The US Civil War

[The Dominion Of The Corn]

The Confederacy was allowed to rebel and try to overthrow a government they saw as tyrannical. It's our natural, unalienable right as Americans, nay, our basic duty as men to deny a tyrannical government the ability to govern any further. Not only was their action to rebel and attempt to overthrow perfectly legal, it also had precedent. 1776. Calling them treasonous rebels is incorrect. They were the most patriotic Americans of the time.

The hell they were. They betrayed the Union in order to defend an outmoded and immoral institution. The US government under Lincoln was in no way tyrannical. The south brought it upon themselves by having a split democratic running in the election, which made them end up losing. In 1776 they were ruled by a monarchy and sought freedom, but in 1861 they only sought oppression for slaves and division of the Union.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So they didn't even have the excuse of thinking that it was a good idea. They did it because someone else thought that it was a good idea, and told them to fight for it.

I actually have (Very Few) surviving letters from my family at that time. In the 1860s, most of my family were native to South Carolina. been there since before the Revolution. Farmers, and judging from the letters and what other information I had gathered somewhat well off. They were not poor, but they were not Plantation Barons either.

The general attitude of the letters from a Nathaniel W. and his several cousins and brothers were that they desired to defend their homes and family. Slavery was hardly mentioned at all. Most signed up after the attack on Fort Sumter from the dates. I feel like that is the largest reason why most southerners fought. They were defending the lands they grew up upon, and had no inclination to either fight against it or sit idle while (Who they considered) foreign armies ravaged it.

Cant say I would have done anything differently.

They weren't defending the lands that they grew up on. They were attacking the rightful government of those lands.

[Conserative Morality]

I support the Union, because slavery is morally wrong. Simple as that.

The Union used slavery as an excuse, undeniably. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territories recaptured by the Union Armies. The border states still had slavery under the Union's rule. It was merely not-so-honest Abe playing political games and taking advantage of the public sentiment.

The war was not about slavery to anyone other than romanticist history books and the opinions of the northern public who had no idea what was going on in the war.

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

I own a confederate battle flag and in no way do I support them. Thoughts on this pleas?

Collecting memorabilia or replicas from either side isn't wrong or anything like that.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

I had at least four family members fight for the Confederates during the war and I have no shame for that

I had a relative who was an artillery an in an Maryland regiment.

He got kicked in the groin by a horse. The proceeded to make babies like nothing happened.

....

[The Black Forrest]

My opinion?

This topic is just like herpes. Keeps coming back.....

[Anglo-California]

Rest assured they'd be kicking it in Liberia if Lincoln lived.

Considering that the presidency isn't all that powerful when it comes to huge legislative acts like that, that Johnson was far less friendly to African-Americans than Lincoln, and that the ultra-liberal Radical Republicans controlled congress at the end of the war?

Nah.

Had the Civil War not occurred (to get this, Jackson would have to burn South Carolina to the ground in the 1830s), that's most likely how the slavery dispute would have been resolved.

Anyways, many radicals did support the idea of recolonization, or at least black independence from America. John Brown did.

And are you implying that recolonization is somehow worse than them living under the Johnson administration?

[Conserative Morality]

They were asked to fight for their states and the South, and they did.

They were also asked to fight for their country and their Union, but they didn't.

[-The West Coast-]

The Confederacy was allowed to rebel and try to overthrow a government they saw as tyrannical. It's our natural, unalienable right as Americans, nay, our basic duty as men to deny a tyrannical government the ability to govern any further. Not only was their action to rebel and attempt to overthrow perfectly legal, it also had precedent. 1776. Calling them treasonous rebels is incorrect. They were the most patriotic Americans of the time.

It's only tyrannical when it's not one of your guys. They were beaten. Time to move on.

Right. The Confederacy was beaten in gentleman's combat. We shouldn't forget it though, just because they lost, or move on from the second most important occurrence in the United States. It shaped her future, it shaped her government, and it shaped her people. The Southern Cause for Independence should not be forgotten, or ignored or pushed aside as simple, treasonous rebellion. It was a modern effort that effected the entire modern world of the time.

[Jumalariik]

The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star;
While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

How did you all get Roman Legionare smilies?

[The New Sea Territory]

The Confederacy was allowed to rebel and try to overthrow a government they saw as tyrannical.

...and replace it with a equally tyrannical government that merely shifted it's subjugation onto a specific group of people.

It's our natural, unalienable right as Americans,

Take your nationalism and bury beneath the hundreds of thousands that died during the War.

nay, our basic duty as men to deny a tyrannical government the ability to govern any further.

Shouldn't all governments be denied then, at some point in their existence?

