Confederate or Union?
- Thread starter ComputerFlake
- Start date
- Status
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Exactly!
With our 20th/21st Century mindset, most if not all of us would go on the record as saying legal slavery of one group of people (heck any group...but specifically one group here) is a bad thing. 18th/19th American mindset was different, depending on where you were raised.
I'm glad its gone, here.
As to the loss of the "States Rights" (snicker) compared to the New improved, lemon freshened Federal Power...
...
Substitute "States Rights" for the word slavery in the above quote.
Always wanted a Civil War era long gun and revolver.
Adios
ComputerFlake
Member
Also keep in mind that this was only done after Anderson of the US troops panicked, spiked the cannons of Fort Moultrie, and moved out into Sumter. He did so without orders. Amazing to think that all of those soldiers died because two soldiers made rash decisions without orders. What a fragile world.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
Chamberlain's wayward men were not deserters. Rather, they had enlisted as replacements with a two year regiment (Second Maine Volunteer Infantry) that was being mustered out and believed that, along with the rest of the regiment, that there was a contractual right to go home. What they didn't realize when they signed their papers is that they had enlisted for three years or the war. When they tried to return home with "their" regiment, they didn't understand that they were not just enlisting into the unit but also for a duration of time. The 118th Pennsylvania "Corn Exchange" escorted them to Chamberlain with instructions for Chamberlain to "make them do duty, or shoot them down the moment they refused." Lesson: read the fine print.
KRAUTGUNNER
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 255
I'm a stout CSA stalwart!!! FOREVER!!!
The South will rise again!
The South will rise again!
Hkmp5sd
Member
Nope. But slavery could have ended years prior to the Civil War had the north handled things a little better.
There was plenty of blame for slavery on both sides of the issue. When some attempt to portray the north as these great liberators of the slaves, they would be well to remember why there were few slaves in the north. There were two reasons slavery was never popular in much of the north. One was the moral sense that slavery was wrong, many in the North and South had this belief. But in the North, another thing helped do away with slavery, due to its unprofitableness under northern conditions.
If not for extremists on both sides of the issue, slavery could have been done away with far earlier, the war would never have occured, but we would also not be the nation we are today.
Glock Glockler
Member
So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years?
It depends, what is my standard of living and what are the consequences of provoking a war on my behalf? If my day-to-day life is ok and the entire region I inhabit will be laid to waste with the modern equivilant of millions being killed, I'd have to think about it quite a bit. If things for me were that bad I'd just take off and head to Canada or Mexico.
What I don't understand is how supporters of the North can convince themselves of moral superiority when their textile mills were only to happy to their hands on southern slave cotton. I guessed they missed the demand part of economics 101. It's also rather interesting that the ships that transported slaves were from Northern based businesses, which were bringing slaves to other countries than the US South (only a small fraction of the global slave market).
If the South had declared slavery illegal immediately after seceeding would you still have supported a war to "keep the union together"? Why is it that the North is to claim moral rightousness when slavery was completely legal under Federal law (Dred Scott anyone?) Remember Lincoln's speech about 'preserving the union, regardless of slavery's status'?
It depends, what is my standard of living and what are the consequences of provoking a war on my behalf? If my day-to-day life is ok and the entire region I inhabit will be laid to waste with the modern equivilant of millions being killed, I'd have to think about it quite a bit. If things for me were that bad I'd just take off and head to Canada or Mexico.
What I don't understand is how supporters of the North can convince themselves of moral superiority when their textile mills were only to happy to their hands on southern slave cotton. I guessed they missed the demand part of economics 101. It's also rather interesting that the ships that transported slaves were from Northern based businesses, which were bringing slaves to other countries than the US South (only a small fraction of the global slave market).
If the South had declared slavery illegal immediately after seceeding would you still have supported a war to "keep the union together"? Why is it that the North is to claim moral rightousness when slavery was completely legal under Federal law (Dred Scott anyone?) Remember Lincoln's speech about 'preserving the union, regardless of slavery's status'?
ComputerFlake
Member
Everyone wants to blame the South for slavery but there are facts here that are being forgotten:
1) Slavery wasn't illegal federally. It was up to the individual states to decide for themselves right or wrong on slavery. Bottom line is the South never broke a single law when it came to slavery. Certain northern states just disagreed with the policy in the South.
2) Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery. He never was. He gave in to pressure from his cabinet when it came to anti-slavery issues. He didn't even enact the Emancipation Proclamation until Jan 1, 1863 (well after the war was raging and the South had won many battles). And the EP only freed slaves in slave/rebel states. It didn't officially list Tennessee for some reason so Tennessee didn't have to obey this proclamation until later in the 1860s. It certainly wasn't a perfect proclamation. (Officially in Tennessee, there is still several laws on the books that states blacks are only considered 3/5s of a person and if you drive a horse and wagon in a city area you are required to have a black man with a lantern walking a few feet in front of the buggy at night. How's that for freedom?)
3) Slavery made sense. You are welcome to feel about it as you wish. Blacks in Africa conquered tribes and they would generally kill the captured prisoners. Instead they found that they could sell them to planters in the colonies and make money. Owning a person is wrong. But however you choose to believe on slavery planters needed cheap labor and owning slaves made men rich and kept the country eating and clothed in cotton. It made sense on paper. And there were many slave owners who treated their slaves quite well and slaves that didn't want to be freed. They would have rather had a nice place to live and food to eat then be considered scum of the earth and live like rats. That was the condition the North left them in after the Civil War. Just turned them all loose and let them fend for themselves. Eventually there were schools and such but not at first. It was a hard time being black in the South after the War.
4) Since slaves were considered property (like a horse or wagon is property) and most of the Southern boys who fought in the Civil War never even SAW a slave. They certainly didn't go out into the field and lay down their lives for them anymore than you would stand in front of a cannon to defend your car or lawnmower. Southerners may have been involved in a war that was started in part upon the issue of slavery but they didn't fight the war because of it. They fought for their families and their states.
Same could be true today. If Ohio decided to invade Tennessee I'd grab my rifle and charge into battle to defend my state. I wouldn't charge into battle to defend my mailbox. I could always replace the mailbox.
(I certainly am not racist so don't take what I said to be racist. It's just a statement of fact.)
1) Slavery wasn't illegal federally. It was up to the individual states to decide for themselves right or wrong on slavery. Bottom line is the South never broke a single law when it came to slavery. Certain northern states just disagreed with the policy in the South.
2) Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery. He never was. He gave in to pressure from his cabinet when it came to anti-slavery issues. He didn't even enact the Emancipation Proclamation until Jan 1, 1863 (well after the war was raging and the South had won many battles). And the EP only freed slaves in slave/rebel states. It didn't officially list Tennessee for some reason so Tennessee didn't have to obey this proclamation until later in the 1860s. It certainly wasn't a perfect proclamation. (Officially in Tennessee, there is still several laws on the books that states blacks are only considered 3/5s of a person and if you drive a horse and wagon in a city area you are required to have a black man with a lantern walking a few feet in front of the buggy at night. How's that for freedom?)
3) Slavery made sense. You are welcome to feel about it as you wish. Blacks in Africa conquered tribes and they would generally kill the captured prisoners. Instead they found that they could sell them to planters in the colonies and make money. Owning a person is wrong. But however you choose to believe on slavery planters needed cheap labor and owning slaves made men rich and kept the country eating and clothed in cotton. It made sense on paper. And there were many slave owners who treated their slaves quite well and slaves that didn't want to be freed. They would have rather had a nice place to live and food to eat then be considered scum of the earth and live like rats. That was the condition the North left them in after the Civil War. Just turned them all loose and let them fend for themselves. Eventually there were schools and such but not at first. It was a hard time being black in the South after the War.
4) Since slaves were considered property (like a horse or wagon is property) and most of the Southern boys who fought in the Civil War never even SAW a slave. They certainly didn't go out into the field and lay down their lives for them anymore than you would stand in front of a cannon to defend your car or lawnmower. Southerners may have been involved in a war that was started in part upon the issue of slavery but they didn't fight the war because of it. They fought for their families and their states.
Same could be true today. If Ohio decided to invade Tennessee I'd grab my rifle and charge into battle to defend my state. I wouldn't charge into battle to defend my mailbox. I could always replace the mailbox.
(I certainly am not racist so don't take what I said to be racist. It's just a statement of fact.)
Leaky Waders
Member
I'm from the South...so I would've followed Lee...
As for the cause of the war and the immorality of slavery and reparations....
My southern education teaches me that the war was fought for states rights - the right in question was slavery. It could've been gun control, wearing blue-jeans on sundays etc...but basically the governent was balancing new territories as either pro/anti slave - thus forming two camps in washington. Never really confronting the issue - just making two camps more divided.
