to their state, and then subsequently to the Federal government... When certain states seceded, it put particular people in a tough position between loyalty to their home (state) [their "country"] and to the USA as a larger entity.

No the terms are not subjective, when you try to make things subjective you get no where. Besides do you know how many people have been tried with being a traitor in the US? Very few if any succesfully condemned.

Athens, where democracy originated knew slaves (that is owned slaves). So point defeated.

Who gives a fuck what Athens did? American democracy is a perfection of Athenian democracy, not a continuation of it. If your best defense of the legality of slavery is a 2500 year old oligarchy-proclaimed democracy 3500 miles away, then you and your argument have failed.

Who gives a fuck what Athens did? American democracy is a perfection of Athenian democracy, not a continuation of it. If your best defense of the legality of slavery is a 2500 year old oligarchy-proclaimed democracy 3500 miles away, then you and your argument have failed.

The United States existed from its inception until 1865 with slavery. So there is American democracy with slavery. Athens was also a direct democracy unlike American representative democracy. Your argument is self defeating, you claim that American Democracy could not tolerate slavery, yet it did for a very long time.

And you should give a fuck what Athens did, if it weren't for their thinkers we would not know democracy today.

No the terms are not subjective, when you try to make things subjective you get no where. Besides do you know how many people have been tried with being a traitor in the US? Very few if any succesfully condemned.

Apparently you do not realize that I'm not talking about some particular legal definition of "traitor"; I'm speaking of how things are viewed by opposing factions, in which case you are dealing with relative terminology between disparate groups... Terms like "traitor", "patriot", "loyal" are all terms which are relative to their usage between differing groups... Continental colonists in the revolution were "loyal" to their colonial governments, but not to their King, the "loyalists" as they are known remained loyal to the King, and opposed the colonial "rebellion"... The "Loyalists" were traitors to the colonists, and the colonists were traitors to the King...

Apparently you do not realize that I'm not talking about some particular legal definition of "traitor"; I'm speaking of how things are viewed by opposing factions, in which case you are dealing with relative terminology between disparate groups... Terms like "traitor", "patriot", "loyal" are all terms which are relative to their usage between differing groups... Continental colonists in the revolution were "loyal" to their colonial governments, but not to their King, the "loyalists" as they are known remained loyal to the King, and opposed the colonial "rebellion"... The "Loyalists" were traitors to the colonists, and the colonists were traitors to the King...

Then that really isn't relative is it? Thats a disagreement on terms, but a solid objective deffinition still exists...

1)I said fort.

It doesn't matter. The fort was no threat as it was an 1812 design and never mind the fact that it wasn't even complete at the time and it didn't even have 1/2 of the cannons it could hold.

The attempts to resupply were rebuffed. So you are wrong to claim they fired because a ship showed up.

Beauregard simply got pissed at being ignored. He was known for a temper and decided he had enough.


2) Take a collegiate Political Science course, perferably in Comparative Politics, there is a difference between those three terms.

Ah Corne is a political scientist or at least a student. Can't remember his current status.

Actually, Droskianishk, your entire defense of the Confederacy fails. We'll go through it point by point.

Let's first clear up what the South actually was:
The South was not democratic. It denied the majority of its people any rights at all and concentrated power in a specific group (whites), making it an Oligarchy. Not only that, but wealthy white plantation owners had a disproportionate share of the power, making the South aristocratic as well. The majority of southerners didn't own slaves and quite a few of them were opposed to it. The Civil War was fought to preserve the interests of the wealthy elite. There is nothing democratic, except in a hypocritical, fradulent way, about the South.

Now, let's take care of that bit about States' Rights:
The right to seceed is not discussed in the Constitution. In case you are unaware, the Constitution was a reaction against an excess of state's rights. The founding fathers were just as afraid of mob rule as they were of tyranny, and did every thing they could to protect against them. Almost every time the State's right card is pulled, it's used to defend an unjust institution, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to Brett vs. Brady.

Let's dispell that myth about the Declaration of Independence:
Southerners claim that the Declaration of Independence supports them in their war because of the clause of the right of the people to overthrow a gov't that doesn't represent them. However, they ignore the clause that states that "all men are created equal", which the democratic fraud of the confederacy was clearly against. Using one part of the declaration to refute another is dumbassery.

So lets review:
A) States rights are mob rule, therefore retarded.
B) The Declaration of independence doesn't support you.
C) The South was a democratic failure, in every sense of the word.

