I support the CSA but thats because when you get past all the dumb lies your history books tell you they really where the good(well good est)side in the war, that war was not about Slavery, more men died than every US war ever combined! So you can't say that so many men died for freeing slaves or keeping them... Any Historian or just plain smart person would know the real story, that the south was fighting for Independence just like the Colonists in the Revolution, they where fighting for rights and freedom not slavery and what not. And the Union was fighting to keep the country together as one not to free slaves which they did not care one bit about when it came to the man who was dying out in the field or to really any Union leader, sure Lincoln cared about them but he even said that it wasan't something he was gonna fight over ever. And sure the CS lost but they fighted much more fiercely and bravely and where fighting to defend their homes and true American freedom, and in my opinion it was a war where the Good Guys lost cause they where outnumbered, if you ever see paintings and pics you always see southerners in anything they could find to wear cause well they where rebels, but now days people on both sides act like the other wasant American especialy southerners, but they need to remember that their own General, General Lee even said that something they tend to forget is that they both are american, so if the veterans at the anniversary in Gettysburg in the 20s and 30's could shake hands and laugh and admit they where brothers than why cant we do that 200 hundred some years later and learn the truth about it in school, cause when ever were in the civil war in history i always have to do the same speech about how it actauly went and what they where actauly fighting for. If you disagree than iam sorry but you are very ignorant and may as well stay in the 1st grade since thats all you seem to want to know about the most bloody and emotional war this Country of ours have fought.
Well I have heard an interesting reason for the motives behind this...Lets see the South wanted more State independence rather then a central government controlling everything sort of like the earlier government that was created during the American Revolution, his cause so much chaos because there were no currency regulations or tax collection and such that you literally had to change your money every state...the central government was so weak it couldn't raise enough funds to support a military...there are other problems that the first government of the United States that the whole thing had to be rewritten...the more known American Constitution of today. Anyways after that many advocates of a States came back around the Civil war...because the main problem was more political then ethical...Another reason I also have heard was if that the cotton the southern States provided to Northern textile mill was a big part of American Economy back then, and that when the South separated they started exporting their crops to foreign countries...Great Britain at the Time I think had the worlds largest Empire and that if the South did succeed in succession B) that the British would have eventually invaded it and make it a colony...the British basically funded most of the southern war effort...even with arms I think
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races
Drace, you have to account for the fact that Lincoln was a politician. During his election campaign, Lincoln was often branded as an extremist by his opponents. He used debate speeches such as this one to assure the public that he was moderate, and didn't want to uspet the status quo.
During his second term, however, you can see a change in his attitude. His last Public Address, in 1865, demonstrates this. Here, Lincoln applauded the state of Louisianna for taking his advice and creating a new constitution that abolished slavery, gave slaves the right to vote (kind of...), and allowed them to attend public school:
Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.
Well the context of that was a letter not a public speech or debate. Douglas himself accused himself Lincoln of inconsistencies in his views on slavery and of just trying to appeal to the audience.
But he seems to have said that quite clearly, that his cause was not slavery but preserving the Union.
And his personal views on Negroes and slavery seem to be quite reactionary.
But he seems to have said that quite clearly, that his cause was not slavery but preserving the Union.
Yes, I agree completely with that. But when civil rights did not get in the way of his primary goal, he tended to promote equality. Well, maybe not equality, but at least improving the conditions of black people at the time.
To both Drace and Aknerd, I agree with what you're saying in regards to Lincoln's views of "reserving the Union". I don't have an argument for how he, the politician, seemed to tweak his speeches depending on the location and voters' opinions.
What I see us debating, over and over again is the true definition of States' Rights.
So far, I'm in agreement, mostly, with what thisisnotalt
It was a war over states' rights that was started because both parties were mad at each other. It was a war where both sides used slavery as an important political scapegoat to justify the war.
It was a war of two whiny factions of the same country that split up because of states' rights. They used a big social issue at the time, slavery, as a propaganda device.
says and what Aknerd
On the other hand, saying slavery had "little effect" on the civil war is just as inaccurate. After all, both the confederate constitution and the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States mention slavery. For instance, the Texan Declaration says:
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind,
says regarding the topic of slavery as both an economic issue and a propaganda tool for enraging each other to continue fighting.
