Confederate War Aims

[uaskme]

The Confederacy official declared that its goal for any resolution of the war was to include Maryland in the CSA (as well as Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona). This would put DC in CSA territory.

They were Southern States. AZ had a Southern Population. So, why would the Confederacy not include them?

in the end, the Federal Government used force to retain these States. KY and MO are treated as Southerns. Both had large populations that had alliances with the South. And fought for the Confederacy.

Confederacy knew some midwestern states might latter join them. A better deal, why not. Free Country, Ideally?

 

[unionblue]

Confederates simply wanted political independence, just as the secessionists of 1776 did. That was it. Had they been left undisturbed, no war would have occurred.

The United States government explicitly declared their intention to deliberately violate the territorial integrity of the Confederate States. Accordingly, it was impossible for the CSA not to defend themselves. The United States desperately wanted war.

There were no secessionists in 1776, only rebels, hence that annoying title, "The Revolution of 1776."

The Confederacy, even before the firing on Ft. Sumter, had already committed numerous war-like acts, while the US did nothing for months in the face of such aggressions. The reverse is true in that the United States finally had to defend itself from an illegal rebellion.

There was no "territorial integrity of the Confederate States" a claim never recognized by any other nation on the planet at the time. The Confederacy was considered an area in rebellion much to the frustration of Davis and other rebel leaders. It got so desperate for foreign recognition that it finally expelled all British counsels because England would not offer sovereign recognition to them.

What you really had was a bunch of arrogant slaveholders leading a region of the United States in order to protect, defend, even expand, slavery in the face of a newly elected Republican administration, whom they feared would interfere with that institution.

The Constitution and a free and fair election meant nothing to them, so we can dispense with the fantasy they were doing such treason by way of the Constitution.

This was a rebellion, illegal and ill considered, and doomed to failure and it's results are exactly where they should be.

On the ash heap of history.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

They were Southern States. AZ had a Southern Population. So, why would the Confederacy not include them?

in the end, the Federal Government used force to retain these States. KY and MO are treated as Southerns. Both had large populations that had alliances with the South. And fought for the Confederacy.

Confederacy knew some midwestern states might latter join them. A better deal, why not. Free Country, Ideally?

So, AZ had no States Rights to decide for themselves if they wanted to be in the Confederacy or not?

So, if you agree force was necessary for the Confederacy to obtain these above mentioned states, wouldn't the Union have the same right of force in necessity to keep them?

A better deal? To force a "Free Country?"

"Ideally?"

The Confederacy was a historical, dead-end tunnel, that offered no freedom to blacks or poor whites. It now occupies the best position it ever could in it's short life in history.

A bad example.

Unionblue

 

[Rebforever]

So Lincoln was a member in the CSA congress when it ordered that force should be used at to take that US fort on US soil?
Or was he in Charleston manning csa cannons?
Or did he give the order that they would not wait for two days until the fort ran out of food?


And if he wanted a war, why did he not prepare for it?
Every single US army infantry company was west of the Mississippi when the csa attack fort Sumter.

You may be interested in reading the Charleston OR's.
That lays it out pretty good who started the War for Southern Independence.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Ft. Sumter was a fort on the soil of the Confederate States of America.

Except it wasnt.
So no facts presented here.

 

[NedBaldwin]

They were Southern States. AZ had a Southern Population. So, why would the Confederacy not include them?

Southern population... oh you mean slaves right?
Otherwise Maryland's population was more similar to PA than to Alabama

in the end, the Federal Government used force to retain these States.

Confederates used force to try to take them and to hold on to their own people.

Confederacy knew some midwestern states might latter join them.

Funniest thing I have ever seen on this forum

A better deal, why not. Free Country, Ideally?

CSa was never a free country, never would be.
This is getting to be like George Orwell's 1984 now

 

[Rebforever]

So Lincoln was a member in the CSA congress when it ordered that force should be used at to take that US fort on US soil?
Or was he in Charleston manning csa cannons?
Or did he give the order that they would not wait for two days until the fort ran out of food?


And if he wanted a war, why did he not prepare for it?
Every single US army infantry company was west of the Mississippi when the csa attack fort Sumter.

Lincoln ordered a flotilla of war ships and 200 soldiers on board to attack South Carolina. He had enough there to start the war.

 

[NedBaldwin]

The United States government explicitly declared their intention to deliberately violate the territorial integrity of the Confederate States. Accordingly, it was impossible for the CSA not to defend themselves. The United States desperately wanted war.

