Confederate War Aims

[unionblue]

Long and short. Independence.

Along with having Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland in with them too. But by 1864 they just wanted the core 11 states, the Indian Territory and Kentucky.

And, as they themselves said, their peculiar institution.

 

[unionblue]

I suppose on your little world the fact Yankees were among the ring leaders during the first war for independence but not the second one makes the first rebellion justifiable but not the second one. In any case, the Confederate Founding Fathers didn't buy the line that they needed Yankee approval to seek their own self-determination.

"The flag which he [my grandfather, Francis Scott Key] had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed."

Francis Key Howard, a prisoner of Lincoln at Fort McHenry, 1861

No, my "little world" as you say above, happens to be the greatest nation on the face of this earth. My disgust is with those who tried to destroy it in the name of preserving human bondage (their words, not mine).

You keep forgetting (or ignoring) it was the majority of the people of the United States (to include a rather large number of Southerners) who did not approve of the attempt at so-called "self determination." It was the exact opposite the Confederacy tried to ignore.

"This is no war of the North against the South--no war of sections. It is a war of the whole Government against an insurrection and usurpation in certain States. It is a war not to "subjugate the South" or the Southern States but to liberate the citizens of those States from that military subjugation under which they are placed by usurpation and intimidation."

Knox, in a letter to Harper's Weekly, June 1, 1861.

 

[unionblue]

You haven't union blue, and you simply won't admit it. If all accepted that secession is unconstitutional, then where is the conviction against Jefferson Davis for treason? And Robert E. Lee? And Alexander Stephens? Davis was arrested and held for two years, and never even brought to trial. If it's so obviously treasonous, why no conviction?

Your proof is little more than pointing to a rotten and corrupt court decision which never even tried the constitutionality of secession anyway. And even at that, the corrupt judge had to use language from the dead Articles of Confederation to find a law of perpetuity. We both know that if such language was in the Constitution, he would have used it. But there isn't so he didn't.

But please, point wherever you like and close your eyes and insist upon whatever you wish to insist upon.

The hard fact is that battlefields can't decide matters of law. Only barbarians and uncivilized brutes decide legalities with guns, bombs, and knives.

And indeed, the results are in. No question about that.

Sovereign States.

@Sovereign States ,

I don't mind you using my own post as a template for reply, as this tactic of yours is pretty predictable now.

The Confederate traitors you mention got off easy because they were all pardoned for their crime of treason, that's why no conviction, plus the fact I believe Lincoln's "Let 'em up easy" sentiment was at least acknowledged by the Government.

My "proof" is not a court ruling, it is the results of the battlefield, which almost all here recognize how the issue of uni-lateral secession was decided and the present reality of a lack of a Confederacy anywhere on the planet Earth.

I insist on the reality of history, which showed, clearly, that the Compact Theory was left in the historical dust of the Constitutional Convention and it's ratification, not by the States, but by people's conventions within those states, which by-passed the State Legislatures. It's a historical fact that cannot be denied.

I'm not closing my own eyes to history, REAL history that has provided me after years of study these facts I mention above.

And the hard fact is that battlefields DO decide matters of Law or are you going to tell me that the Nuremburg Trials decided nothing on international law? Or that the Confederacy won a court case concerning secession?

Whose closing whose eyes to actual history?

I know the sermon will continue and that the faith dare not be challenged, but that is the problem of the followers, not actual students who are trying to learn about actual history.

I and my House will follow the historical evidence and avoid "just believing."

Unionblue

 

[CSA Today]

No, my "little world" as you say above, happens to be the greatest nation on the face of this earth. My disgust is with those who tried to destroy it in the name of preserving human bondage (their words, not mine).

You keep forgetting (or ignoring) it was the majority of the people of the United States (to include a rather large number of Southerners) who did not approve of the attempt at so-called "self determination." It was the exact opposite the Confederacy tried to ignore.

"This is no war of the North against the South--no war of sections. It is a war of the whole Government against an insurrection and usurpation in certain States. It is a war not to "subjugate the South" or the Southern States but to liberate the citizens of those States from that military subjugation under which they are placed by usurpation and intimidation."

Knox, in a letter to Harper's Weekly, June 1, 1861.

The majority of the people of Great Britain (to include a rather large number of loyal colonists) did not approve of the attempt at so-called self-determination. You haven't said one cotton-picking thing loyal people didn't say or feel in 1776. The 1776 secessionists didn't seek anybody's approval, neither did the patriots of 1860-1861.

"The flag which he [my grandfather, Francis Scott Key] had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed."

Francis Key Howard, a prisoner of Lincoln at Fort McHenry, 1861

 

[PapaReb]

Victory on the battlefield determines who writes the history but it does not determine between right and wrong. Many a martyr has perished in the flames for the right at the hands of the wrong.

 

[GwilymT]

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

yet the CSA doesn't exist and lost, no matter how much modern day neo-confederate snowflakes wish otherwise.

 

[PapaReb]

yet the CSA doesn't exist and lost, no matter how much modern day neo-confederate snowflakes wish otherwise.

Many nations throughout history have been conquered, that does not make it "right" or "just".

 

[Desert Kid]

yet the CSA doesn't exist and lost, no matter how much modern day neo-confederate snowflakes wish otherwise.

Neo-Confederates? I for one don't want another secession or outbreak of civil violence, but people like me aren't the ones agitating for it.

"Snowflake" also denotes that one thinks that they are unique and special, I have yet to see "Neo-Confederates" banty about using pronouns.

 

[unionblue]

Victory on the battlefield determines who writes the history but it does not determine between right and wrong. Many a martyr has perished in the flames for the right at the hands of the wrong.

History determines what actually happened, not what we wish should have happened.