Your argument reaks of fail.

Actually, Droskianishk, your entire defense of the Confederacy fails. We'll go through it point by point.

Let's first clear up what the South actually was:
The South was not democratic. It denied the majority of its people any rights at all and concentrated power in a specific group (whites), making it an Oligarchy. Not only that, but wealthy white plantation owners had a disproportionate share of the power, making the South aristocratic as well. The majority of southerners didn't own slaves and quite a few of them were opposed to it. The Civil War was fought to preserve the interests of the wealthy elite. There is nothing democratic, except in a hypocritical, fradulent way, about the South.

Now, let's take care of that bit about States' Rights:
The right to seceed is not discussed in the Constitution. In case you are unaware, the Constitution was a reaction against an excess of state's rights. The founding fathers were just as afraid of mob rule as they were of tyranny, and did every thing they could to protect against them. Almost every time the State's right card is pulled, it's used to defend an unjust institution, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to Brett vs. Brady.

Let's dispell that myth about the Declaration of Independence:
Southerners claim that the Declaration of Independence supports them in their war because of the clause of the right of the people to overthrow a gov't that doesn't represent them. However, they ignore the clause that states that "all men are created equal", which the democratic fraud of the confederacy was clearly against. Using one part of the declaration to refute another is dumbassery.

So lets review:
A) States rights are mob rule, therefore retarded.
B) The Declaration of independence doesn't support you.
C) The South was a democratic failure, in every sense of the word.

Your argument reaks of fail.


1) Government only protects the rights of its citizenry, if the government is a democracy then it only protects its citizens rights to vote, slaves are not citizens, ergo it was still democratic. Democracy does not mean that the government represents the majority of 'the people' unless by 'the people' you mean citizens. This may mean that the government isn't representational but it does not mean that the government is not democratic.

2) All men are created equal, not all men are free, a paradox but these two are not necessarily opposed. Intelligent and physically equal men can be slaves.

3) As to your bringing up the Jim Crow laws they have no relevance here, I am not disputing the fact that there was racism in the south, but that slavery was not the main drive behind the war. As someone said earlier Lincoln had already stated he was not going to oppose slavery where it existed. Slavery was not the main issue of the war.

1
3) As to your bringing up the Jim Crow laws they have no relevance here, I am not disputing the fact that there was racism in the south, but that slavery was not the main drive behind the war. As someone said earlier Lincoln had already stated he was not going to oppose slavery where it existed. Slavery was not the main issue of the war.

Slavery was a huge factor.

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

--edit--

It's anecdotal but my cousin at the time has a diary that is still in print today. She wrote that her husband Angus McDonald III and his associates were excited at the prospects of getting the slave trade going again.

Dro, quick question: do you defend the institution of slavery itself? Curiosity prompts this question, nothing more.

The CSA lost the civil war, and no longer exists. End of discussion.

I would be mostly of this opinion if I didn't thought american history to be so boring. But since you guys are at it, I have a question: even though the Confederates lost/emigrated, isn't there a part of their culture that still lives in the south?

Let's first clear up what the South actually was:
The South was not democratic. It denied the majority of its people any rights at all and concentrated power in a specific group (whites), making it an Oligarchy. Not only that, but wealthy white plantation owners had a disproportionate share of the power, making the South aristocratic as well. The majority of southerners didn't own slaves and quite a few of them were opposed to it. The Civil War was fought to preserve the interests of the wealthy elite. There is nothing democratic, except in a hypocritical, fradulent way, about the South.

Actually, while this is a fair assessment, the Union was guilty of this in partiality to; and could be argued as easily as being "undemocratic" for similar reasons... Blacks in the north were in possession of no more political rights in the North than they were in the South... Not to say either side was right... In the case BOTH were wrong... In some cases free blacks in the North had LESS rights than their Southern counterparts... Namely cases like Ohio and Indiana where blacks were not allowed to reside within the state...

Actually, while this is a fair assessment, the Union was guilty of this in partiality to; and could be argued as easily as being "undemocratic" for similar reasons... Blacks in the north were in possession of no more political rights in the North than they were in the South... Not to say either side was right... In the case BOTH were wrong... In some cases free blacks in the North had LESS rights than their Southern counterparts... Namely cases like Ohio and Indiana where blacks were not allowed to reside within the state...

Yes, that is true. Frederick Douglass experienced a lot of discrimination in the North. But the North was taking a step in the right direction, even if it was a very small step.

