Did the South have a right to secede?

[Revolutopia]

The South was only anti-federalist when it came things like tariffs, saying how in the years proceeding the Civil War they repeatedly used their political influence to increase Federal power through things like the Fugitive Slave Act. And about the whole Northern state violating the constitution should proponents of nullification believe that the states should have the right to follow or not any federal edict? Additionally, all they have is allegations if they really thought they were right then they should have brought it to the court system, where their dominance would probably would have ruled favorably for them. yet, they didn't so it only allegation and one is innocent until proven guilty.

[Dusk_Kittens]

, except to those who still want to pretend that the North was on the moral high ground (right, and who made the profits from the slave trade? Oh, that's right, THE NORTH!).

The American Slave Trade ended in 1807, the Civil War started in 1861 that 54 years I highly doubted the North was benfiting from the slave trade more then the South did from slavery.

Correction (on two points): the slave trade ended in 1808, de jure. It did not end in 1808, de facto. See further: http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm -- I also recommend checking some of the links in that site, for a more accurate picture.

[Revolutopia]

The American Slave Trade ended in 1807, the Civil War started in 1861 that 54 years I highly doubted the North was benfiting from the slave trade more then the South did from slavery.

Correction (on two points): the slave trade ended in 1808, de jure. It did not end in 1808, de facto. See further: http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm -- I also recommend checking some of the links in that site, for a more accurate picture.

Got one that goes in further detail then just saying the north profited from slavery from 1808-1861, by actually listing prove? Especially, by listing footnotes to his acquisitions not just four dinky ones only commenting on stuff before.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Citation needed. I'm not denying it happened; I simply don't recall hearing of this. You do realize that there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy (free blacks, btw), don't you?

But even if that's true, isn't that a case of Tu quoque? Sherman's march to the sea would have been considered a series of war crimes if it had been done 80 years later, and that was no isolated incident. Unfortunately, taking one side in any given war and claiming that they were "the good guys" is usually ill-advised, because atrocities are seldom limited to one side.

not technically true, a number of free blacks fought for their states(and a number where barred from doing so), the CSA didn't authorise black soldiers late in war. it also treated all captured black soldiers as slaves, one of the reasons prisoner exchanges broke down.

"One of the reasons." Another reason? Northern refusal to recognize the Confederate authorities as anything other than "rebels."

As for the claim that blacks were not authorized to fight for the CSA until "late in [the] war," I recommend you peruse this: Black CSA POWs in which you will find this statement:

" Negroes in the Confederate Army,"Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesley, Vol. 4, #3, (1919), 244: "The Governor of Tennessee was given permission in June 1861 to accept into the state militia black males between the ages if fifteen and fifty. The men were to receive eight dollars a month, plus clothing and rations."

You'll find more information that contradicts your claim at the Black Confederates blog (which I include with a caveat that it may not be free from bias, but not having had the time to peruse it in depth, I can only offer the cautionary note, due to it being a "Member of the Southern Co-op," which does unfortunately include some blogs and sites that are biased), and I recommend notice of these two entries in particular: The Valor of Black Confederates and Cover-Up.

Citation needed. I'm not denying it happened; I simply don't recall hearing of this. You do realize that there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy (free blacks, btw), don't you?

But even if that's true, isn't that a case of Tu quoque? Sherman's march to the sea would have been considered a series of war crimes if it had been done 80 years later, and that was no isolated incident. Unfortunately, taking one side in any given war and claiming that they were "the good guys" is usually ill-advised, because atrocities are seldom limited to one side.

That would be the Fort Pillow Massacre. There were some other instances, but Lincoln ended up declaring that he'd execute a Confederate POW for every Union POW executed, and that pretty much brought a stop to it.

And no, it's not a case of tu quoque.

Ah, yes, the much-publicized Fort Pillow massacre led by Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm not sure how I forgot that one. Still, I believe his racist views were not exactly any more typical of the South than they were of the North, at the time. That statement may be shocking to some, but only to those who don't know the history. Yes, it was a massacre, an atrocity, and a war crime, but it doesn't excuse the North's atrocities.