Not only was their action to rebel and attempt to overthrow perfectly legal, it also had precedent. 1776.

It was legal because there was no law stating anything about it, making it de facto "legal". Nothing more.

Calling them treasonous rebels is incorrect. They were the most patriotic Americans of the time.

Their patriotism makes them worse as human beings. Those who use patriotism to justify enslaving an entire group of people and starting a war that killed 620,000 people are despicable.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The Confederacy was allowed to rebel and try to overthrow a government they saw as tyrannical. It's our natural, unalienable right as Americans, nay, our basic duty as men to deny a tyrannical government the ability to govern any further. Not only was their action to rebel and attempt to overthrow perfectly legal, it also had precedent. 1776. Calling them treasonous rebels is incorrect. They were the most patriotic Americans of the time.

1. No, they weren't.
2. Yes. That's why we have elections.
3. It was not legal. There is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to do such a thing.
4. No, they weren't. They were traitors, much as the Founding Fathers were. Of course, the Founding Fathers, unlike modern Confederate apologists, had the balls to own the term. "If this be treason, make the most of it!"

[Udinia]

Both sides had legitimate reasons for their actions, but both also were full of shit, in my opinion. Of course, as a Southerner, I tend to sympathize with the CSA to an extent. I by no means agree with slavery, however, the Union and Lincoln are unjustly romanticized in history as some sort of righteous defenders of "freedom". Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than propaganda to rouse the Union into a spirit of war, and appeal to its liberal sentiments.


Oh yeah and before anyone tries implying I have some sort of "white chauvinism" or whatever, let me set one thing straight....I'm not white.

So what are we supposed to sympathize with the South for?

I sympathize with the South's struggle for self-determination, as a sort of second American Revolution, in a sense. If a people no longer feel their interests are being supported, they should revolt. After all the North did dominate the federal government at the time, and purposely pursued policies to undermine the economic preferences of the South in favor of their own (the samething that provoked South Carolina's first threat to secede).

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

I support the Union, because slavery is morally wrong. Simple as that.

Maryland,Kentucky,and Missouri all slave states in the Union and a Union general even had slaves. I'm neautreal on this war and gosh this must look bad I have the flag and I think positively of Robert E. Lee but I'm not a sympathizer.

[The Dominion Of The Corn]

They were asked to fight for their states and the South, and they did.

They were also asked to fight for their country and their Union, but they didn't.

Aye ^this is right. If some jumped up asscrack told me to fight for the midwest and corn farms I'd tell him to shove it and I'd gladly fly the stars and stripes. Those who fought for the Confederacy betrayed their lawful government.

[Distruzio]

Not a civil war, by definition.

I sympathize with the Confederacy. That said, I don't wish she'd won. Nor do I believe the North was unjustified in acting as she did.

civ·il war
noun
a war between citizens of the same country.
They were all Americans, the CSA was never a recognized sovereign state. It was essentially, a civil war.

Disagree.

Based upon the westphalian theory of statehood, the British Empire recognized the original 13 colonies as sovereign States united; several of those original 13 seceded and recognized other, subsequent States, as legitimate prior to the creation of the Confederacy and, indeed, in the very act of creating the Confederacy. Furthermore, Texas was recognized prior to joining the Union by the Union. Ergo, the Confederacy was comprised of States recognized as legitimate and sovereign.

Tennessee engaged in civil war. Missouri engaged in civil war. Several other States engaged in civil war. But the war between the Union and Confederacy was, by definition, NOT a civil war.

That doesn't make what the southern states did correct. Far from it. Unilateral secession was illegal. Without a doubt. But that doesn't make the war a civil one.

[Conserative Morality]

Had the Civil War not occurred (to get this, Jackson would have to burn South Carolina to the ground in the 1830s), that's most likely how the slavery dispute would have been resolved.

Then Lincoln's continued life means nothing, so my response to you is still correct.

Anyways, many radicals did support the idea of recolonization, or at least black independence from America. John Brown did.

Considering the steps taken to integrate and solidify the position of African-Americans by Radical Republicans in the post-war Reconstruction period?

Not enough to make the point you're trying for.

And are you implying that recolonization is somehow worse than them living under the Johnson administration?

Yes. Very much so.

[The Archregimancy]

Rhetorical question...

If secession was illegal, why was it legal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia?

Doesn't West Virginia's creation violate Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution?

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress


(Yes, I am aware of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 [1871]; but that doesn't explicitly rule on the constitutionality of WV's creation, but rather implicitly recognises the ex post facto de facto recognition of the state as a fait accompli)

[The Black Forrest]

It's only tyrannical when it's not one of your guys. They were beaten. Time to move on.