Yeah. This is sort of not what you guys are talking about (xD) but the Union had HUGE advantages in the war. Way more soldiers... more gunpowder... a navy...
Try to bear in mind that all American generals, officers and soldiers had once fought together and in regards to most officers and generals were either West Point or Annapolis educated together. It was a very hard decision for these men to separate except when it came to the issue of protecting their families and homes. You're absolutely right that the Union had the lion-share of the weapons, ammo, forts, navy . I think the intelligence of engineers such as RE Lee should be studied though. Just think of what he accomplished before he was selected by Davis to lead the Army of Northern Virginia. His earth works are still in place along NC coast-line, like Fort Fisher and the smaller, lesser known fort across the Cape Fear River at Brunswick Town. Still there, a century and a half later after all of the storms and hurricanes is incredible to me. Now Fort Caswell, on Oak Island is still maintained by the coast guard but to my knowledge is still closed to visitors which is a shame. I would really like to see that fort fully restored because it was also used in WWII.
So, back to States' Rights. My stand is that I consider the very beginning of this conflict to be over taxes and the states wanting to separate themselves more from government abuses of power over them. And Drace, you made the comment that we aren't using direct quotes. I'm working on restoring mine that was lost from the other thread. For now, I'll share a few: Lee's poem
Well, I'm a little miffed, I have to spend $5 if I want a copy of NC's letter of Secession. I will write to Bev Perdue and I will report on this later!
What I see us debating, over and over again is the true definition of States' Rights.
Yeah. Personally, I do not believe that any state (including texas) has the right to secede from the union.
Wajor, you cited "The Right of Secession" by Gene Kizer Jr. as evidence showing why the south could secede. I read most of it, and it seems to be a little one sided. For instance, Kizer says:
To prove the right of a state to determine for itself when the Constitution has been violated, Morse quotes Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions which point out that if the government had the right to determine when the Constitution was violated, then the government would be the arbiter of its own power and not the Constitution. The Kentucky Resolutions also reaffirm state sovereignty and independence.
The Kentucky Resolutions actually says:
"The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."
Obviously, there is some disparity here.
Additionally, Kizer cites such documents as The Declaration of Independence and De Tocqueville's Democracy in America
Neither of these are legal documents.
Kizer also Cites the monumental supreme court case Gibbons V Odgen. He neglected to mention that this case actually increased federal power over the states.
He never mentioned the equally monumental supreme court case Texas V White (perhaps becuase it occured after the civil war). Here, Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase said:
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
The only credible piece of information I could find in Kizer's article was his mention of the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I can see how this could be used to justify secession.
Thanks Aknerd, even though I linked Kiser's description of States' Rights there was something about "Bonnie Blue"'s web site that didn't sit well with me. I'll be honest, I was lazy and hadn't read the whole piece. Thank you for proofing it for me.
Thanks Aknerd, even though I linked Kiser's description of States' Rights there was something about "Bonnie Blue"'s web site that didn't sit well with me. I'll be honest, I was lazy and hadn't read the whole piece. Thank you for proofing it for me.
Well, the whole thing wasn't bad (though I also didn't read all of it...). There were just a few parts of it that weren't very factual.
I think his paper was more informative on how the North violated the constitution prior to the civil war, rather than during it.
Kizer raised the very compelling point about Jefferson Davis never being convicted of treason. Which is very... odd. You would think that the North would want to convict him in order to prove the legitamacy of the War, but they dropped the case.
Why do you keep calling it the War of Northern Aggression? It was the American Civil War.
Sorry, where I'm from, everyone calls it that. So I've grown up around it. But as long as you know what it means right I'll call it the War for States Rights instead.