If the North prosecuted the war to end slavery...I believe the Emancipation Procalmation would've been issued just after the first Bull Run. Instead I believe that Lincoln was indeed trying to preserve the union..and he did.
As for the immorality of slavery...as an institution in America slavery probably wasn't all that bad. This was not a war-time slavery like those imposed upon the Chinese or Europeans during WW2. This was a peacetime slavery like that of Greece. Slaves were entrusted to watch plantation kids and were sometimes treated as part of the family. Slaves were also used to toil the fields. I know injustices occured, but for the most part there was no massive slave uprising with either the begining or ending of the war. Plantation owners weren't burned alive or hanged. John Brown's vision of an uprising was so much northern propaganda. You would think that if so many slaves were treated so badly for so long that someone would have hell to pay....
It's easy to critique the morality of slavery now. It was a moral issue pretty much codified by man since like forever...slavery then is kind of like abortion now- is it right is it wrong? How do you know? 100 years from now computer geeks might be dictating to a screen stating how we were immoral for killing an unborn generation or how foolish we were for fighting over clusters of non-sentient cells.
As for slavery reparations - they've been paid by America in blood. If one seeks monetary compensation then I suggest they sue one of the dead civilizations that first started slavery...hittites, cananitites, egyptians, fellow africans? Try to collect that fine.
My two rebellious cents,
L.W.
As for the cause of the war and the immorality of slavery and reparations....
My southern education teaches me that the war was fought for states rights - the right in question was slavery. It could've been gun control, wearing blue-jeans on sundays etc...but basically the governent was balancing new territories as either pro/anti slave - thus forming two camps in washington. Never really confronting the issue - just making two camps more divided.
If the North prosecuted the war to end slavery...I believe the Emancipation Procalmation would've been issued just after the first Bull Run. Instead I believe that Lincoln was indeed trying to preserve the union..and he did.
As for the immorality of slavery...as an institution in America slavery probably wasn't all that bad. This was not a war-time slavery like those imposed upon the Chinese or Europeans during WW2. This was a peacetime slavery like that of Greece. Slaves were entrusted to watch plantation kids and were sometimes treated as part of the family. Slaves were also used to toil the fields. I know injustices occured, but for the most part there was no massive slave uprising with either the begining or ending of the war. Plantation owners weren't burned alive or hanged. John Brown's vision of an uprising was so much northern propaganda. You would think that if so many slaves were treated so badly for so long that someone would have hell to pay....
It's easy to critique the morality of slavery now. It was a moral issue pretty much codified by man since like forever...slavery then is kind of like abortion now- is it right is it wrong? How do you know? 100 years from now computer geeks might be dictating to a screen stating how we were immoral for killing an unborn generation or how foolish we were for fighting over clusters of non-sentient cells.
As for slavery reparations - they've been paid by America in blood. If one seeks monetary compensation then I suggest they sue one of the dead civilizations that first started slavery...hittites, cananitites, egyptians, fellow africans? Try to collect that fine.
My two rebellious cents,
L.W.
chaim
Member
I'd fight for the same side that just about every male relative between 15 and 50 fought for (since on my dad's side most were here during or before the Revolution there were hundreds of male relatives between 15 and 50). I do believe that I'd be inclined to do what I could to smash the treason that was secession. Being a Marylander I guess I would be in a Union Maryland unit, but I'd prefer to have been in one of the West Virginia or Pennsylvania militia and regular units that my ancestors were in.
Like I said, many served. Quote a few served from beginning to end. I had at least one relative at just about every major battle of the war (certainly all the eastern battles). One family (obviously not in my direct line but an uncle and cousins several generations back) lost all sons but one in various battles and the one son left and the father died of disease and starvation at Andersonville (the son died there during the war, the father died days after the end of the war from disease contracted at the prison camp). Many branches of my family served, many ancestors, cousins and a couple uncles a few generations removed, died. I would be honored to fight alongside those men to preserve the legal union that was established when the states approved the Constitution.
Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law. Thus, you can choose to join, but once you join you are in. That is of course a necessary provision for any country that wants to have some kind of stability. I would be proud to fight the traitors that were the CSA!