The existence of the CSA violated the territorial integrity of the USA
the CSA needed war to even exist

 

[uaskme]

So, AZ had no States Rights to decide for themselves if they wanted to be in the Confederacy or not?

So, if you agree force was necessary for the Confederacy to obtain these above mentioned states, wouldn't the Union have the same right of force in necessity to keep them?

A better deal? To force a "Free Country?"

"Ideally?"

The Confederacy was a historical, dead-end tunnel, that offered no freedom to blacks or poor whites. It now occupies the best position it ever could in it's short life in history.

A bad example.

Unionblue

Must not have your reading glasses on. I said the Federal Government ultimately forced these States to stay in the Union, not the Confederacy. So, you should be able to understand why it was a "bad example", your words not mine, to force a State to do something the didn't want to do.

Yes, the Yankee was afraid more States would be attempted to leave the Union. Lower Tariff Rates for instance had NYC in a panic. South would not had to Force someone to join. Being a Free County, they should of been able to do as they pleased. The Yankee wasn't going to take that chance.

Again you attempt to twist my words into some alternate superfluous meaning.

As far as being Racist? The North was just as Racist and far more Obnoxious than the South. I wouldn't trade places.

 

[unionblue]

Must not have your reading glasses on. I said the Federal Government ultimately forced these States to stay in the Union, not the Confederacy. So, you should be able to understand why it was a "bad example", your words not mine, to force a State to do something the didn't want to do.

Yes, the Yankee was afraid more States would be attempted to leave the Union. Lower Tariff Rates for instance had NYC in a panic. South would not had to Force someone to join. Being a Free County, they should of been able to do as they pleased. The Yankee wasn't going to take that chance.

Again you attempt to twist my words into some alternate superfluous meaning.

As far as being Racist? The North was just as Racist and far more Obnoxious than the South. I wouldn't trade places.

They were Southern States. AZ had a Southern Population. So, why would the Confederacy not include them?

in the end, the Federal Government used force to retain these States. KY and MO are treated as Southerns. Both had large populations that had alliances with the South. And fought for the Confederacy.

Confederacy knew some midwestern states might latter join them. A better deal, why not. Free Country, Ideally?

It's tough to read implications sometimes in another's post, but I have to confess, my reading of history tells of the Confederacy trying to acquire AZ with military force incursions into the State. Surely your not suggesting that Confederate forces received a warm welcome there or in Maryland, Kentucky, etc? Unless you think the word "include" only means by invitation.

If you meant such, my bad.

If we both go by the historical record, not so much.

 

[unionblue]

You may be interested in reading the Charleston OR's.
That lays it out pretty good who started the War for Southern Independence.

South Carolina?

You know, the ones with the thousands of troops and the bunch of cannons?

WHO FIRED FIRST.

 

[uaskme]

It's tough to read implications sometimes in another's post, but I have to confess, my reading of history tells of the Confederacy trying to acquire AZ with military force incursions into the State. Surely your not suggesting that Confederate forces received a warm welcome there or in Maryland, Kentucky, etc? Unless you think the word "include" only means by invitation.

If you meant such, my bad.

If we both go by the historical record, not so much.

Yankees had more military forces and were able to control those states. They pledge independence. Yankees stole the ballot boxes in Maryland, occupied KY and MO. Show us where KY and MO voted to be occupied.

 

[unionblue]

Yankees had more military forces and were able to control those states. They pledge independence. Yankees stole the ballot boxes in Maryland, occupied KY and MO. Show us where KY and MO voted to be occupied.

Lack of manpower and the Confederate lack thereof, not the desire.

If they would have been able, they would have and they did try in AZ.

And as I recall from that pesky reading of history, there were armed Confederates at polling stations in various seceding states discouraging votes against secession.

"Let he who is without armed soldiers at the polls cast the first stone."

It's in the Bible somewhere.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

Good grief!

Really? The lengths one must go to approve of a rebellion, a right to unilateral, unconstitutional secession for the United States, has more twists and turns in such fairy tales as to remind one of a snake with a broken back.

"Penance for the impropriety of their ancestors" indeed.

Next will be the excuse of time travelers from the future or aliens from other planets spreading the cause of secession.

That argument is almost as bad as the guy on here (now thankfully banned) that kept claiming America isn't really a country.

 

[Sovereign States]

Except it wasnt.
So no facts presented here.

Except it was. So no facts presented here. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.