Atrocities of the War for Southern Independence occurred on both sides and were numerous. Neither side is innocent in this regard, and, contrary to attitudes at the time (on both sides), an atrocity committed by one side was no justification for similar behavior on the part of the other side.

Below is a smattering of references. I'm aiming to primarily show Northern atrocities with these links (although some will show atrocities of both sides), but my aim is not to deny or conceal, much less to excuse, Southern atrocities, but rather to demonstrate that the Northern forces were no angels. My admission that the Southern forces were also not angels and cannot be excused simply because the Northern forces were not suffices to disarm any charge of me engaging in Tu quoque, but just in case someone tries that accusation, I'll include at least one link that is specific to Southern atrocities.

Civil War Atrocities in the Upper White River Valley demonstrates the guilt of both sides (and the bushwhackers), and includes crimes against civilians. Both sides were in the wrong.

When it comes to POWs, we often hear of Andersonville, but this was by no means the only example of atrocities involving POWs; again, both sides were in the wrong:

Civil War Concentration Camps

DOPL: Atrocities - Eyewitnesses Bring War's Cruelty to Light

Sure, the Confederates were also not innocent of war crimes, and those guilty of such acts were churls of the basest sort:

If the shoe was on the other foot… Confederate troops in the North

But the "Black Flag" campaign was actually authorized by the Commander-in-Chief, good ol' "Honest" Abe himself. There's also at least one book on the subject of Northern atrocities against Southern civilians:
Amazon.com: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians (9781589804661): Walter Cisco: Books
I believe quoting a few reviews of the work will be revealing (especially in response to those who have attempted to characterize Sherman's "March to the Sea" as merely the destruction of property and infrastructure):

Mr. Cisco's flawlessly documented expose of Union Army war crimes rips the carefully constructed facade off Lincoln's "Army of Emancipators." Far from being an army of liberators, Union troops burned, raped, ravaged, and terrorized civilians from east to west. The brutality long overshadowed by federally-sponsored propaganda of Andersonville and Fort Pillow is at last revealed by newspaper accounts, letters, and diaries, many from Washington's own National Archives.

"We believe in a war of extermination," said Union Brigadier General Lane, whose heroic exploits include the arrest and deaths of wives and teenaged girls whose only crime were blood ties to Confederate guerrillas, the expulsion of tens of thousands of civilians from whole Missouri counties and the complete destruction of their property.

General Sherman deliberately turned his back as men pillaged Georgia cities, even allowing them to exhume graves in search of valuables. Free African-Americans as well as southern whites suffered the loss of homes and property, many their lives. The arrival of the northern army of liberation also meant rape and abuse for women of color. Regardless of color or gender, no southerner was spared.

Mr. Cisco's scholarly work is a must-read for serious students of the war and professional historians. Politically correct history cannot hide the sins of the past, and a true examination of facts must occur before complete understanding of America's most tragic war can take place. Five stars.

When the Lincoln/Grant/Sherman/Sheridan apologists get a whiff of this one they are going to be apoplectic. The problem of course is that this is such a carefully researched, far-reaching collection of essays whose facts are so compelling what exactly will they criticize? Even more "balanced" northern historians have conceded the excesses from the mid-war on. But this demonstrates a war on civilians not only from the opening shots but across the entire region and across the entire war. The books' release on the eve of the History Channel's (HC) Sherman piece could not have been more timely. Sherman the "liberator"? Stay tuned for Hitler: the Hero of Eastern Europe. This book is a gift and should be mandatory reading in both High Schools and Colleges. It is social history and scholarship at it's best.

I'm not from the south and I'm not really a fan of things southern. So I have little patience with "Lost Cause" romanticizing. Moreover, I know something about the darker side of the Civil War, having been researching its atrocities (executions, dislocation of civilians, scorched earth policies, treatment of POWs, etc) for some years now. Mr. Cisco's account of war crimes in this book is really only the tip of the iceberg. The "Civil" War was most uncivil indeed, and what's truly surprising is that some of its more sordid episodes go untaught in schools and unrecognized by idiot reenactors who think the war was great and glorious. True, Cisco's book isn't as academically rigorous as it might be. But the negative reviews here strain too much to find fault with it. Is the lack of a bibliography really an unforgiveable sin, especially when footnotes are present? Are Cisco and DiLorenzo and other historians who offer nonconventional interpretations of the war really scoundrels and fools? And does it serve any real purpose to exaggerate Cisco's claims (I refer specifically to the reviewer who falsely says that Cisco claims that the depredations of the Union led to Hitler--not at all what he actually said)? Lost Causers who romanticize the war are bad enough. But Lincoln groupies who sugarcoat its horrors are even worse.

