Did the Secessionists Want War?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
They wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary just had their colonial ancestors fought against the British Motherland for it.

Sic Semper Tyrannus.
The Confederates could have played poker by the rules.

Instead, they upturned the table and blew out the candles.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,004
Location
Laurinburg NC
For those desiring to keep slavery, to force slavery upon the nation and keep their power to continue having their own way over a nation, those were the dire results that brought on civil war.
Spare us a morally play, this was 19th century America.

“Then came the Black Hawk War; and I was elected a Captain of Volunteers - a success which gave me more pleasure than any I have had since.”

Abraham Lincoln, December 20, 1859.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Spare us a morally play, this was 19th century America.

“Then came the Black Hawk War; and I was elected a Captain of Volunteers - a success which gave me more pleasure than any I have had since.”

Abraham Lincoln, December 20, 1859.
You apply the filter too tightly.

All I gave you was the reason secessionists wanted war.
For those desiring to keep slavery, to force slavery upon the nation and keep their power to continue having their own way over a nation, those were the dire results that brought on civil war.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
The Confederate States wanted peace, but not at the price of rejoining Lincoln's union.
IOW, they wanted war more than peace.
They wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary just had their colonial ancestors fought against the British Motherland for it.
Bringing us right back to my post: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

Sic Semper Tyrannus.
"Sic semper tyrannus" means roughly "Thus always to tyrants" and is attributed to Brutus as he participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar, which led to a civil war. If you mean this to apply to the situation of "the South" starting a war against the United States in 1860-61, it would appear you are portraying the Southerners as assassins and rebels.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The South didn't want to be dominated by the North.

No, as it couldn't abide the idea of the majority of citizens deciding their own fate and their relationship to the institution of slavery. Freedom of choice was therefore to be denied via secession and civil war.

The North didn't want to lose their cash cow; ergo, there was no other choice but war.
Even when the Confederacy went to war, the United States lost nothing and continued with a strong economy. The "cotton is king" theory went to the wayside.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,004
Location
Laurinburg NC
Bringing us right back to my post: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.



"Sic semper tyrannus" means roughly "Thus always to tyrants" and is attributed to Brutus as he participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar, which led to a civil war. If you mean this to apply to the situation of "the South" starting a war against the United States in 1860-61, it would appear you are portraying the Southerners as assassins and rebels.
You would be wrong.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,004
Location
Laurinburg NC
Nope. The Confederacy preferred war, as you said, and so they got what they wanted. This gets us right back to my posts you are trying to talk around: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.
The Virginia colonial rebels adopted Sic Semper Tyrannis as their motto in 1776 so by your reckoning in post#72 it was the warmongering Virginians who were first assassins and rebels. Once a tradition is set in place it is not easy to replace.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
The Confederate States wanted peace, but not at the price of rejoining Lincoln's union.
IOW, they wanted war more than peace.
They wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary just had their colonial ancestors fought against the British Motherland for it.
Bringing us right back to my post: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.
You would be wrong.
Nope. The Confederacy preferred war, as you said, and so they got what they wanted. This gets us right back to my posts you are trying to talk around: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.
The Virginia colonial rebels adopted Sic Semper Tyrannis as their motto in 1776 so by your reckoning in post#72 it was the warmongering Virginians who were first assassins and rebels. Once a tradition is set in place it is not easy to replace.
This seems non-responsive to my last-post. You have said that the Confederacy wanted war and I have merely pointed that out: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

In case you really mean to answer only the "Sic Semper Tyranus" part, see next post.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
They wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary just had their colonial ancestors fought against the British Motherland for it.

Sic Semper Tyrannus.
"Sic semper tyrannus" means roughly "Thus always to tyrants" and is attributed to Brutus as he participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar, which led to a civil war. If you mean this to apply to the situation of "the South" starting a war against the United States in 1860-61, it would appear you are portraying the Southerners as assassins and rebels.
You would be wrong.
The Virginia colonial rebels adopted Sic Semper Tyrannis as their motto in 1776 so by your reckoning in post#72 it was the warmongering Virginians who were first assassins and rebels. Once a tradition is set in place it is not easy to replace.
Nope. This isn't my reckoning -- it is your reckoning. Setting up strawmen to attack is merely a diversionary tactic.

You may argue that the 1776 Virginians were rebels who went to war against their King. You are right about that -- it made them Traitors under the law, which they understood. "The South" of 1860-61 are also putting themselves in the position of Traitors under the law, attacking their own country -- if this is what your use of "Sic Semper Tyranus" is intended to mean, you are correct in that use.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
@CSA Today ,

My "precious union" as you call it in your post #75 above, is much more than you imply, much more than you can tear down.

In spite of all it's mistakes, blunders, and obvious errors, it still, and always will, far outstrip the CSA and it's desire for war to continue the practice of chattel slavery.

The obvious fact was that at the mid-19th century, slavery was on the way out for most of the civilized world. Even in the United States by 1860, the North was slowly ridding itself of the institution, hence that historical division of the day, Free States and Slave States.

This is why secessionists wanted war, because they knew to remain in the United States would mean the loss of their power, their positions of leadership within the government and the inability to keep denying people, all the people, of their rights and liberties under the US Constitution.

There is no saving grace with the Confederacy. It was a giant step backwards from the slow and painful forward process the US was taking towards a better future. It's were it now belongs, then and now, on the ash heap of history as a terrible, failed idea.

I morn the men who died for it, but not for it's passing. It deserved to die.

Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top