Like I said, many served. Quote a few served from beginning to end. I had at least one relative at just about every major battle of the war (certainly all the eastern battles). One family (obviously not in my direct line but an uncle and cousins several generations back) lost all sons but one in various battles and the one son left and the father died of disease and starvation at Andersonville (the son died there during the war, the father died days after the end of the war from disease contracted at the prison camp). Many branches of my family served, many ancestors, cousins and a couple uncles a few generations removed, died. I would be honored to fight alongside those men to preserve the legal union that was established when the states approved the Constitution.
Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law. Thus, you can choose to join, but once you join you are in. That is of course a necessary provision for any country that wants to have some kind of stability. I would be proud to fight the traitors that were the CSA!
jungleman
Member
1. I do not believe in slavery
2. The confederacy should have been allowed to seceede.
3. To the group of people who always bitch about slavery
where would you be now if you were not brought here
as slaves????????????
You would be over in Africa starving and dieing of aids,
Quit your compaining.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. The confederacy should have been allowed to seceede.
3. To the group of people who always bitch about slavery
where would you be now if you were not brought here
as slaves????????????
You would be over in Africa starving and dieing of aids,
Quit your compaining.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glock Glockler
Member
Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law. Thus, you can choose to join, but once you join you are in. That is of course a necessary provision for any country that wants to have some kind of stability. I would be proud to fight the traitors that were the CSA!
Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids the state's from seceeding? Didn't think so, so I guess any powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people.
It's lovely that you think so highly of legitimate govt being comprised of the consent of the governed, once you're in you're in for life, even if it is at the point of a bayonet? It seems that your 'Union' is a union in the same sense that the Soviet Union was comprised of states that wanted nothing to do with that govt but were being held to it by the point of a bayonet.
Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids the state's from seceeding? Didn't think so, so I guess any powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people.
It's lovely that you think so highly of legitimate govt being comprised of the consent of the governed, once you're in you're in for life, even if it is at the point of a bayonet? It seems that your 'Union' is a union in the same sense that the Soviet Union was comprised of states that wanted nothing to do with that govt but were being held to it by the point of a bayonet.
JohnBT
Member
chaim - Traitors is it? That's a mighty bold statement from a smartmouth who obviously doesn't know much U.S. history...
Few history books have even bothered to mention that, in December of 1814, the New England states held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut (hardly the heart of Dixie). Although they did not end up formally seceding, the New England states never questioned their own right to do so. Professor DiLorenzo has noted that: "Pickering and Governor Strong of Massachusetts nevertheless predicted that the Union would not last. When the war (of 1812) ended, so did the Federalist Party's efforts to have New England secede from the Union. Throughout this whole ordeal no one ever made a principled argument against a state's right of secession." - Al Benson, Jr.
Few history books have even bothered to mention that, in December of 1814, the New England states held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut (hardly the heart of Dixie). Although they did not end up formally seceding, the New England states never questioned their own right to do so. Professor DiLorenzo has noted that: "Pickering and Governor Strong of Massachusetts nevertheless predicted that the Union would not last. When the war (of 1812) ended, so did the Federalist Party's efforts to have New England secede from the Union. Throughout this whole ordeal no one ever made a principled argument against a state's right of secession." - Al Benson, Jr.
ComputerFlake
Member
Well Glockler beat me to it but the fact of the matter is that there is no legal basis for declaring war on your countrymen neither. What Lincoln did was highly illegal and debatable.
I share your sympathies with family history and Civil War. I also had many family members who fought and died during the war. My family fought for the South. The point of this discussion is whether you would have fought for the Union or the Confederacy and I think we know your position. And I think your position is admirable. I find it interesting that you said you'd fight for the Union and didn't mention a single thing about slavery. So in part, you made my point for me. Most of the men who fought in the war fought and died for family and country. Not many, outside of the black units, could claim to have fought for freedom of slaves.
The second part of this post was the answer to "what would you do today if the same situation arose because of a different set of circumstances caused Southern states to once again suceed." For example, what if the situation in Alabama over the Ten Commandments because one of central government versus religious freedom and the military was called in to shoot down your fellow countrymen?
I'd find myself on the wrong side of the country at that point. I'd be more than willing to take up arms to defend the basis of the founding of this country and defend my right to religious freedom. I'd much rather face God with a clear conscience than have to face Him and admit I did nothing to defend His name. Would you find yourself on the side of the Union or the Confederacy at that point?