Yes, that is true. Frederick Douglass experienced a lot of discrimination in the North. But the North was taking a step in the right direction, even if it was a very small step.

True, it was a small step... But I just was pointing out that it really was American society as a whole which was "wrong" from a present-day viewpoint.

I would be mostly of this opinion if I didn't thought american history to be so boring. But since you guys are at it, I have a question: even though the Confederates lost/emigrated, isn't there a part of their culture that still lives in the south?

Yes, in the form of white supremecist groups, general feelings of racism, hicks, rednecks, and the tendency to wave the Confederate battle standard around whenever they feel like being asses.

Thing is, there wasn't exactly much of a cultural difference, per se like your question suggests. It wasn't like, say, Flanders and Wallona, or Prussia and Bavaria, or what have you. It was far more about specific politics(Southern domination of the federal government) and the economy than any real cultural differences.

I would be very surprised if cultural differences did not come into being had the Confederate States remained a nation for more than four years, though.

1) The fort could have been used to mount an assault on the city. (unlikely but still possible, the fort could have also fired on the city)

They did but it was ineffective and only after the South fired the first shots at 430AM

2) Saying it matters quite alot doesn't make it so. A government can still be repressive or go in a direction the people don't want it to go and be constitutional.

There's hope yet.

3) True but it does give us remarkable insight into how we should translate the constitution.

Sorry but no it doesn't.

4) They were beaten.

Thrashed was more like it.

Govenor Pickens was informed by President Lincoln that the ships only contained food and provisions, no ammunition. Pickens was also informed that there would be no attack by Sumter, except in self-defense

Once Again historical facts defeat ignorance.

2) Take a collegiate Political Science course, perferably in Comparative Politics, there is a difference between those three terms.

I did. Guess what? It is the same damn thing.

5) (your fifth point) I was about to say the same thing to you. We are talking about the Civil War, we are discussing the legality of it and who started what, we are not talking about the way we look at government today since there is no Civil War currently happening.

The probably is, legally, the civil war was illegal. It was a rebellion on the same grounds that the American Revolutionary War was a Rebellion. You my friend, are a fool who knows nothing of history.

The real question is: does it matter? The Civil War/ Confederacy fits the criterion for all three definations.

Psst....the little one does not understand this.

Please no KKK here... Please......

Slavery sucks ****

No, it was not an attempt by the South to overthrow the United States, they just didn't wish to be a part of it anymore.

And it was not a huge change in government. (government being the style of ruling, regime being the rulers)

Guess what? The United States did not attempt to overthrow the United Kingdom, we just didn't wish to be a part of it anymore. OOPS!!!

Ah Corne is a political scientist or at least a student. Can't remember his current status.

Graduated with a bachelors in both Political Science and in History.

Graduated with a bachelors in both Political Science and in History. That's why he lives a bachelor life style!

Just fill me in. Some of you people support slavery? Or is this just saying thats not what the confederate states were about?

Just fill me in. Some of you people support slavery? Or is this just saying thats not what the confederate states were about?

Nah, they're just saying the CSA had a right to secede and the USA didn't have a right to stop them. Which is true; right up to the point the CSA comitted an act of war against the USA, at which point the USA had every right to beat the living shit out of the CSA.

That's why he lives a bachelor life style!

Only for the next 8 months. I am an engaged man.

1) Government only protects the rights of its citizenry, if the government is a democracy then it only protects its citizens rights to vote, slaves are not citizens, ergo it was still democratic. Democracy does not mean that the government represents the majority of 'the people' unless by 'the people' you mean citizens. This may mean that the government isn't representational but it does not mean that the government is not democratic.

2) All men are created equal, not all men are free, a paradox but these two are not necessarily opposed. Intelligent and physically equal men can be slaves.

3) As to your bringing up the Jim Crow laws they have no relevance here, I am not disputing the fact that there was racism in the south, but that slavery was not the main drive behind the war. As someone said earlier Lincoln had already stated he was not going to oppose slavery where it existed. Slavery was not the main issue of the war.

Just as the Declaration of Independence declared the basis for the American Revolution, the Declarations of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) made clear that slavery was the warp and woof of the Confederacy.

For example (emphasis added):

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.

I'll add 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.

....(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

Keep up the sophistry all you want, but the Confederacy was all about slavery and it was a central issue of the Civil War.

Only for the next 8 months. I am an engaged man.