A blog exists (though not entirely free of bias in favor of the South, I believe) of War Crimes Against Southern Soldiers and Citizens.

Even Wikipedia, often perceived as a bastion of Political Correctness, does not shrink from admission that the Union forces committed atrocities, as can be witnessed in the article on "Bushwhackers":
Atrocities

So yes, there were war crimes on both sides, and neither side can be excused for them. This, however, does not mean that those innocents who were the victims of such crimes, nor even the ordinary soldiers, Confederate or Union, who had no part in such acts, should not be worthy of our tears. The war was brutal and cost more American (Union and Confederate) lives than any war before or since. Some of those people were just fighting because they were forced to by their respective government; some of them were fighting for their lives. War crimes occurred, but not every soldier was guilty of them. Those soldiers who took no part in atrocity deserve your tears, Xsyne, whether they were Union or Confederate.

[Great Agram]

The South was the last part to incorporate in teh American nation, before the civil war they hadnt identife with the American nation of te Nord.

[Revolutopia]

not technically true, a number of free blacks fought for their states(and a number where barred from doing so), the CSA didn't authorise black soldiers late in war. it also treated all captured black soldiers as slaves, one of the reasons prisoner exchanges broke down.

"One of the reasons." Another reason? Northern refusal to recognize the Confederate authorities as anything other than "rebels."

As for the claim that blacks were not authorized to fight for the CSA until "late in [the] war," I recommend you peruse this: Black CSA POWs in which you will find this statement:

" Negroes in the Confederate Army,"Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesley, Vol. 4, #3, (1919), 244: "The Governor of Tennessee was given permission in June 1861 to accept into the state militia black males between the ages if fifteen and fifty. The men were to receive eight dollars a month, plus clothing and rations."

You'll find more information that contradicts your claim at the Black Confederates blog (which I include with a caveat that it may not be free from bias, but not having had the time to peruse it in depth, I can only offer the cautionary note, due to it being a "Member of the Southern Co-op," which does unfortunately include some blogs and sites that are biased), and I recommend notice of these two entries in particular: The Valor of Black Confederates and Cover-Up.

That would be the Fort Pillow Massacre. There were some other instances, but Lincoln ended up declaring that he'd execute a Confederate POW for every Union POW executed, and that pretty much brought a stop to it.

And no, it's not a case of tu quoque.

Ah, yes, the much-publicized Fort Pillow massacre led by Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm not sure how I forgot that one. Still, I believe his racist views were not exactly any more typical of the South than they were of the North, at the time. That statement may be shocking to some, but only to those who don't know the history. Yes, it was a massacre, an atrocity, and a war crime, but it doesn't excuse the North's atrocities.

Atrocities of the War for Southern Independence occurred on both sides and were numerous. Neither side is innocent in this regard, and, contrary to attitudes at the time (on both sides), an atrocity committed by one side was no justification for similar behavior on the part of the other side.

Below is a smattering of references. I'm aiming to primarily show Northern atrocities with these links (although some will show atrocities of both sides), but my aim is not to deny or conceal, much less to excuse, Southern atrocities, but rather to demonstrate that the Northern forces were no angels. My admission that the Southern forces were also not angels and cannot be excused simply because the Northern forces were not suffices to disarm any charge of me engaging in Tu quoque, but just in case someone tries that accusation, I'll include at least one link that is specific to Southern atrocities.

Civil War Atrocities in the Upper White River Valley demonstrates the guilt of both sides (and the bushwhackers), and includes crimes against civilians. Both sides were in the wrong.

