the stars and bars

#51
#51
melissa hyberger said:
if im not mistaken the true flag of the confederacy still proudly flies over the state capital of alabama. the union invaded a separate nation at the battle of bulls run. Lincoln knew what he was doing when he forced the south carolina army to fire on sumpter. that war was fought because of a few jealous yankee politicians who were upset about the southern agriculture trade with england. it had nothing to do with slavery.
Click to expand...
Lincoln forced the South Carolina militia to fire on Ft. Sumter? I am extremely anxious to see how you explain this one...
 
#52
#52
It is mind boggling to think the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

The war was brewing for over 50 years because the talk of slavery and its expansion in the states.

Talk about denial.
 
#53
#53
OrangeEmpire said:
It is mind boggling to think the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

The war was brewing for over 50 years because the talk of slavery and its expansion in the states.

Talk about denial.
Click to expand...
It is more than denial. Denial would be to concede that the Civil War had everything to do with slavery, however, the Mexican War and "Bleeding Kansas" did not.

Yes, this had been brewing since 1820. The main focus of the debate/aggression...slavery!
 
#54
#54
if it was all about slavery then what year was it that lincoln signed the bill to free the slaves? lets see the war started in 1860 and i believe the bill was signed be lincoln 3yrs. later. the only reason the bill was even introduced by lincoln in the first place was because so many yankee troops were deserting and going back home. they didnt even know what the hell they were fighting for. the abolitionist movenment cannot be used for the reason the war started. most abolititionist supporters were looked upon as fanatics up north. like i said before robert e. lee, and stonewall jackson both abored slavery. they fought for their state and the protection of states rights which by the way is in the constitution. why do you think bush could not send federal troops to louisiana during katrina? it would have violated that states rights. only the governor of a state can request that federal troops be allowed in his or her state.
 
#55
#55
melissa hyberger said:
if it was all about slavery then what year was it that lincoln signed the bill to free the slaves? lets see the war started in 1860 and i believe the bill was signed be lincoln 3yrs. later. the only reason the bill was even introduced by lincoln in the first place was because so many yankee troops were deserting and going back home. they didnt even know what the hell they were fighting for. the abolitionist movenment cannot be used for the reason the war started. most abolititionist supporters were looked upon as fanatics up north. like i said before robert e. lee, and stonewall jackson both abored slavery. they fought for their state and the protection of states rights which by the way is in the constitution. why do you think bush could not send federal troops to louisiana during katrina? it would have violated that states rights. only the governor of a state can request that federal troops be allowed in his or her state.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that the Governor of Georgia could kick soldiers out of Ft. Benning, Ft. Stuart, Ft. Gordon, and Hunter Air Field, not to mention the Airmen, Sailors, and Marines that call Georgia home, and the Federal Government could do nothing about it???

Negative.
 
#56
#56
CSpindizzy said:
Brings up a new point....is secession legal? Constitutional?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, all of the states of the CSA renounced their articles of secession as a condition for readmittance into the USA. There is a scholarly debate whether secession, as a fundamental remedy, can ever be effectively renounced. IMO, probably not but that is speaking in a strictly theoretical sense.

When you read the TN articles they certainy sound reasonable enough...
Tennessee

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND ORDINANCE dissolving the federal relations between the State of Tennessee and the United States of America.
First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Second. We furthermore declare and ordain that article 10, sections 1 and 2, of the constitution of the State of Tennessee, which requires members of the General Assembly and all officers, civil and military, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, abrogated and annulled, and all parts of the constitution of the State of Tennessee making citizenship of the United States a qualification for office and recognizing the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of this State are in like manner abrogated and annulled.
Third. We furthermore ordain and declare that all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, or under any laws of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

OrangeEmpire said:
It is mind boggling to think the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
Click to expand...
therealUT said:
The main focus of the debate/aggression...slavery!
Click to expand...
I agree with you both.
 
#57
#57
melissa hyberger said:
if it was all about slavery then what year was it that lincoln signed the bill to free the slaves? lets see the war started in 1860 and i believe the bill was signed be lincoln 3yrs. later. the only reason the bill was even introduced by lincoln in the first place was because so many yankee troops were deserting and going back home. they didnt even know what the hell they were fighting for. the abolitionist movenment cannot be used for the reason the war started. most abolititionist supporters were looked upon as fanatics up north. like i said before robert e. lee, and stonewall jackson both abored slavery. they fought for their state and the protection of states rights which by the way is in the constitution. why do you think bush could not send federal troops to louisiana during katrina? it would have violated that states rights. only the governor of a state can request that federal troops be allowed in his or her state.
Click to expand...
The emancipation proclamation was a stroke of political genius. It ensured that no foreign intervention would come for the south.

Oh, brother here we go with states rights.

What was the states rights debate all about?

YOU GOT IT! SLAVERY!
 
#58
#58
Indeed. If any states had any real "states rights" reason to secede it would have been the highly industrial states seceding in 1887 at the passage of the Commerce Act...

Seceding because you truly believe that you have the Constitutional right to treat and trade men, who have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever, as animals and beasts...yeah, that just doesn't cut it as an honorable and worthy cause.
 
