Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abe hated the slaves try looking at some facts not tossed out by the north .Just a few daily Chicago Times Dec. 10 1860 New Orleans Daily C resent Jan 21 1861
The North was in a big recession had bunches of new people with no work the bankers pushed Abe to start the war . History repeating again
Cornell University has on line some copy's of the original war journals Think maybe Carl Max and Abe were buddies
Try this there was over 65,000 Blacks fought for the South Grant owned slaves also try this book Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kenn This is just a start . At least one guy here ask about the Jewish folks for the South .All ways Follow the money .
I never said Abe hated slaves or Black people. I am aware of that and that is why I don't like or respect Lincoln.
I just said slavery was the only reason publically articulated as a reason for secession.
I am aware that Grant owned slaves. I never said Grant didn't have skeletons in his closet. I just said that the reason publically articulated was slavery. Slavery was the major reason. Nowadays alot of people won't admit it or will bring up other crap.
Indeed, but if the point is averting war then the Rebels could have tried the courts. One can't at the same time unilaterally declare independence AND say that war should be averted.
Especially if your method of averting war is to start shooting. Hate to see their method of instigating war, if that was the method of averting it.
Indeed, but if the point is averting war then the Rebels could have tried the courts. One can't at the same time unilaterally declare independence AND say that war should be averted.
Well, the point was independence first. No argument about that really.
And I think that if you believe it is your inherent right as a state to remove yourself from a volutary union of states, then why would a court be necessary? Should you have to essentially ask permission to exercise what you believe to be well within your rights?
Given the belief that secession was lawful, in their eyes, a state SHOULD be able to peacefully secede. Not only that, but if they are NOT allowed to, then it is the Federal government that is operating outside the law and violating their rights.
Of course the South wasn't so naive to think that the North agreed with their assessment on the legality of secession. What you have is two sides operating with two different definitions of the rules really. Any concession on either side with regard to Sumter is essentially giving credence to the other's interpretation....
And I think that if you believe it is your inherent right as a state to remove yourself from a volutary union of states, then why would a court be necessary? Should you have to essentially ask permission to exercise what you believe to be well within your rights?
That depends on what the basis for believing in the right to secede. If the right derives from a theory of natural law then no court permission is needed. However many argue that the Rebels had a right under the constitution to secede. Those who argue the constitutional right of secession should also then believe that the secessionists should have worked through the courts.
For one thing had they a constitutional right to secede they would've won their case in court and thus had a much better chance of their secession succeeding. And without war.
That depends on what the basis for believing in the right to secede. If the right derives from a theory of natural law then no court permission is needed. However many argue that the Rebels had a right under the constitution to secede. Those who argue the constitutional right of secession should also then believe that the secessionists should have worked through the courts.
For one thing had they a constitutional right to secede they would've won their case in court and thus had a much better chance of their secession succeeding. And without war.
Regards as always
The South had been working on this 10 years You think those Bankers was going to let the South out .Do a little more research . Abe said once he didn't know which he feared the most the bankers behind him or the rebs in front .
There are some that don't want to be confused by the facts because their mind is all ready made up . Follow the money
I hear alot of stuff about the Civil War, why the South wanted to secede, and other stuff, but this is what I found out. The only reason ever publically articulated in public for secession was so that the Southern states could keep slaves. I have the proof right here:WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War. The sources are also listed, so don't even try to say it had nothing to do with slavery.
It is true that slavery was a root cause of the war. But split with that cause was the Federal Intervention into what citizens considered their rights. The Federal government did not have the power up to that time to interfere to that level in citizens affairs. The people in the south saw this as their main cause, with slavery being the key issue of Federal involvement. There were also tarriff and trade issues. In the words of one captured confederate at Shiloh when asked why he fought," Cause you're down here."
