Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I myself use it as this is what most people identify with when you discuss or debate this period of our history.
Personally, I don't like it as I feel it does not properly identify what actually happened in that time.
I much prefer the official title of the conflict.
The War of the Rebellion.
I think that hits the historical nail right on the head.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Beowulf; you failed to answer if Secession was permitted in the CS Constitution? I don't think Blue States/Red States terminology is really appropriate to this discussion as it really doesn't apply unless you wish to bring a modern political agenda into the discussion.
One thing that has always fascinated me has been the diversity of support for both the CS & US by modern Americans. I have seen men I know to be downright foaming at the mouth Liberals agree w/ people diametricly opposed to their modern viewpoint on both sides of the CW argument. I've seen gun toting Hard core Conservative Republicans who would not even think about agreeing with a liberal upon the color of the sky passionately argue both sides of the CW equation. In fact you'll see it here or anyone of a score of other sites about the CW on the net.
Have you by chance asked the big D if he recalls the query from Dawna, that was posted earlier, to defend his work on this site? Does he still defend his premises that have been blown full of holes on so many sites (not just this one), or his practice of creative out of context editing that would have guaranteed me an F from any professor while at University? I can understand if we're just waiting for the corrections in a future edition but I've never seen evidence of such.
Now if you are one of his students rellying upon a favorable grade I understand fully that you dare not ask such difficult questions of the man. I have no idea of his professional practices but I had my own problems w/a prof that never gave anything higher than a C to those who dared disagree w/ him... ironically he was an Ethics prof. If you are in such a predicament I sympathize.
LOL!
Uh, nothing as yet from the Big D! I do not hold out much hope that he will respond. I think it was the crack about comparing him to Satan from UnionBlue that ripped it! (or so he intimated to me).
LOVE the Foaming at the Mouth Liberal image. May I use it?
Seriously, Collectivism of the Henry Clay variety and his "American System" is a Left Wing ideology that Lincoln adored. That ideology, to my way of thinking, won the War. I see the war crimes thing as Liberalism destroying Conservative political competition in the form of the voters who will still be standing after the war..., and the Radical Republican Liberals as trying to complete the process (you have to read Frank Conner's THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000 for the whole story) of US and THEM that I am accused of harping on...
In this theory, Lincoln wanted the Sumter incident and he wanted to wrap himself in the flag and, as he had chafed at the Constitution (his whole two years in Congress), he knew that Liberalism (totalitarian collectivism) would only be possible through a long and decisive war. The Federalists and Whigs had been dismal failures before him!
I mean, come on! Hitler supports Lincoln in MEIN KAMPF!
There were at least 50 similarities and parallels between Lincoln and Hitler that I got from the three hours of THE
GESTAPO on History Channel, ranging from Sumter and the Tannenburg Operation through to their deaths by gunshots!
To answer your question: This sounds like the US Constitution...
Article VI Section Six: Powers not given to the Confederacy by the states, nor prohibited by them, are retained by the states.
But THIS answers your question!
We, the people, of the Confederate States, EACH ACTING IN ITS SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God - do ordain and establish this constitution for the Confederate States of America.
So, Union here is what the South understood the United States to have been, before the New England states got too much undue representation by population, and started trying to become the be-all and end-all of the entire country!
Union here is not compulsory. It is not intended to be. You don't have to worry about that. If the Confederacy can remember from whence it came, and the collectivism and tyranny that did cause Secession, with all of its undue strictures and hostilities, then they won't have to worry about states leaving them in hostility!
Of course, it is not so effective in dealing with ready-made empires which have unlimited resources, but over time, these little problems can be worked out!
Already, we have a fully volunteer army that they would have been proud of!
If we can shut down this political-correction nonsense, and
and get the Third Line on History I want, we may not have to be "doomed to repeat it!"
There is this real ugly rumour going around that freed blacks were not allowed to live in many of the Northern
states, which is why the Underground Railroad went to Canada, eh?
A lie told by phonies and believed by those who don't know history.
The Underground Railroad went to Canada because of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
I understand that Liberia was where a good number were sent and where a good number died...