When it comes to POWs, we often hear of Andersonville, but this was by no means the only example of atrocities involving POWs; again, both sides were in the wrong:

Civil War Concentration Camps

DOPL: Atrocities - Eyewitnesses Bring War's Cruelty to Light

Sure, the Confederates were also not innocent of war crimes, and those guilty of such acts were churls of the basest sort:

If the shoe was on the other foot… Confederate troops in the North

But the "Black Flag" campaign was actually authorized by the Commander-in-Chief, good ol' "Honest" Abe himself. There's also at least one book on the subject of Northern atrocities against Southern civilians:
Amazon.com: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians (9781589804661): Walter Cisco: Books
I believe quoting a few reviews of the work will be revealing (especially in response to those who have attempted to characterize Sherman's "March to the Sea" as merely the destruction of property and infrastructure):

Mr. Cisco's flawlessly documented expose of Union Army war crimes rips the carefully constructed facade off Lincoln's "Army of Emancipators." Far from being an army of liberators, Union troops burned, raped, ravaged, and terrorized civilians from east to west. The brutality long overshadowed by federally-sponsored propaganda of Andersonville and Fort Pillow is at last revealed by newspaper accounts, letters, and diaries, many from Washington's own National Archives.

"We believe in a war of extermination," said Union Brigadier General Lane, whose heroic exploits include the arrest and deaths of wives and teenaged girls whose only crime were blood ties to Confederate guerrillas, the expulsion of tens of thousands of civilians from whole Missouri counties and the complete destruction of their property.

General Sherman deliberately turned his back as men pillaged Georgia cities, even allowing them to exhume graves in search of valuables. Free African-Americans as well as southern whites suffered the loss of homes and property, many their lives. The arrival of the northern army of liberation also meant rape and abuse for women of color. Regardless of color or gender, no southerner was spared.

Mr. Cisco's scholarly work is a must-read for serious students of the war and professional historians. Politically correct history cannot hide the sins of the past, and a true examination of facts must occur before complete understanding of America's most tragic war can take place. Five stars.

When the Lincoln/Grant/Sherman/Sheridan apologists get a whiff of this one they are going to be apoplectic. The problem of course is that this is such a carefully researched, far-reaching collection of essays whose facts are so compelling what exactly will they criticize? Even more "balanced" northern historians have conceded the excesses from the mid-war on. But this demonstrates a war on civilians not only from the opening shots but across the entire region and across the entire war. The books' release on the eve of the History Channel's (HC) Sherman piece could not have been more timely. Sherman the "liberator"? Stay tuned for Hitler: the Hero of Eastern Europe. This book is a gift and should be mandatory reading in both High Schools and Colleges. It is social history and scholarship at it's best.

I'm not from the south and I'm not really a fan of things southern. So I have little patience with "Lost Cause" romanticizing. Moreover, I know something about the darker side of the Civil War, having been researching its atrocities (executions, dislocation of civilians, scorched earth policies, treatment of POWs, etc) for some years now. Mr. Cisco's account of war crimes in this book is really only the tip of the iceberg. The "Civil" War was most uncivil indeed, and what's truly surprising is that some of its more sordid episodes go untaught in schools and unrecognized by idiot reenactors who think the war was great and glorious. True, Cisco's book isn't as academically rigorous as it might be. But the negative reviews here strain too much to find fault with it. Is the lack of a bibliography really an unforgiveable sin, especially when footnotes are present? Are Cisco and DiLorenzo and other historians who offer nonconventional interpretations of the war really scoundrels and fools? And does it serve any real purpose to exaggerate Cisco's claims (I refer specifically to the reviewer who falsely says that Cisco claims that the depredations of the Union led to Hitler--not at all what he actually said)? Lost Causers who romanticize the war are bad enough. But Lincoln groupies who sugarcoat its horrors are even worse.

A blog exists (though not entirely free of bias in favor of the South, I believe) of War Crimes Against Southern Soldiers and Citizens.