It's all in good fun. I'm glad to see that no one is letting their emotions get the better of them. It's very interesting reading.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Sorry,
That is a simplistic rationale re seccession and the Constitution. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor forbidden by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. That covers secession quite nicely.
By the way, if secession is unconstitutional, then West Virginia's government should be disbanded and the territory returned to Virginia.
You might be able to concoct a reasonable constitutional argument for secession or against secession. Concoct one that prevents the southern states from seceding...except when that secession benefits the Union.
Oh, yeah. Andersonville.
Item: compare death rates at Andersonville to Elmyra,NY.
Item: compare rations and access to medicine at Andersonville to a regular
CSA soldier's access to same during the same time period. Then make the same comparison between POW's at Elmyra and the Union soldier.
Item: The CSA tried continually, throughout the war, to exchange prisoners on a one for one basis.
Conclusion: When the CSA failed to provide adequate care to their POW's at Andersonville, it was also incapable of providing adequate care to its troops in the field. When the Union failed to provide adequate care to its POW's at Elmyra it was because the Union chose not to do so. The Union at that time had more supplies than it needed. The Union also possessed the capability throughout the existence of Andersonville to obtain the release of each and every person imprisoned there.
That is a simplistic rationale re seccession and the Constitution. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor forbidden by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. That covers secession quite nicely.
By the way, if secession is unconstitutional, then West Virginia's government should be disbanded and the territory returned to Virginia.
You might be able to concoct a reasonable constitutional argument for secession or against secession. Concoct one that prevents the southern states from seceding...except when that secession benefits the Union.
Oh, yeah. Andersonville.
Item: compare death rates at Andersonville to Elmyra,NY.
Item: compare rations and access to medicine at Andersonville to a regular
CSA soldier's access to same during the same time period. Then make the same comparison between POW's at Elmyra and the Union soldier.
Item: The CSA tried continually, throughout the war, to exchange prisoners on a one for one basis.
Conclusion: When the CSA failed to provide adequate care to their POW's at Andersonville, it was also incapable of providing adequate care to its troops in the field. When the Union failed to provide adequate care to its POW's at Elmyra it was because the Union chose not to do so. The Union at that time had more supplies than it needed. The Union also possessed the capability throughout the existence of Andersonville to obtain the release of each and every person imprisoned there.
Leaky Waders
Member
Just a small addition to my winded post above...
I would've fought for the South...because that's where I am from. If I were from the North, I would've been a yankee. If I were from england a redcoat, from a germany a reich's soldier. I wouldn't have had to believed the weird ideologies perpetuated by government to defend my loved ones and homeland. I think this rings true w/ most common soldiers.
Also, I think it's best that the North won - United we Stand, divided we fall kind of philosophy... Could you imagine the US being a little europe w/ the petty bickering of states ala britian and france and germany etc...When asked, my answer is I'm an American. It's not I'm a Floridian...
Glocker also made an excellent point concerning an enforced unity...like the soviet union.
We have a United States with a broad diversity that is pretty darned strong - it's kind of neat.
Oh well, back to work.
L.W.
I would've fought for the South...because that's where I am from. If I were from the North, I would've been a yankee. If I were from england a redcoat, from a germany a reich's soldier. I wouldn't have had to believed the weird ideologies perpetuated by government to defend my loved ones and homeland. I think this rings true w/ most common soldiers.
Also, I think it's best that the North won - United we Stand, divided we fall kind of philosophy... Could you imagine the US being a little europe w/ the petty bickering of states ala britian and france and germany etc...When asked, my answer is I'm an American. It's not I'm a Floridian...
Glocker also made an excellent point concerning an enforced unity...like the soviet union.
We have a United States with a broad diversity that is pretty darned strong - it's kind of neat.
Oh well, back to work.
L.W.
Mike Irwin
Member
Minion of the Zorgaxian Empire.
Tremble before our might, puny Blue & Gray.
Tremble before our might, puny Blue & Gray.
Mike Irwin
Member
Thing of black. The blackest, darkest, most evil color you can thing of.
Ours is worse.
Ours is worse.
Dilettante
Member
A nice line of reasoning I haven't seen in this context. I'm not sure this really works -- but I like it.
I don't remember the article, but the original constitution says explicitly that this is forbidden unless the state consents.
To get the right paperwork, the feds recognized a sort of "Union Virginia" legislature that permitted WV to secede. I don't know if that legislature ever did anything else (I assume it sort of morphed into the West Virginia legislature afterwards).