It is for us to determine the right and wrong from history by learning it, not by preaching a version of our own opinions.

 

[unionblue]

The majority of the people of Great Britain (to include a rather large number of loyal colonists) did not approve of the attempt at so-called self-determination. You haven't said one cotton-picking thing loyal people didn't say or feel in 1776. The 1776 secessionists didn't seek anybody's approval, neither did the patriots of 1860-1861.

"The flag which he [my grandfather, Francis Scott Key] had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed."

Francis Key Howard, a prisoner of Lincoln at Fort McHenry, 1861

Not buying into the self-inflicted label of "secessionists" for the revolutionaries of 1776.

Estimates of colonial support range from one third for the revolution, one third against, and one third sitting on the side lines to see which cause won.

The numbers of those for and against secession and the continuation of slavery far outnumber those who wanted to keep it and be part of a rebellion against their country.

And get the reversal of labels right. Patriots of 1776 and the rebels of 1860-1861.

"I must say I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession."

Robert E. Lee.

 

[CSA Today]

Not buying into the self-inflicted label of "secessionists" for the revolutionaries of 1776.

Estimates of colonial support range from one third for the revolution, one third against, and one third sitting on the side lines to see which cause won.

The numbers of those for and against secession and the continuation of slavery far outnumber those who wanted to keep it and be part of a rebellion against their country.

And get the reversal of labels right. Patriots of 1776 and the rebels of 1860-1861.

"I must say I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession."

Robert E. Lee.

Quite frankly, I was a bit astonished at the number of Northern signers of the US Constitution who were slave owners or in some way profited from the African slave trade. The only difference between the Yankee and just about everybody else is their self-righteousness and hypocrisy. President Davis got it right when he said:
"Our enemies are a traditionless, homeless race. From the days of Cromwell to the present day they have been the disturbers of the peace of the world...After what has happened the last two years, my only wonder is how we consented to live for so long with such miscreants. Were it ever prosed to enter again into a Union with such a people, I could no more consent to it than to trust myself in a den of thieves."
Jefferson Davis [26 December 1862]

 

[unionblue]

Quite frankly, I was a bit astonished at the number of Northern signers of the US Constitution who were slave owners or in some way profited from the African slave trade. The only difference between the Yankee and just about everybody else is their self-righteousness and hypocrisy. President Davis got it right when he said:
"Our enemies are a traditionless, homeless race. From the days of Cromwell to the present day they have been the disturbers of the peace of the world...After what has happened the last two years, my only wonder is how we consented to live for so long with such miscreants. Were it ever prosed to enter again into a Union with such a people, I could no more consent to it than to trust myself in a den of thieves."
Jefferson Davis [26 December 1862]

President Davis was a liar in a liar's cause quoting from a false assumption to further the effect of his big lie.

How anyone who can actually read the history of their country and then rely on such a quote by this man is almost funny if it wasn't so tragic. Those who do accept such nonsense should be more inclined to listen to Sam Huston.

"...the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they move in a given direction...they move with a steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche."

Cromwell is from another continent and another time and is a poor example with no meaning to 19th century Americans bent on preserving their nation.

Mislabeling does not offer objective measures to a misconstrued rebellion, it's empty words with no meaning, resulting in terrible results for those who believe such nonsense.

Unionblue

 

[DanSBHawk]

"Our enemies are a traditionless, homeless race. From the days of Cromwell to the present day they have been the disturbers of the peace of the world...After what has happened the last two years, my only wonder is how we consented to live for so long with such miscreants. Were it ever prosed to enter again into a Union with such a people, I could no more consent to it than to trust myself in a den of thieves."
Jefferson Davis [26 December 1862]

Considering how he felt, it's too bad he didn't have the courage to take the Edmund Ruffin way out after losing the war.

 

[CSA Today]

President Davis was a liar in a liar's cause quoting from a false assumption to further the effect of his big lie.

How anyone who can actually read the history of their country and then rely on such a quote by this man is almost funny if it wasn't so tragic. Those who do accept such nonsense should be more inclined to listen to Sam Huston.

"...the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they move in a given direction...they move with a steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche."

Cromwell is from another continent and another time and is a poor example with no meaning to 19th century Americans bent on preserving their nation.

Mislabeling does not offer objective measures to a misconstrued rebellion, it's empty words with no meaning, resulting in terrible results for those who believe such nonsense.

Unionblue

Then why didn't the Yankee rabble-rousers rise up to defend the old union under his majesty, King George III?

Yankee Doodle was a fool and everybody knew it stuck a bugle *****************************************.

A fondly remembered ditty from my navy days.

 

[CSA Today]

Considering how he felt, it's too bad he didn't have the courage to take the Edmund Ruffin way out after losing the war.

?

 

[unionblue]

Then why didn't the Yankee rabble-rousers rise up to defend the old union under his majesty, King George III?

Yankee Doodle was a fool and everybody knew it stuck a bugle *****************************************.

A fondly remembered ditty from my navy days.

Really?

You need ME to teach you about the causes of the American Revolution on CivilWarTalk?

 

[CSA Today]

Really?

You need ME to teach you about the causes of the American Revolution on CivilWarTalk?

 

[CSA Today]

Thanks, but I got the talk from Dr. Robert Ramsay in graduate school.

 

[Rebforever]

Neo-Confederates? I for one don't want another secession or outbreak of civil violence, but people like me aren't the ones agitating for it.

"Snowflake" also denotes that one thinks that they are unique and special, I have yet to see "Neo-Confederates" banty about using pronouns.

Well maybe we need to use "TOV " again seeing as how some like to throw out names.

 

[atlantis]

Confederate war aims were not realistic as the confederates did not have the means to defend every inch of territory and defending the territory of the CSA is the war aim of the commander in chief Davis.