I don't have the figures on that right here, but if you got that from your normal sources, my guess is it doesn't bear any resemblence whatsoever to the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
One of the major difficulties I have with all this supposed Northern goodwill towards the 1860's black man
Nobody said there was Northern good will toward the black man. Please stop mischaracterizing my posts.
Anyone who claims it is either naive or dishonest.
Not naive, and you've got the corner on dishonest. The fact is that as Madison tells us, it was the southern states who DEMANDED continuation of the slave trade as the price of Union. Some Northern states were willing to pay the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
It just so happens that the Northern states that voted to continue the Slave Trade were also the ones that profited from it:
As incompetent as ever.
"On August 21 the delegates reached the clauses so dear to General Pinckney and so offensive to [Rufus] King, and lurched into one of the angriest debates of the summer. Except for the fortunate fact that it was also one of the most confused, it might well have become too angry for the arts of compromise to resolve. Although Madison, Hamilton, and others had suggested from the beginning that the real division of the Union, and thus on the floor, was not between large states and small but between North and South, the debate brought on by the South Carolinians did not divide the delegates neatly into two opposing camps.
There were northerners like Johnson and Ellsworth who apparently saw nothing much to worry about in slavery or even the slave trade, southerners like Mason and Madison who were worried sick, and men on both sides who simply wanted to finish the business and go home to their families. While the makings of another endless wrangle like that of June and July were on hand in full supply, on this occasion the necessary compromise was reached in short order. Something had to be done for the deep South, whose spokesmen warned bluntly that the price of union would be too high if it included any threat, open or implied, to its peculiar interests; something also had to be done for the men everywhere in the country who were troubled about slavery on political, social, or moral grounds, and who were loathe to underwrite it in the charter of a republican nation. And so, Rutledge and the Pinckneys having said 'never,' Madison and Luther Martin having inveighed against the evils of slavery, Sherman and Ellsworth having predicted its natural death, and King and Langdon having cautioned against giving the deep South its every last wish, the Convention fell back August 22 upon a favorite technique. It handed to a committee of eleven--Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, Luther Martin, Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinkney, and Baldwin--the 'whole subject' of the slave trade and navigation acts. ... 'If we do not agree on this middle and moderate ground,' Ellsworth added, two states would be lost to the Union, the rest would 'fly into a variety of shapes and directions,' and 'bloodshed' would 'most probably' follow." [Clinton Rossiter, _1787: The Grand Convention,_ pp. 216-217]
Uh, nothing as yet from the Big D! I do not hold out much hope that he will respond. I think it was the crack about comparing him to Satan from UnionBlue that ripped it! (or so he intimated to me). Ahh so he is aware of the site and his claiming otherwise was a lie?
LOVE the Foaming at the Mouth Liberal image. May I use it? Feel free, I don't own it.
Seriously, Collectivism of the Henry Clay variety and his "American System" is a Left Wing ideology that Lincoln adored. That ideology, to my way of thinking, won the War. I see the war crimes thing as Liberalism destroying Conservative political competition in the form of the voters who will still be standing after the war..., and the Radical Republican Liberals as trying to complete the process (you have to read Frank Conner's THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000 for the whole story) of US and THEM that I am accused of harping on... Haven't read it, far too many books ahead of that on my to read list.
In this theory, Lincoln wanted the Sumter incident and he wanted to wrap himself in the flag and, as he had chafed at the Constitution (his whole two years in Congress), he knew that Liberalism (totalitarian collectivism) would only be possible through a long and decisive war. The Federalists and Whigs had been dismal failures before him!
I mean, come on! Hitler supports Lincoln in MEIN KAMPF!
There were at least 50 similarities and parallels between Lincoln and Hitler that I got from the three hours of THE
GESTAPO on History Channel, ranging from Sumter and the Tannenburg Operation through to their deaths by gunshots!
Have you read Mein Kampf? Unfortunately I had to as one of my professors believed that any who read it would know beyond a shadow of doubt that Hitler was mad. Incidently Hitlers mention of the ACW clearly supports the CS, not the US.
To answer your question: This sounds like the US Constitution...
Article VI Section Six: Powers not given to the Confederacy by the states, nor prohibited by them, are retained by the states.
