The American Civil War

[UncleDolan]

I maintain that his actions were illegal.

If not the actions affecting Maryland then his assuming of the power to close newspapers and in fact the closing hundreds of them in the North which had dared criticize his policies was surely illegal and flew directly in the face of the constitution?

[Zathganastan]

When they were stupid enough to attack first then yes.The Confedarcy was an illigal movement that was willing to split the nation simply so they could get their way.

What was the American Revolution?

A completely different topic entirely.

[UncleDolan]

What was the American Revolution?

A completely different topic entirely.

Explain your point further.

[Laerod]

I maintain that his actions were illegal.

If not the actions affecting Maryland then his assuming of the power to close newspapers and in fact the closing hundreds of them in the North which had dared criticize his policies was surely illegal and flew directly in the face of the constitution?

Source them first, please.

[Zathganastan]

A completely different topic entirely.

Explain your point further.

Well for starters the south wasn't a far away colony that didn't have legal representation in congress.

[UncleDolan]

I maintain that his actions were illegal.

If not the actions affecting Maryland then his assuming of the power to close newspapers and in fact the closing hundreds of them in the North which had dared criticize his policies was surely illegal and flew directly in the face of the constitution?

Source them first, please.

A good article which provides many sources in his notes (page bottom): http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html
is where I've gained most of my infomation, though I have too gained a lot from wikipedia articles (which are well sourced too)


More information, shared by the above article but also included elsewhere:
Sherman's army burned all but about 400 buildings, including homes and businesses; estimates of the number of buildings destroyed range from 3,200 to 5,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 2009363-19

All this information can be well sourced. Just Google a little.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III

---

Having pretty much demolished the notion that "rising" tariffs were a cause for secession (because tariffs actually fell to an all-time low in the years leading up to the War of the Rebellion), we can safely move on to the next issue - this one less a myth than a misapprehension.

#2: Western Expansion - Background

This issue is usually spun in simple political terms: The South was concerned about the growing perponderance of free states, which threatened their hold on the U.S. Senate. More sophisticated parallel arguments point out that Southern agricultural techniques exhausted the land, forcing the cotton industry to seek new land for cultivation; these are usually made by the same people who argue that slavery would have eventually died out (an assertion I vehemently disagree with, but one that I will not challenge here, as there are enough other arguments to make without getting into that one as well).

Yet the truth of the matter was far more complex. When it comes to the frontier, there were several issues involved beyond those commonly mentioned; there was the issue of Federal improvements, which the South opposed; there was the issue of the distribution of the proceeds from land sales, which the South also opposed; and there was the whole issue of "pre-emption", which is rich enough to require an entire post of its own, and one on which the North and South traded positions throughout the antebellum era.

And then, too, there was this important fact: While the twin issues of slavery and Federal power hung over the entire question of the fate of the West, this was not a simple confrontation between two sectional interests: The West itself was a rising political power, one that could (and often did) both overlap with both North and South, and yet simultaneously take the role of a "third player" in their interactions, siding first with one region and then the other.

In this post I'll focus on the top-level debate, the one that's spoken of most often in secondary school: The direct question of the legal status of slavery in both the Territories and in the States that would spring from them.

At the time the Constitution was ratified (in 1788 [only nine States' assent was required to get the document put into place as law; as it turned out, eleven ratified it by year's end, allowing the Nation's first General Election to occur in November of that year; the remaining two holdouts - North Carolina and Rhode Island - would follow in 1789 and 1790, respectively]), most States (sp., eight out of thirteen) allowed their citizens to own slaves; the highest proportion of slave States to free States was from 1796-1799, when 10 out of 16 permitted the practice. Over the years that followed, several Northern States abolished the practice of slavery, while a number of new States joined the Union that had never permitted it in the first place. Free States first outnumber slave States from 1804-1812, after Ohio joined the Union as 17th State (in 1803) and New Jersey abolished the institution the following year (in 1804). From 1812-1816, the balance between so-called "free States" and "slave States" was exactly even, at nine each:

Slave States (Date of Admission)	Free States (Date of Admission)
Delaware (1787)	Pennsylvania (1787)
Georgia (1788)	New Jersey (1787)*
Maryland (1788)	Connecticut (1788)
South Carolina (1788)	Massachusetts (1788)
Virginia (1788)	New Hamsphire (1788)
North Carolina (1789)	New York (1788)*
Kentucky (1792)	Rhode Island (1790)
Tennessee (1796)	Vermont (1791)
Louisiana (1812)	Ohio(1803)

*Allowed slavery at time of admission.