Even Wikipedia, often perceived as a bastion of Political Correctness, does not shrink from admission that the Union forces committed atrocities, as can be witnessed in the article on "Bushwhackers":
Atrocities

So yes, there were war crimes on both sides, and neither side can be excused for them. This, however, does not mean that those innocents who were the victims of such crimes, nor even the ordinary soldiers, Confederate or Union, who had no part in such acts, should not be worthy of our tears. The war was brutal and cost more American (Union and Confederate) lives than any war before or since. Some of those people were just fighting because they were forced to by their respective government; some of them were fighting for their lives. War crimes occurred, but not every soldier was guilty of them. Those soldiers who took no part in atrocity deserve your tears, Xsyne, whether they were Union or Confederate.

http://jubiloemancipationcentury.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/truth-lies-and-a-black-confederate-soldiers-hoax-and-the-true-story-of-the-louisiana-native-guards/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/the_myth_of_the_black_confeder.html


Black Confederates are a over exaggerated myth.

[Great Agram]

Black Confederates are a over exaggerated myth.

Not really, but it is politicaly incorrect to talk about black soldiers in the confederate army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyL ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

On the first clip there is a guy (Afro-american) who is a descendent of an black confederate. The only myth about the Civil war is this: the South seceded because it did not want to abandom slavery, what is false. The Nord abandom slavery two or three yaers after the war started.

[Farnhamia]

The South was the last part to incorporate in teh American nation, before the civil war they hadnt identife with the American nation of te Nord.

I'm sorry, but do you just make things up?

Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were four of the original Thirteen Colonies. All of the Confederacy except Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas were possessions of one or another of the original Thirteen. Georgia was the 4th state to ratify the Constitution, South Carolina was 8th, Virginia 10th and North Carolina 12th. Virginia was the home of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, four of the first five Presidents of the United States.

So, no, you are utterly, abysmally wrong.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The South was only anti-federalist when it came things like tariffs, saying how in the years proceeding the Civil War they repeatedly used their political influence to increase Federal power through things like the Fugitive Slave Act.

On the contrary, the Anti-Federalist position was firmly entrenched in the South, on any number of issues. The Fugitive Slave Act was wholly unnecessary, as the Law of the Land already dictated that.

And about the whole Northern state violating the constitution should proponents of nullification believe that the states should have the right to follow or not any federal edict?

A federal edict is of less weight than the Constitution itself. This fact is very much overlooked in the present time, on a wide variety of matters, but any law, Federal or otherwise, which violates the Constitution is illegitimate -- if the Constitution itself indeed be, as we have been told so often, "the Law of the Land," and if it indeed, as we have been told so often, supersede any Federal, State, or Local law. The fact that some such unconstitutional laws have not (yet) been challenged in court does not render them valid, but only unchallenged, and only for the moment.

Additionally, all they have is allegations if they really thought they were right then they should have brought it to the court system, where their dominance would probably would have ruled favorably for them. yet, they didn't so it only allegation and one is innocent until proven guilty.

It's historical fact, not allegation. If you would prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend that fact is merely contention, I don't see much point in continuing to reply to you. Indeed, providing unassailable sources for my position has produced little in the way of convincing those blinded by propaganda, who steadfastly maintain, in the face of such sources, that night is day. I can only conclude that the fundamentalist mindset, far from being restricted to matters of religion, extends beyond that sphere (but this is not news to me, and so is no surprise).

[Farnhamia]

Black Confederates are a over exaggerated myth.

Not really, but it is politicaly incorrect to talk about black soldiers in the confederate army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyL ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

On the first clip there is a guy (Afro-american) who is a descendent of an black confederate. The only myth about the Civil war is this: the South seceded because it did not want to abandom slavery, what is false. The Nord abandom slavery two or three yaers after the war started.

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

[-St George]

Not really, but it is politicaly incorrect to talk about black soldiers in the confederate army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyL ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

On the first clip there is a guy (Afro-american) who is a descendent of an black confederate. The only myth about the Civil war is this: the South seceded because it did not want to abandom slavery, what is false. The Nord abandom slavery two or three yaers after the war started.

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

It's the 'i have black friends I can't be racist' argument.

[Revolutopia]

And about the whole Northern state violating the constitution should proponents of nullification believe that the states should have the right to follow or not any federal edict?