Sort of...for a long time they refused to include black soldiers in this, since they were "property".
It doesn't sound as though either Elmira or Andersonville is a fair example of their side's overall treatment of prisoners. I don't know why Elmira was so bad, but it was clearly unusual. As for Andersonville, its commander was the only Confederate who was hanged for war crimes (!)
chaim
Member
PT I
OK, it seems I have a lot to respond to so I'm going to break this up in a few posts:
From the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 10:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "
This is forbidding states from acting as seperate nations, or from joining in a confederation of states or nations. They agreed to this when they ratified the Constitution.
For those who didn't like the term "treason" or "traitor" I direct you to Article IV, section
3 of the Constitution:
" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. "
So one of the definitions of Treason, as per the US Constitution, is making war against the United States.
Sorry Glock, doesn't work that way. Big difference between USSR type repression and simply keeping a country together. You as an individual are free to leave the US if you wish. You can move to any country you wish, renounce your citizenship and there you go. However, no country can survive long and allow itself to disintegrate. Big difference between the US and the USSR there buddy.
OK, it seems I have a lot to respond to so I'm going to break this up in a few posts:
From the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 10:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "
This is forbidding states from acting as seperate nations, or from joining in a confederation of states or nations. They agreed to this when they ratified the Constitution.
For those who didn't like the term "treason" or "traitor" I direct you to Article IV, section
3 of the Constitution:
" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. "
So one of the definitions of Treason, as per the US Constitution, is making war against the United States.
Sorry Glock, doesn't work that way. Big difference between USSR type repression and simply keeping a country together. You as an individual are free to leave the US if you wish. You can move to any country you wish, renounce your citizenship and there you go. However, no country can survive long and allow itself to disintegrate. Big difference between the US and the USSR there buddy.
chaim
Member
Part II
Since you are bringing that into my post I'll respond. Of course slavery was a big part of the war! The war was not about slavery for the north in the beginning, sure enough, but they didn't start the war. The southern leaders succeeded from the Union over state's rights, sure that was part of it. But what was the tinder, the match? What issue brought on the state's rights issue, what specific right was it? Read a couple speeches from the time and you'll be left with absolutely no doubt that it was the continuation of slavery!
The thing is too, that Lincoln wasn't about to abolish slavery. What he was going to do, and what worried southern leaders, was he was going to stop the spread of slavery into the western territories. This terrified the southern plantation owners. They were afraid that when these slave-free territories became states, and gained votes in Washington, the power of the slave states would be dilluted and this would eventually lead to Congress passing a law abolishing slavery.
Now I am willing to grant that slavery wasn't the issue for most of the soldiers. At the time when you asked someone what was their country or nationality very few would say they were Americans or were from the USA, most would answer Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, New York. Further, it is true that most units were militia units or region, or even town based regular units so people were even fighting for their county, town or city and often for their friends. That is true to a degree today, in the trenches no one is fighting for an ideal, they are fighting for their buddies. However, that doesn't change the fact that the leadership of the south left the union because of slavery and that when it comes down to it this is what they were fighting over.
Oh, and for the guy who earlier mentioned his opinion that slavery wasn't abolished in the north until 1870, sorry you are wrong. The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was established in 1865. What was established in 1870 was the 15th Amendment which Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote for blacks and gave the Congress the power to enforce that right.
As for the prisoner exchange... those are pretty rare in war and stratigically it would have been idiotic and possibly suicidal for the north to participate. Would you really expect the north which had no manpower shortage to turn over many tens of thousands of men who were still fit to fight (of course many more tens of thousands of others would have been too sick to fight) to the south which had a tremendous manpower shortage? This might have changed the outcome, and it certainly would have prolonged the war (leading to many more casualties on both sides).
Or maybe I simply choose to answer the original question, which stated to leave slavery out of it, instead of participating in the thread veer that had been going on.
Since you are bringing that into my post I'll respond. Of course slavery was a big part of the war! The war was not about slavery for the north in the beginning, sure enough, but they didn't start the war. The southern leaders succeeded from the Union over state's rights, sure that was part of it. But what was the tinder, the match? What issue brought on the state's rights issue, what specific right was it? Read a couple speeches from the time and you'll be left with absolutely no doubt that it was the continuation of slavery!