No, you southern fool, it was not about freedom and independence. It was indeed about stubbornness and arrogance. The people in the south were so happy being lazy little pricks, forcing others to do what they should be doing, they were too afraid to let them go and be forced to pay the men for their work. They were LAZY and didn't want to do anything else. So when Lincoln said no more slaves, of course they got upset. So like the Lazy, Bratty children, they left to go do it on their own. And just like any other war that America was involved in, The Union attacked them because they believed they were not doing something civil and right.
Look at Vietnam. America was involved because we didn't like Communism and did not want it to spread. World War 2. Because killing people based on cultural background is wrong.
And the reason it had the most American casualties is because ALL THE CASUALTIES were American! It was a CIVIL war. Against your BROTHER. And plus, this just adds to the Darwin Effect. Those who die for something stupid do the gene pool a favor by removing themselves from it.
Now lets look at the Economical Stand Point, shall we?
Slaves are still legal and productivity is way up there! But wait... You grow, produce, package, ship, and create for absolutely no money whatsoever. You want 10 bucks for it? Screw that, I'll go slap a black guy across the head and demand he do it for free.
Your "CSA" would die easily because none of your products have any material value. Eventually, your government would start to tax you in order to gain revenue for funding. But what then? Do you get angry at your own government because they want you to PAY for your slaves? The same government that allowed you to keep them? Of course you would! Then there would be ANOTHER war where you force your slaves to go kill them.
You think that "Oh, you're taught wrong in school. YOU'RE the ignorant fools! Those textbooks LIE to you!" still? Well then perhaps you should have actually READ those books. And for that matter, you should also have graduated from a legitimate SCHOOL. Because with your intelligence on the matter, you were obviously home schooled by your 'racially-superior' father.
Sorry, where I'm from, everyone calls it that. So I've grown up around it. But as long as you know what it means right I'll call it the War for States Rights instead.
The reason we call it the Civil War is because it's nuetral. By calling it anything else, you are pointing the blame, therefor making it harder for people to take you seriously. In fact, if you honestly think the Confederates were saints for what they did, you are as mistaken as anyone thinking the union were saints. Both sides faught because they both wanted things to be run their way. It's like having a mother slap her child who was throwing a fit because he wanted a toy, they both are wrong.
Zxian, calm down. My 8th grade text book explained that American's faught the Revolutionary war because they were over taxed. The funny thing is, Tea was cheaper when taxed by the British rather than Americans. The Americans just wanted to lead their own country. The Revolutionary War wasn't very revolutionary by means of how people lived before and after the war... the same.
Dubness, think of it this way. White people tell black jokes to one another as Black people tell white jokes to one another. They don't tell the jokes to each other because they are offensive. You can call it The War of Northern Agression, just don't do it in front of people who back the Union.
Zxian, calm down. My 8th grade text book explained that American's faught the Revolutionary war because they were over taxed. The funny thing is, Tea was cheaper when taxed by the British rather than Americans. The Americans just wanted to lead their own country. The Revolutionary War wasn't very revolutionary by means of how people lived before and after the war... the same.
Sorry, I just find the whole idea ironic and funny. My post was meant as a sarcasm to his politically incorrect viewpoint, and so I apologize for sounding harsh.
Your point however is absolutely true. America was created by old, rich men, FOR old, rich men. The founding fathers had no intention of giving rights to the people until the realized they would not have support without it. For America, War has always been about profit.
Your point however is absolutely true. America was created by old, rich men, FOR old, rich men. The founding fathers had no intention of giving rights to the people until the realized they would not have support without it. For America, War has always been about profit.
Wow, I never said any of that. The country was founded for the people. The founding fathers beleived that the government should not control the means of production. They didn't create the country to make a profit, but they welcomed it, because you would be stupid not too. They weren't psychic, they didn't imagine that corperations would grow as powerful as they are. They would also look down on many of our policies. It is REQUIRED to buy car insurance. Do you honestly think our founding fathers would agree with a law that forces people to pay for a service? Hell no.
Corperations are an unfortunate bi-product of a free market. America doesn't fight for profit. America fights for control, so that nobody who could abuse their power get their hands on that much power. If America faught for a profit, *the UK wouldn't allow America to do the things we do.
* = Ok, I could be wrong here, the UK can be oblivious.