Really? I didn't know that. Congrats and condolences. ;)

Really? I didn't know that. Congrats and condolences. ;)

LOL!! Thanks :D

Really? I didn't know that. Congrats and condolences. ;)

Indeed!

So Corne; You on welfare yet? :p

Indeed!

So Corne; You on welfare yet? :p

Nope.

Guess what? The United States did not attempt to overthrow the United Kingdom, we just didn't wish to be a part of it anymore. OOPS!!!

Which makes it not a rebellion but a secession.

Guess what? The United States did not attempt to overthrow the United Kingdom, we just didn't wish to be a part of it anymore. OOPS!!!

Guess what, the CSA didn't attempt to overthrow the USA; they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore....

Which makes it not a rebellion but a secession.
...

It was both...

Which makes it not a rebellion but a secession.

Tell that to King George III. He declared us in Rebellion which is precisely what it was. Samething with the Confederacy. The exact same bloody thing.

...

It was both...

He's been told that many a times but for some reason, he cannot seem to understand that.

Tell that to King George III. He declared us in Rebellion which is precisely what it was. Samething with the Confederacy. The exact same bloody thing.

Precisely what I was mentioning before... what constitutes a "secession" or a "rebellion" is dependent upon the subjective view of which side of the conflict one is on... Same concept between a "traitor" or a "patriot"... Despite some peoples claims to attempt to say it is one or the other under some false sense of objectivity..... Objectively it's nothing more than a conflict between opposing political organizations and people...

Precisely what I was mentioning before... what constitutes a "secession" or a "rebellion" is dependent upon the subjective view of which side of the conflict one is on... Same concept between a "traitor" or a "patriot"... Despite some peoples claims to attempt to say it is one or the other under some false sense of objectivity..... Objectively it's nothing more than a conflict between opposing political organizations and people...

Indeed. As many, including myself have indicated, it was a Secession and a Rebellion.

With more slavery, anyway. There was still slavery in the US during the Civil War.

When I was attending college in Missouri, I had the chance to take a gander at the muster rolls for Cape Girardeau county during the Late Unpleasantness. The split of boys going to the Blue and the Grey was almost exactly fifty/fifty. I understand that this was repeated throughout the state, and in other Union states that had slavery.

Yes, that is true. Frederick Douglass experienced a lot of discrimination in the North. But the North was taking a step in the right direction, even if it was a very small step.

Someone once said that the antebellum South hated blacks as a race but loved them individually, and the North loved them as a race but hated them individually. From what I understand, that was true even after the Civil War.

When I was attending college in Missouri, I had the chance to take a gander at the muster rolls for Cape Girardeau county during the Late Unpleasantness. The split of boys going to the Blue and the Grey was almost exactly fifty/fifty. I understand that this was repeated throughout the state, and in other Union states that had slavery.

This was somewhat common in many places, there were Virginians who fought for Union forces out of states such as Pennsylvania... There was quite a bit of division in the people of the time on the issue... And many southerners had internal fights over what side they should be on... Many, such as Jackson and Lee fought merely because their home state was fighting...


*On a further note, Lee was offered command of the Army of the Potomac prior to Virginia's secession... He turned it down, because he knew Virginia would seceded... And he would not fight those he considered his "own people".

This was somewhat common in many places, there were Virginians who fought for Union forces out of states such as Pennsylvania... There was quite a bit of division in the people of the time on the issue... And many southerners had internal fights over what side they should be on... Many, such as Jackson and Lee fought merely because their home state was fighting...


*On a further note, Lee was offered command of the Army of the Potomac prior to Virginia's secession... He turned it down, because he knew Virginia would seceded... And he would not fight those he considered his "own people".

One of the horrible things about civil wars, or at least our civil war - it split families, towns and states.

One of the horrible things about civil wars, or at least our civil war - it split families, towns and states.

Yes... particularly ours... In many other cases Civil wars are fought over more clear lines... The english civil war, and the French had much more distinctive lines...

The english civil war...had much more distinctive lines...
Not true, my own family was divided on the issue.

Not true, my own family was divided on the issue.

Well, there was division in both of them as well... But not nearly to the extend of division as was in the case of many of the "border states" as they are known... Hell, division in Virginia resulted in the creation of a "new" state...

Well, there was division in both of them as well... But not nearly to the extend of division as was in the case of many of the "border states" as they are known... Hell, division in Virginia resulted in the creation of a "new" state...
In the 'border towns', there certainly was ;).