The thing is too, that Lincoln wasn't about to abolish slavery. What he was going to do, and what worried southern leaders, was he was going to stop the spread of slavery into the western territories. This terrified the southern plantation owners. They were afraid that when these slave-free territories became states, and gained votes in Washington, the power of the slave states would be dilluted and this would eventually lead to Congress passing a law abolishing slavery.
Now I am willing to grant that slavery wasn't the issue for most of the soldiers. At the time when you asked someone what was their country or nationality very few would say they were Americans or were from the USA, most would answer Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, New York. Further, it is true that most units were militia units or region, or even town based regular units so people were even fighting for their county, town or city and often for their friends. That is true to a degree today, in the trenches no one is fighting for an ideal, they are fighting for their buddies. However, that doesn't change the fact that the leadership of the south left the union because of slavery and that when it comes down to it this is what they were fighting over.
Oh, and for the guy who earlier mentioned his opinion that slavery wasn't abolished in the north until 1870, sorry you are wrong. The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was established in 1865. What was established in 1870 was the 15th Amendment which Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote for blacks and gave the Congress the power to enforce that right.
Um, all I mentioned was that I had family die there. In fact, these were men that people that my grandfather knew as a child knew (hmm, not sure if that sentence reads well- he knew people who knew them). These were very good family men, farmers, religious men, pillars of the community. These were men that the people my grandfather knew still missed half a century later. I was not getting into a pissing contest over which prison camp was worse. I've seen the southern apolygist arguements over why Andersonville isn't that bad. It was. So were some northern camps. I'm not about to downplay one evil to try to paint another as even worse. I'm not going to apolygize for one evil to discredit another. Both sides had people who treated prisoners of war horribly. That wasn't my point, nor is it an issue that I wish to discuss, because again, neither side is defensable.
As for the prisoner exchange... those are pretty rare in war and stratigically it would have been idiotic and possibly suicidal for the north to participate. Would you really expect the north which had no manpower shortage to turn over many tens of thousands of men who were still fit to fight (of course many more tens of thousands of others would have been too sick to fight) to the south which had a tremendous manpower shortage? This might have changed the outcome, and it certainly would have prolonged the war (leading to many more casualties on both sides).
chaim
Member
Part III
Not that it is any of your business, but I know an awful lot about history. Sure, I got my degree in psychology and I'm training to be a psychologist, but my real passion has been history my entire life- the only reason I'm not in graduate school for history is because I wish to have a job when I'm finished so I picked my second choice. I am thinking about getting an MA in history after I get my doctorate in psychology just for my own personal interest however, and I have been playing with the idea of writting a book on US history (I'm very loosely in the research stage right now).
I grew up with a father who had once been a graduate student in history (he left his Ph.D. program and fellowship when he decided he didn't want to be a college professor) and he did a good job of passing on his interest in history. Almost every family vacation was tied in with US history- Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Philidelphia, etc. etc. and we took quite a few weekend trips to such sites as well. I can't remember a time since I was about 8 that I wasn't in the process of reading at least one book on US history (usually military history or the history of the corresponding time period +/- 10 years, especially concentrating on some of our most significant wars- the Revolution, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII). I didn't major in history but I took many history courses in college, and I've learned even more on my own (books, books and more books). Heck, when I was in 9th grade Social Studies my teacher brought things he wasn't sure of to me for clarification when we were on US History (his specialty was Geography). My original major was Secondary Education/Social Studies and I planned to be a history teacher before I realized that there simply weren't any jobs in the field. So you simply do not know what you are talking about here.
I'd appreciate you stay away from personal insults in the future just because you disagree with someone! I won't even go into the smartmouth part- jerk! I think the body of my 857 prior posts here speak for themselves pretty well that my thoughts and ideas tend to be well thought out and intelligent. Of course, if the majority agree with you and I'm not welcome here, I see no reason to stay where I'm unwelcome.
Sure, up to the Civil War the big issue in US politics was exactly how much power the state's had v. the federal government (an issue that continues to this day). This was compounded by the fact that not all rights must be directly mentioned in the Constitution and the fact that it was established early on by the Courts that the federal government was not limited to only the letter of the Constitution (interpretation by the Bench was an issue even most sucessionists agreed upon). What was generally agreed upon was that states didn't have the right to suceed on their own. Sure, from time to time a few states tested the waters so to speak, but why do you think no one tried before South Carolina finally did on December 24, 1860? Because they knew that this would lead to war! Why would it have led to war? Because most Americans and most states did not believe that sucession was allowed nor that it should be allowed. It took an issue as strong and emotional as the continuation of (and percieved threat to) slavery before anyone was willing to go through with it.