It is possible to admire the grit, leadership, and personality of my ancestors who fought in the war without admiring or lamenting the ending of slavery. There were good outcomes and bad outcomes of the war. While I believe that the south had a constitutional right to secede, I am still glad that the north won the war. The ending of chattel slavery, I believe, trumps the rampant overexpansion of Federal power that resulted from the south's defeat. We can also thank Wilkes Booth for the devastation of Reconstruction policies that wreaked havoc on the south for the next 100 years. Lincoln was for a much more forgiving reunion.
That depends on what the basis for believing in the right to secede. If the right derives from a theory of natural law then no court permission is needed. However many argue that the Rebels had a right under the constitution to secede. Those who argue the constitutional right of secession should also then believe that the secessionists should have worked through the courts.
For one thing had they a constitutional right to secede they would've won their case in court and thus had a much better chance of their secession succeeding. And without war.
Regards as always
But appealing to a court or going through a court implies that there is some question as to whether it is/was a right offered to them. Their opinion was that there was no question...
Beyond that there was no precedent on the procedure for seceding. Honestly at the time (and again, it's my opinion) the 10th Amendment seems pretty clear. Secession as a right is not mentioned ANYWHERE so it would thus be a right afforded to the states. Why would I have to appeal to a court decision from the government entity that I am leaving or, in my eyes, I'm not even a part of any more?
That's the tricky thing about this particular topic. The very ACT of seceding means you are no longer bound by the laws of the land you are seceding from. To appeal to those laws or those courts countermands the act itself it would seem... It's a bit of a chicken vs. egg argument upon close examination.
It is possible to admire the grit, leadership, and personality of my ancestors who fought in the war without admiring or lamenting the ending of slavery. There were good outcomes and bad outcomes of the war. While I believe that the south had a constitutional right to secede, I am still glad that the north won the war. The ending of chattel slavery, I believe, trumps the rampant overexpansion of Federal power that resulted from the south's defeat. We can also thank Wilkes Booth for the devastation of Reconstruction policies that wreaked havoc on the south for the next 100 years. Lincoln was for a much more forgiving reunion.
Very well put..... Some find it hard to believe that a person can have the utmost respect for the Confederacy and most who fought for it without being a champion of slavery...
Nobody in their right mind would ever think it's a bad thing that slavery went away.
It is true that slavery was a root cause of the war. But split with that cause was the Federal Intervention into what citizens considered their rights. The Federal government did not have the power up to that time to interfere to that level in citizens affairs. The people in the south saw this as their main cause, with slavery being the key issue of Federal involvement. There were also tarriff and trade issues. In the words of one captured confederate at Shiloh when asked why he fought," Cause you're down here."
It is possible to admire the grit, leadership, and personality of my ancestors who fought in the war without admiring or lamenting the ending of slavery. There were good outcomes and bad outcomes of the war. While I believe that the south had a constitutional right to secede, I am still glad that the north won the war. The ending of chattel slavery, I believe, trumps the rampant overexpansion of Federal power that resulted from the south's defeat. We can also thank Wilkes Booth for the devastation of Reconstruction policies that wreaked havoc on the south for the next 100 years. Lincoln was for a much more forgiving reunion.
Lincoln forgiving you need to find some better facts not spun by the North .He put over 40,000 in the north in jail till they agreed to fight the south . Also see what Sherman did after the surrender see where they kill all the males in the south an carted off the women an children . No John Wilkes was just late getting the job done as the South could of all ready done it but was more afraid of the other bunch in the waiting . How long you been in Georgia ???
Lincoln forgiving you need to find some better facts not spun by the North .He put over 40,000 in the north in jail till they agreed to fight the south . Also see what Sherman did after the surrender see where they kill all the males in the south an carted off the women an children . No John Wilkes was just late getting the job done as the South could of all ready done it but was more afraid of the other bunch in the waiting . How long you been in Georgia ???
Nothing meant by it, but you're the one proposing the more non-conventional "facts". Could YOU possibly provide us a link or something to see some of this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