A federal edict is of less weight than the Constitution itself. This fact is very much overlooked in the present time, on a wide variety of matters, but any law, Federal or otherwise, which violates the Constitution is illegitimate -- if the Constitution itself indeed be, as we have been told so often, "the Law of the Land," and if it indeed, as we have been told so often, supersede any Federal, State, or Local law. The fact that some such unconstitutional laws have not (yet) been challenged in court does not render them valid, but only unchallenged, and only for the moment.

The Constitution allows the Federal government to levy tariffs and establishes Federal Supremacy, however the South Carolina still believed they were in their right to disregard federal established tariffs enacted fully under Constitutional law. So why cannot the North also disregard stuff established in the constitution if the South truly believed in their ideals?

[Great Agram]

The South was the last part to incorporate in teh American nation, before the civil war they hadnt identife with the American nation of te Nord.

I'm sorry, but do you just make things up?

Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were four of the original Thirteen Colonies. All of the Confederacy except Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas were possessions of one or another of the original Thirteen. Georgia was the 4th state to ratify the Constitution, South Carolina was 8th, Virginia 10th and North Carolina 12th. Virginia was the home of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, four of the first five Presidents of the United States.

So, no, you are utterly, abysmally wrong.

The original thirten colonies after dgainig freedom from britain had teir own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own cureny, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he begginng something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen themself as Americans, why do they start the rebelion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

[Farnhamia]

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

It's the 'i have black friends I can't be racist' argument.

Pretty much.

[Seleucas]

The South was only anti-federalist when it came things like tariffs, saying how in the years proceeding the Civil War they repeatedly used their political influence to increase Federal power through things like the Fugitive Slave Act. And about the whole Northern state violating the constitution should proponents of nullification believe that the states should have the right to follow or not any federal edict? Additionally, all they have is allegations if they really thought they were right then they should have brought it to the court system, where their dominance would probably would have ruled favorably for them. yet, they didn't so it only allegation and one is innocent until proven guilty.

It was true that the South was decidedly pro-federal when it came to the issue of slavery. It would have been better if the North had followed William Lloyd Garrison's advice and seceded instead of trying to compromise with the South for the sake of mercantilism. (It was because the Constitution was pro-slavery that he had initially labelled it a "covenant with death and agreement with hell.") And it would have been even better if the Articles of Confederation had never been replaced, but the North needed the South in order to enforce tariffs and other mercantilist policies, and the South needed the North to protect slavery, and such a necessity was recognized by both for decades after.

But the Trent Affair came up because of Britain entertaining the CSA's suggestions that they be recognized; if they had not wanted to hear of it at all, they would not have taken the diplomats to begin with. And while the Monroe Doctrine would not have been problematic while the US was still, in effect, unable to enforce it, they certainly did not want the US to be able to gain the strength to do so, like what would happen with Great Britain's dealing with Venezuela decades later.

britain entertained the CSA ambassadors to assert the UK's rights as neutrals in the conflict. due to the US trying to get all the benefits of a state of war and none of the drawbacks. if the CSA had done something major like captured DC then britain might have recognized them but thats as far as it would have gone.

Agreed, the UK was obviously reluctant to actually invade on the behalf of the South, but nevertheless did hope that the Union could be pressured into giving up.

[Revolutopia]

I'm sorry, but do you just make things up?

Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were four of the original Thirteen Colonies. All of the Confederacy except Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas were possessions of one or another of the original Thirteen. Georgia was the 4th state to ratify the Constitution, South Carolina was 8th, Virginia 10th and North Carolina 12th. Virginia was the home of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, four of the first five Presidents of the United States.

So, no, you are utterly, abysmally wrong.

The original thirteen colonies after gaining freedom from Britain had their own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own currency, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he beginning something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen them self as Americans, why do they start the rebellion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

The South willingly entered into both Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, thus they were perfectly willing to join together as a nation-state with the North. They left as because for the previous decades they were given free reign to fuck over the North, but in 1860 the North had enough and elected their own president. Which led the South to leave in a hissy fit much like Kid leaving after their friend scores a point in a game.

[Farnhamia]

I'm sorry, but do you just make things up?

Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were four of the original Thirteen Colonies. All of the Confederacy except Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas were possessions of one or another of the original Thirteen. Georgia was the 4th state to ratify the Constitution, South Carolina was 8th, Virginia 10th and North Carolina 12th. Virginia was the home of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, four of the first five Presidents of the United States.

So, no, you are utterly, abysmally wrong.

The original thirten colonies after dgainig freedom from britain had teir own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own cureny, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he begginng something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen themself as Americans, why do they start the rebelion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

[Great Agram]

Not really, but it is politicaly incorrect to talk about black soldiers in the confederate army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyL ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

On the first clip there is a guy (Afro-american) who is a descendent of an black confederate. The only myth about the Civil war is this: the South seceded because it did not want to abandom slavery, what is false. The Nord abandom slavery two or three yaers after the war started.

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

Well, I agree by the end of the war there were more Afro-americans, at the beggining there was more in the South. As I said, a big lie is that the Civil war started because of slavery. In fact, the Nord abandomed it because to destabilate the South. I am sure, there was a little bit more blacks in the confederate than the modern-day american histriograafy want to admit.

The same tactis used the British during the American war for independence when they abandom slavery too.

[-St George]

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

Well, I agree by the end of the war there were more Afro-americans, at the beggining there was more in the South. As I said, a big lie is that the Civil war started because of slavery. In fact, the Nord abandomed it because to destabilate the South. I am sure, there was a little bit more blacks in the confederate than the modern-day american histriograafy want to admit.

The same tactis used the British during the American war for independence when they abandom slavery too.

Britain abolished slavery a very, very, long time after the War of Independence.

[Farnhamia]

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

Well, I agree by the end of the war there were more Afro-americans, at the beggining there was more in the South. As I said, a big lie is that the Civil war started because of slavery. In fact, the Nord abandomed it because to destabilate the South. I am sure, there was a little bit more blacks in the confederate than the modern-day american histriograafy want to admit.

The same tactis used the British during the American war for independence when they abandom slavery too.

Were there more blacks in the South in total than in the North? Yes. Were there more in the Confederate Army? No. Were there significant numbers as soldiers in the Confederate Army? No.

[-St George]

The original thirten colonies after dgainig freedom from britain had teir own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own cureny, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he begginng something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen themself as Americans, why do they start the rebelion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

Doesn't that actually answer the title question of this thread?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Piffle. Compared to the almost 190,000 African-Americans who served the Union, blacks in the service of the Confederacy were a minor factor. I don't deny there were some. There were not, however, many.

It's the 'i have black friends I can't be racist' argument.

No, it's the "'the Confederacy massacred all these black Union soldiers, so that proves the war was racially motivated' claim countered by 'okay, so why did the CSA have black soldiers, too?'" argument.

You defenders of the Union position really need to bulk up on Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time (the ante bellum period, the period of the war itself, and the post-war era) before you attempt playing the race card.

[Farnhamia]

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:



And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

Doesn't that actually answer the title question of this thread?

Well, perhaps. The Constitution does not have such language, but the Preamble does say "in order to form a more perfect union," so one could argue that it was just revision of the original "perpetual union."

[Fellrike]

Obviously, the American Declaration of Independence was legitimate, while the Confederate, Biafran, Katangan and Nagaland declarations weren't. Unless you can back up your claim to nationhood by force of arms, it means nothing, To lawfully secede, one must succeed.

[Farnhamia]

It's the 'i have black friends I can't be racist' argument.

No, it's the "'the Confederacy massacred all these black Union soldiers, so that proves the war was racially motivated' claim countered by 'okay, so why did the CSA have black soldiers, too?'" argument.

You defenders of the Union position really need to bulk up on Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time (the ante bellum period, the period of the war itself, and the post-war era) before you attempt playing the race card.

Oh, we admit that. We were just mocking the anti-Unionists who insist that because a few blacks served the Confederacy, the CSA wasn't that bad. Because, you know, if the North had just let them go - wayward sisters, depart in peace - everything would have been just peachy and the slaves would have sung hallelujahs in the gloaming after coming back from the fields aglow with the satisfaction of having once more fulfilled God's plan.

Yeah.