 

[Sovereign States]

The existence of the CSA violated the territorial integrity of the USA
the CSA needed war to even exist

The existence of the USA violated the territorial integrity of the CSA. The USA needed war for it to exist; hence the slave-owners rebellion of 1776.

 

[Sovereign States]

There were no secessionists in 1776, only rebels, hence that annoying title, "The Revolution of 1776."

The Confederacy, even before the firing on Ft. Sumter, had already committed numerous war-like acts, while the US did nothing for months in the face of such aggressions. The reverse is true in that the United States finally had to defend itself from an illegal rebellion.

There was no "territorial integrity of the Confederate States" a claim never recognized by any other nation on the planet at the time. The Confederacy was considered an area in rebellion much to the frustration of Davis and other rebel leaders. It got so desperate for foreign recognition that it finally expelled all British counsels because England would not offer sovereign recognition to them.

What you really had was a bunch of arrogant slaveholders leading a region of the United States in order to protect, defend, even expand, slavery in the face of a newly elected Republican administration, whom they feared would interfere with that institution.

The Constitution and a free and fair election meant nothing to them, so we can dispense with the fantasy they were doing such treason by way of the Constitution.

This was a rebellion, illegal and ill considered, and doomed to failure and it's results are exactly where they should be.

On the ash heap of history.

Unionblue

Titles huh? How about "The Slave-owners rebellion of 1776"? Here's another one; "The War of the Rebellion". Pretty much crushes the idea that the war was fought over "slavery".

And the territorial integrity of the CSA was real enough that it cost the United States 350,000 of its best to claim it.

What you really had in the U.S. circa 1860 was a violent and rapacious bunch of slavers, and a greedy, grasping bunch of ****s.

The Constitution was a voluntary compact between states, not a tool for a quasi-literate tyrant to invoke death and destruction over two countries.

This was a lawful and peaceful political secession. Nothing else.

And yes, John Wilkes Boothe made a deposit on the ash heap of history.

Two can play.

Sovereign States

 

[Sovereign States]

South Carolina's withdrawal from the Union was not done "under the Constitution" as the Constitution does not speak on the issue of secession. Thus, to hold that Ft. Sumter was a fort on "Confederate soil" requires a leap of faith by asserting that states had an unquestioned legal right to secede and moreover, to gain automatic possession of federal (not state), facilities within their borders. This theory was tested and discredited after 4 years of war that resulted in the loss of over 700,000 lives.

South Carolina's secession from the Union was done "under the Constitution" as the Constitution does not prohibit secession. Thus, asserting the U.S. had a lawful claim to hold and occupy Ft. Sumter requires a suspension of belief, international law, and common sense. And legal and political theories are not tested by war. They are tested by more civilized and less barbaric methodologies.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

South Carolina's secession from the Union was done "under the Constitution" as the Constitution does not prohibit secession. Thus, asserting the U.S. had a lawful claim to hold and occupy Ft. Sumter requires a suspension of belief, international law, and common sense. And legal and political theories are not tested by war. They are tested by more civilized and less barbaric methodologies.

There is no procedure for secession in the constitution, therefore South Carolina did not use the constitution to secede. In fact every antebellum Supreme Court case that touched on the nature of the constitution shows that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court cases for and against secession | Additional Discussion on Secession

I am creating this thread as a companion piece to my thread; https://civilwartalk.com/threads/did-lincoln-follow-precedents-set-by-previous-presidents-when-dealing-with-the-secession-rebellion-of-the-southern-states.169547/ Here I'm looking for any evidence from supreme court cases, either as...

civilwartalk.com

Here a link to get you up to speed, though I have a feeling you might have been here before.

 

[Sovereign States]

There is no procedure for secession in the constitution, therefore South Carolina did not use the constitution to secede. In fact every antebellum Supreme Court case that touched on the nature of the constitution shows that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court cases for and against secession | Additional Discussion on Secession

I am creating this thread as a companion piece to my thread; https://civilwartalk.com/threads/did-lincoln-follow-precedents-set-by-previous-presidents-when-dealing-with-the-secession-rebellion-of-the-southern-states.169547/ Here I'm looking for any evidence from supreme court cases, either as...

civilwartalk.com

Here a link to get you up to speed, though I have a feeling you might have been here before.

Here's a link to get you up to speed on the laws against secession:

About this Collection | A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774, America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings. The records of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the United States Congress make up a rich documentary history of the construction of the...

memory.loc.gov

You can look, and look, and look, and look, but you will find no statute which announces secession to be illegal. Check for yourself.