Here I'd simply have to say you do not have any idea what you are talking about! Do you regularly make such illogical conclusions and disparaging remarks about anyone who has the nerve to disagree with you. Because someone has a different interpretation of the facts you determine that they must be ignorant of the facts?
Not that it is any of your business, but I know an awful lot about history. Sure, I got my degree in psychology and I'm training to be a psychologist, but my real passion has been history my entire life- the only reason I'm not in graduate school for history is because I wish to have a job when I'm finished so I picked my second choice. I am thinking about getting an MA in history after I get my doctorate in psychology just for my own personal interest however, and I have been playing with the idea of writting a book on US history (I'm very loosely in the research stage right now).
I grew up with a father who had once been a graduate student in history (he left his Ph.D. program and fellowship when he decided he didn't want to be a college professor) and he did a good job of passing on his interest in history. Almost every family vacation was tied in with US history- Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Philidelphia, etc. etc. and we took quite a few weekend trips to such sites as well. I can't remember a time since I was about 8 that I wasn't in the process of reading at least one book on US history (usually military history or the history of the corresponding time period +/- 10 years, especially concentrating on some of our most significant wars- the Revolution, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII). I didn't major in history but I took many history courses in college, and I've learned even more on my own (books, books and more books). Heck, when I was in 9th grade Social Studies my teacher brought things he wasn't sure of to me for clarification when we were on US History (his specialty was Geography). My original major was Secondary Education/Social Studies and I planned to be a history teacher before I realized that there simply weren't any jobs in the field. So you simply do not know what you are talking about here.
I'd appreciate you stay away from personal insults in the future just because you disagree with someone! I won't even go into the smartmouth part- jerk! I think the body of my 857 prior posts here speak for themselves pretty well that my thoughts and ideas tend to be well thought out and intelligent. Of course, if the majority agree with you and I'm not welcome here, I see no reason to stay where I'm unwelcome.
Really? I thought I remembered something about that in my university US History class, but since few history books mention it we must have spent that week learning about something else.
Sure, up to the Civil War the big issue in US politics was exactly how much power the state's had v. the federal government (an issue that continues to this day). This was compounded by the fact that not all rights must be directly mentioned in the Constitution and the fact that it was established early on by the Courts that the federal government was not limited to only the letter of the Constitution (interpretation by the Bench was an issue even most sucessionists agreed upon). What was generally agreed upon was that states didn't have the right to suceed on their own. Sure, from time to time a few states tested the waters so to speak, but why do you think no one tried before South Carolina finally did on December 24, 1860? Because they knew that this would lead to war! Why would it have led to war? Because most Americans and most states did not believe that sucession was allowed nor that it should be allowed. It took an issue as strong and emotional as the continuation of (and percieved threat to) slavery before anyone was willing to go through with it.
Waitone
Member
Prisoner exchanges sound strange to our ears but during the Civil War it was common right up to General Grant assuming command of northern forces. His concept of total was precluded exchanging prisoners. Confederates has northern prisoners, they could barely care for its own troops, as the war ground on prisoners received less and less. Not hard to understand.
BTW, Andersonville was just one more example why the Civil War was the first modern war.
BTW, Andersonville was just one more example why the Civil War was the first modern war.
Dilettante
Member
Chaim,
as you know, my overall sympathies are with the Union, both because of slavery and to prevent the dissolution of the USA.
The problem you're talking about is an old one -- arbitrary secession cannot be tolerated or the whole entity will no longer exist. And in the US in particular, one of the fundamental checks and balances is between the federal and state governments--the states help protect us from Washington, and Washington helps protect us from the states. This was always part of the strategy to protect liberty, not just after the Civil War, but from the 1780s.
But I do want to point out that there's another way of addressing this: a recognized, legal, time-consuming, discouraging, bureaucratic means of secession with significant political risks even if you win (like losing parts of the state that voted to stay with the union).
I also want to ask, what do people think the CSA would have been like after 3 or 4 decades? Because we ended up back together, many people imagine it like Canada: more or less like the US, but with a border in between. But it's easy to imagine an outcome like Cuba or North Korea, with huge resources put into holding slaves and maintaining the system, military adventures into Mexico and the Caribbean, while most of the society gets poorer and poorer and most young people try to move to the US.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