But THIS answers your question!
We, the people, of the Confederate States, EACH ACTING IN ITS SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God - do ordain and establish this constitution for the Confederate States of America.
So, Union here is what the South understood the United States to have been, before the New England states got too much undue representation by population, and started trying to become the be-all and end-all of the entire country!
Union here is not compulsory. It is not intended to be. You don't have to worry about that. If the Confederacy can remember from whence it came, and the collectivism and tyranny that did cause Secession, with all of its undue strictures and hostilities, then they won't have to worry about states leaving them in hostility!
Of course, it is not so effective in dealing with ready-made empires which have unlimited resources, but over time, these little problems can be worked out!
Already, we have a fully volunteer army that they would have been proud of! Actually no, far too many people of color. And it's the US Army today, not the CS. It's also regularly & well paid (relatively speaking)as well as superbly supplied.
If we can shut down this political-correction nonsense, and
and get the Third Line on History I want, we may not have to be "doomed to repeat it!" Actually the more you speak of the third line and quote DiLorenzo I suspect your third line has little to do w/ history.
I have every hope!
Beowulf
I wish a grand education here; I belive you'll learn a lot, whether or not it sticks.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Can you tell me how many the colonization societies shipped to Liberia and how many died as a result?
In 50 years 13,000 people, 260 from the US per year, settled in Liberia. That is less than one per day. All of them volunteered to go. Lincoln himself supported colonization until mid-1862.
"Some 13,000 persons crossed the Atlantic to create new settlements on the Grain Coast of West Africa between 1817 and 1867 with the aid of the American Colonization Society." Americo-Liberian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The formation of the colony did not occur altogether without difficulty. The severe conditions (which included harsh climate and deadly diseases) took a high toll on both settlers and missionaries. Census records indicate that only about half of the 4,571 persons who emigrated under the aegis of the ACS survived during the first 23 years after the first colony was established."
Schick, Tom W. (1980). Behold the Promised Land: A History of Afro-American Settler Society in Nineteenth-Century Liberia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
In 50 years 13,000 people, 260 from the US per year, settled in Liberia. That is less than one per day. All of them volunteered to go. Lincoln himself supported colonization until mid-1862.
"Some 13,000 persons crossed the Atlantic to create new settlements on the Grain Coast of West Africa between 1817 and 1867 with the aid of the American Colonization Society." Americo-Liberian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The formation of the colony did not occur altogether without difficulty. The severe conditions (which included harsh climate and deadly diseases) took a high toll on both settlers and missionaries. Census records indicate that only about half of the 4,571 persons who emigrated under the aegis of the ACS survived during the first 23 years after the first colony was established."
Schick, Tom W. (1980). Behold the Promised Land: A History of Afro-American Settler Society in Nineteenth-Century Liberia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
you have to read Frank Conner's THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000 for the whole story) of US and THEM that I am accused of harping on.
In that case, it's most probably a pack of lies also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
In this theory, Lincoln wanted the Sumter incident and he wanted to wrap himself in the flag and, as he had chafed at the Constitution (his whole two years in Congress), he knew that Liberalism (totalitarian collectivism) would only be possible through a long and decisive war. The Federalists and Whigs had been dismal failures before him!
Ahistorical fantasy only believed by those who know nothing of history.
FYI, Jefferson Davis wanted war a lot more than Lincoln did, and had more to gain from it. He was trying to get the war started at Fort Pickens when the opportunity to start it at Fort Sumter came up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
I mean, come on! Hitler supports Lincoln in MEIN KAMPF!
Godwin's Law. You lose the discussion.
Please cite the page number where Hitler supports Lincoln.
"Since the Civil War, in which the Southern States were conquered, against all historical logic and sound sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. ... The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America." Adolf Hitler. That quote comes from Hermann Rauschning's _Conversations With Hitler._ Rauschning wrote the book based on what Hitler had said in his presence.
Lincoln doesn't appear in it. Not even once. You're repeating a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
There were at least 50 similarities and parallels between Lincoln and Hitler that I got from the three hours of THE
GESTAPO on History Channel, ranging from Sumter and the Tannenburg Operation through to their deaths by gunshots!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