From 1812 onward, both North and South began to be concerned over the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. At that point, new States were admitted like animals onto Noah's Ark - "two by two":

Slave States (Date of Admission)	Free States (Date of Admission)
Mississippi (1817)	Indiana (1816)*
Alabama(1788)	Illinois (1818)*

*Slavery and/or identured servitude allowed in Territory prior to Statehood, but banned by initial State Constitution.

This brought the balance of power between North and South to 11 States each.

Then, in 1821, Missouri applied for Statehood - and did so without a corresponding "partner". That event threw Congress into a crisis which was only resolved through the so-called Missouri Compromise.

<more to come>

[GrandKirche]

Explain your point further.

Well for starters the south wasn't a far away colony that didn't have legal representation in congress.

They were however a group of governing entities that wanted to break away from a larger state as they felt they were being exploited and mis-treated.

[Laerod]

Source them first, please.

A good article which provides many sources in his notes (page bottom): http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html
is where I've gained most of my infomation, though I have too gained a lot from wikipedia articles (which are well sourced too)

The IHR?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a holocaust denial site to support your argument?

More information, shared by the above article but also included elsewhere:
Sherman's army burned all but about 400 buildings, including homes and businesses; estimates of the number of buildings destroyed range from 3,200 to 5,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 2009363-19

All this information can be well sourced. Just Google a little.

Oh, I'm not disputing sherman's march. Whether it was criminal is debatable given how the Civil War was pretty much the prelude for WWI and thus was the first war that involved total war. Now, you should show that Sherman did this according to direct orders from Lincoln to prove your point.

[Zathganastan]

Well for starters the south wasn't a far away colony that didn't have legal representation in congress.

They were however a group of governing entities that wanted to break away from a larger state as they felt they were being exploited and mis-treated.

Which still held as much power in the national government as the people that were supposedly opressing them.Contrary to popular belief being left out of government decision making and saying "The person I like didn't win so I'm out" are two very different things.

[GrandKirche]

They were however a group of governing entities that wanted to break away from a larger state as they felt they were being exploited and mis-treated.

Which still held as much power in the national government as the people that were supposedly opressing them.Contrary to popular belief being left out of government decision making and saying "The person I like didn't win so I'm out" are two very different things.

If a large area of a country is being ignored because it's outnumbered and it has a specific regional identity and wants to be its own country, where's your problem? Surely you agree with Self-determination?

[Forsakia]

I'm from the north and i would have sided union only to preserve the country and thats it

Why is that so important to you? If the South didn't want to be part of the Union, why do you want them kept in against their will.

[UncleDolan]

The IHR?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a holocaust denial site to support your argument?

What's on the site doesn't matter, the article itself is well sourced.

Like so many User-Content generated sites it will undoubtedly hold nasty, distasteful and wrong information. You could very well say "YouTube?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a site which is full of Nazis and 9/11 conspiracy theories!" if I were to link you to a video holding well sourced evidence on the site.

[Farnhamia]

Which still held as much power in the national government as the people that were supposedly opressing them.Contrary to popular belief being left out of government decision making and saying "The person I like didn't win so I'm out" are two very different things.

If a large area of a country is being ignored because it's outnumbered and it has a specific regional identity and wants to be its own country, where's your problem? Surely you agree with Self-determination?

When was the South being ignored, please?

[TaQud]

The IHR?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a holocaust denial site to support your argument?

What's on the site doesn't matter, the article itself is well sourced.

You could very well say "YouTube?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a site which is full of Nazis and 9/11 conspiracy theories!" if I were to link you to a video holding well sourced evidence on the site.

I would believe he would say that

[Laerod]

The IHR?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a holocaust denial site to support your argument?

What's on the site doesn't matter, the article itself is well sourced.

Like so many User-Content generated sites it will undoubtedly hold nasty, distasteful and wrong information. You could very well say "YouTube?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a site which is full of Nazis and 9/11 conspiracy theories!" if I were to link you to a video holding well sourced evidence on the site.