Right. The Confederacy was beaten in gentleman's combat. We shouldn't forget it though, just because they lost, or move on from the second most important occurrence in the United States. It shaped her future, it shaped her government, and it shaped her people. The Southern Cause for Independence should not be forgotten, or ignored or pushed aside as simple, treasonous rebellion. It was a modern effort that effected the entire modern world of the time.

Yes it brought us tractor pulls and a people who are the life blood of walmart.

Seriously, nothing wrong with studying the past. Trying to white wash is the problem.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So what are we supposed to sympathize with the South for?

I sympathize with the South's struggle for self-determination, as a sort of second American Revolution, in a sense. If a people no longer feel their interests are being supported, they should revolt. After all the North did dominate the federal government at the time, and purposely pursued policies to undermine the economic preferences of the South in favor of their own (the samething that provoked South Carolina's first threat to secede).

By those standards, the Blue states should have revolted during the Bush administration.

[Conserative Morality]

Right. The Confederacy was beaten in gentleman's combat. We shouldn't forget it though, just because they lost, or move on from the second most important occurrence in the United States. It shaped her future, it shaped her government, and it shaped her people. The Southern Cause for Independence should not be forgotten, or ignored or pushed aside as simple, treasonous rebellion. It was a modern effort that effected the entire modern world of the time.

Quite the opposite. It was a reactionary last-ditch attempt to hold on and consolidate power in the face of the modern world.

[Distruzio]

I sympathize with the South's struggle for self-determination, as a sort of second American Revolution, in a sense. If a people no longer feel their interests are being supported, they should revolt. After all the North did dominate the federal government at the time, and purposely pursued policies to undermine the economic preferences of the South in favor of their own (the samething that provoked South Carolina's first threat to secede).

By those standards, the Blue states should have revolted during the Bush administration.

Should have. Yes.

[Conserative Morality]

The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star;
While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

How did you all get Roman Legionare smilies?

The Battle Cry Of Freedom is a classic.

It's a small image, not one of the little text command smilies.

[Anglo-California]

They were also asked to fight for their country and their Union, but they didn't.

Aye ^this is right. If some jumped up asscrack told me to fight for the midwest and corn farms I'd tell him to shove it and I'd gladly fly the stars and stripes. Those who fought for the Confederacy betrayed their lawful government.

Hey! The Midwest was and has been home to some of the most pro-Union sentiment in the nation. Ohioans and Minnesotans fought bravely in the war.

[-The West Coast-]

The Confederacy was allowed to rebel and try to overthrow a government they saw as tyrannical. It's our natural, unalienable right as Americans, nay, our basic duty as men to deny a tyrannical government the ability to govern any further. Not only was their action to rebel and attempt to overthrow perfectly legal, it also had precedent. 1776. Calling them treasonous rebels is incorrect. They were the most patriotic Americans of the time.

1. No, they weren't.
2. Yes. That's why we have elections.
3. It was not legal. There is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to do such a thing.
4. No, they weren't. They were traitors, much as the Founding Fathers were. Of course, the Founding Fathers, unlike modern Confederate apologists, had the balls to own the term. "If this be treason, make the most of it!"

1. Yes, they were.
2. You can't win against foreseen tyranny.
3. It is legally allowed, not by any constitution, but by the basic, God-given laws of man.
4. The Founding Fathers were not traitors, the Crown didn't see colonists as British, so who were they traitors to?

[The Rebel Alliances]

I actually have (Very Few) surviving letters from my family at that time. In the 1860s, most of my family were native to South Carolina. been there since before the Revolution. Farmers, and judging from the letters and what other information I had gathered somewhat well off. They were not poor, but they were not Plantation Barons either.

The general attitude of the letters from a Nathaniel W. and his several cousins and brothers were that they desired to defend their homes and family. Slavery was hardly mentioned at all. Most signed up after the attack on Fort Sumter from the dates. I feel like that is the largest reason why most southerners fought. They were defending the lands they grew up upon, and had no inclination to either fight against it or sit idle while (Who they considered) foreign armies ravaged it.

Cant say I would have done anything differently.

They weren't defending the lands that they grew up on. They were attacking the rightful government of those lands.

The "Rightful" Government burned the homes of that land. There was another family less than a mile from the home of my ancestor, who had no relatives involved in the confederate army. The Union Army in the last year of the war torched both homes in 1865 when Sherman marched north from GA and passed through their town on their way to level Columbia.

Yes, they were defending their homes. Union armies made little to no effort to defend the property and rights of even those loyal in the south. Letters from reconstruction also do not paint a good picture.