#65
#65
most soldiers in the southern army did not even have a clue what a black man looked like. my family were from the mountains (pruden tn.) and were coal miners. half the southern army couldnt even afford proper shoes. the war started over a few politicians who were angry of the fact that southern farmers were making so much money with england and france from agruculture. slave labor was well on it way out the door because of the invention of the cotton gin. the northern industry was no better in its treatment of its factory workers which were mostly irish, and german than the south was to its slaves. just like politics of today, slavery was a politicaly correct argument to use against the southern states. but lincoln did not even try to free the slaves until nearly 3yrs into the war. less than 10% of the southern people even had enough money to own a slave.
 
#66
#66
melissa hyberger said:
most soldiers in the southern army did not even have a clue what a black man looked like. my family were from the mountains (pruden tn.) and were coal miners. half the southern army couldnt even afford proper shoes. the war started over a few politicians who were angry of the fact that southern farmers were making so much money with england and france from agruculture. slave labor was well on it way out the door because of the invention of the cotton gin. the northern industry was no better in its treatment of its factory workers which were mostly irish, and german than the south was to its slaves. just like politics of today, slavery was a politicaly correct argument to use against the southern states. but lincoln did not even try to free the slaves until nearly 3yrs into the war. less than 10% of the southern people even had enough money to own a slave.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying the cause of the Civil War was: poor Southerners were willing to fight and die so that rich Southern plantation owners could continue to make loads of money.

Thank you so very much for your insight. It is all so abundantly clear now...
 
#67
#67
Also, you do understand that the Cotton Gin was invented in 1794...the Civil War started in 1861!?!?

Also, the Cotton Gin does not in any way reduce the need for slaves. The Gin did not pick cotton, it simply seperated the seeds from the cotton balls.
 
#68
#68
therealUT said:
So, you are saying the cause of the Civil War was: poor Southerners were willing to fight and die so that rich Southern plantation owners could continue to make loads of money.Thank you so very much for your insight. It is all so abundantly clear now...
Click to expand...
There was definitely a component of perceived opportunity for upward mobility ingrained in the psyche of most white southerners. People whose families never owned slaves could a least aspire to joining the planter aristocracy.
 
#69
#69
Which, of course, leads right back to the main point of contention leading to the Civil War: slavery.
 
#70
#70
Slavery was an issue even before the Revolution. Jump ahead to the formation of the Constitution. Most of it would not be agreed upon unless slavery was mentioned and actually listed to be considered a right. Southern leaders would hold the meetings hostage unless their way of life was guaranteed. Look at the entry of the new states from that point on. You had to have a free and a slave state.

Here is another item. Read Alexander H. Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. He himself, a leader of the Confederacy, lists slavery as the key issue in the matter. Read the constitution of the CSA. The main item differing from the US Constitution? Soldifying the legality of slavery and this way of life.

Southern leadership were the landowning class possessing slaves. Their entire estates and value were in slaves. The GOP was elected in 1860 and their primary issue was abolition. Once Lincoln was elected, those slave owners became nervous their entire portfolio would be wiped out. So they acted.
 
#71
#71
come on therealUT. most southerners fought because their homes were being invaded by a foreign army. i know you have to be an educated man i can tell by the way you respond. but in the south it was not even referred to as a civil war. it was called the war of the northern aggression. heck as embarrasing as it may sound the beverly hillbillies was not far off from the truth about how most southerners lived. slaves ranged from 2000, to 3000 dollars a piece. the majority of southerners did not have that kind of money. if the yankees had cared so much about the sanctity of human life they wouldnt have been sending troops out west to kill the indians. in fact they were purposely infecting blankets with smallpox trying to secretly wipe out as many indians as they could. the abolishment of slavery was nothing but a politicaly correct move on the governments part.
 
#72
#72
How many rushed to sign up before any Union soldiers even crossed into the south? Secession and the call for forming an army came much sooner than the south was invaded.

As for the blankets infected with smallpox, both sides used that as a tactic. Many retreating Confederate units even poisoned wells.

As for Indians and their removal, I seem to recall a southern President at the behest of many southern farmers 'requiring' Indians in the south be removed to western land.

Again, the whole slavery issue almost kept this nation from coming together and forming a Constitution. Jefferson called it a necessary evil....one he didn't mind having sexual relations multiple times with his piece of property.

Most people in the south grew up on the notion taught to them by the educated elite that 'states' rights' was noble even if states' rights for the most part was a code phrase for protecting their way oflife. You can look at the south and see England or quite a bit of Europe in the same period. Landowning educated elite controlling government and trade while the common man just wanted to be left alone on his small plot. As for slaves in the south, it was the only way to really get ahead. If you were poor and wanted to move up the ladder, you bought a slave and progressed up. To protect that way of life or that potential way of life, many went to war.
 
#73
#73
...and why did that 'foreign army' invade? Oh yes, an act of war by the State Militia of South Carolina, then acts of war by several other states declaring their allegiance to an enemy state.
 
#74
#74
Confiscation of US property? I seem to recall several federal posts were seized along with US materiel. So in legal terms, the South invaded the US.
 
#75
#75
CSpindizzy said:
Confiscation of US property? I seem to recall several federal posts were seized along with US materiel. So in legal terms, the South invaded the US.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to convince Melissa of this for the past day and a half...I pass the baton to you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top