No. You do not link to such bullshit and get to have it treated as a reliable source. An organization that engages in outright whitewashing of history is not an acceptable source. Find another.

[Laerod]

Surely you agree with Self-determination?

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

[GrandKirche]

If a large area of a country is being ignored because it's outnumbered and it has a specific regional identity and wants to be its own country, where's your problem? Surely you agree with Self-determination?

When was the South being ignored, please?

I was making a general point to allude to the situation of say Czechoslovakia, which the USA supported becoming its own nation. The South felt it was not being treated fairly like the rest of the union and wanted to leave. Eg with Slavery, or States' rights.

[Laerod]

When was the South being ignored, please?

I was making a general point to allude to the situation of say Czechoslovakia, which the USA supported becoming its own nation. The South felt it was not being treated fairly like the rest of the union and wanted to leave. Eg with Slavery, or States' rights.

Czechoslovakia kinda got permission from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to form its own nation...

[GrandKirche]

Surely you agree with Self-determination?

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism. Which includes the right to chose to be part of a bigger nation, or to independent. The South wanted to be free and said "so long" then all hell broke lose. If Russia went into say Belarus and said "ok, you may want to do your own thing but we have traditionally ruled you so self-rule's over" the USA would lead the condemnation.

[Wamitoria]

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism.

The South wasn't anti-imperialist at all. In fact, it can be argued (as ASB has brilliantly done) that they actually wished to take over the northern states.

[Farnhamia]

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism. Which includes the right to chose to be part of a bigger nation, or to independent. The South wanted to be free and said "so long" then all hell broke lose. If Russia went into say Belarus and said "ok, you may want to do your own thing but we have traditionally ruled you so self-rule's over" the USA would lead the condemnation.

The South said, "So long," and shot up a Union fort. People tend to get a little shirty when you shoot at their soldiers.

[Laerod]

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism. Which includes the right to chose to be part of a bigger nation, or to independent. The South wanted to be free and said "so long" then all hell broke lose. If Russia went into say Belarus and said "ok, you may want to do your own thing but we have traditionally ruled you so self-rule's over" the USA would lead the condemnation.

So if the South tried to secede but refused to let those of its citizens that wanted to remain in the Union that right, why would their secession be legitimate to begin with?

[GrandKirche]

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism. Which includes the right to chose to be part of a bigger nation, or to independent. The South wanted to be free and said "so long" then all hell broke lose. If Russia went into say Belarus and said "ok, you may want to do your own thing but we have traditionally ruled you so self-rule's over" the USA would lead the condemnation.

The South said, "So long," and shot up a Union fort. People tend to get a little shirty when you shoot at their soldiers.

The fort was in their territory. If Britain had left troops in Forts in the US in the 18th century would you have left them alone (see: War of 1812)

[TomKirk]

When they were stupid enough to attack first then yes.The Confedarcy was an illigal movement that was willing to split the nation simply so they could get their way.

What was the American Revolution?

There were considerable differences. Except in the case of the "charter" colonies there wasn't actually any written agreement about how powers should be divided between the Parliament and the local self-governing bodies; James II tried to revoke the charters, but after 1688 it was, or so it was thought, understood that those colonies had considerable autonomy, and even within the crown colonies there was at least a tacit understanding of how far the governor could go (the House of Burgesses had always had a strong role in Virginia; New York and New Jersey, on the other hand, because they were acquired by military conquest, had considerable dissension over the role of the governor); the direct imposition of taxes on the colonists by the Parliament was a novelty and an unwelcome surprise. The Americans had no right to participate in elections for Parliament, so this is a major distinction between the 1776 and 1860 cases. And the Americans first sought to negotiate a peaceful separation; proposals to give Americans seats in Parliament, or to recognize Congress as a new "constitutional" body (in the English sense of "constitution" as an unwritten but binding understanding) analogous in America to Parliament in England (essentially the "Dominion" status later given to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were rejected. When it did come to conflict, the Americans "out of a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" declared their reasons for seeking separation, and obtained sympathy in the outside world, whereas the reasons declared by the Southerners (their desire to continue the institution of slavery forever) inspired zero respect. It is not possible to become a "nation" just by saying so, without any recognition from anybody else.