Confederacy & Civil War

Discussions on other historical eras.
Homer martin
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 12:08
Location: USA

Hi

Post by Homer martin » 16 Jun 2003 20:41

It is far more surprising to see that the number of people who believe that slavery was the cause of the War Between the States grow each year. In the land of the free and the home of the brave some many don't bother to read the history which is well documented, and not believe what is taught in school in todays world of political correctness gone wild.
This subject has been covered on a number of threads on the other sever that is no longer with us(Marcus we miss that good sever), and in each case the Union side lost the war of historical evidence, not only in the words of the Union personal of the war, but the letter of the Southern soldiers, the laws of the U.S. at the time of the start of the war.
Slavery as posted above by ckleisch didn't come into play until the blood baths of Apirl 1862 and the spring and summer campaignes of 1862. Both sides at that time ask the question of what to do with the only untapped manpower left to each side. The North acted first, and took the moral high ground which is the only point taught in todays schools in the U.S. Long missing is the states rights points or the noblility of fighting for ones states who's loyalty too, at that time was the higher than some far of Washington D.C. and most Northerns, it most be remembered fought for their state and not the U.S. government.

Our countries history is out there to be read, read it before it is lost.

/hgm
Last edited by Homer martin on 16 Jun 2003 21:37, edited 2 times in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Jun 2003 21:24

Herr Schultz,

I would suggest reading the Declaration of Independance and the Articles of Conferation when it comes to legality of of succession. You could read some of what BenFranklin said on these and the famous debates on the 3/5 compromise.

However I see you don't care about the actual causes of the Civil war as stated by some "fool" founding father like Ben. So I really do not think any debate is possible at all.

BTW, I relatives who fought on both sides.

You flag arguements are junvenille, and I really like how you know the opinion of "most southern African Americans, seeing as how you obviously are around, and know, so many. But I guess it must be more than the hundreds I have drank with on street corners , BBQ with at houses , and soldiered with in both the Army and the Mississippi national guard.

Your arguments are very dated, every day in this country your idea of a racial identity called black or negrol disappears as intermingling with the races continues, In few years their will be no "pure"negros, and how will your "racebaiting" tactics work with someone part white, part black, part mexican, part other. Are they supposed to hate and disown part of themselves just because you automatically assume that everything is "HATE" and not heritage?

Last time I checked this is a free country , I don't care what flag you fly,
why do you care about "ours".
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 16 Jun 2003 22:35, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

The Last Copperhead In The North

Post by Psycho Mike » 16 Jun 2003 22:28

The reason we say that slavery was not the issue was the pro- Yankee states were allowed to keep slaves all through the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves Lincoln had no jurisdiction over.

The KKK marched for a century carrying Old Glory, the flag of the United States. Shouldn't that flag be banned too?

Thousands of newspaper reporters and citizens were held in jail during the war for speaking out against the war. Newspapers were shut down. The same people who say, "Well we were at war! we had to! What if they had convinced people to want peace!" also oppose Ashcroft and Bush for the war on terror. Come on!

It has always struck me as odd that Lincoln lovers honestly can't think of one other way to end slavery but by going to civil war. They don't think the lessons of Brazil and South Africa mean anything.

The head of the Supreme Court protested Lincoln destroying the constitution with the first use of emergency federal powers. Lincoln issued a warrent for his arrest, which the Army refused to serve.

If we had staid a states rights nation we wouldn't have entered the two world wars, Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia and the Gulf. If you support the results of the Civil War you cannot protest our actions in any of those wars. Period.

There is one good thing that came out after the war. Remember when Grant told Lee his men could return without fear of reprisal? It was a lie. The IRS was started to punish the south and agents were sent in to punish people that had paid taxes to the South and not the North. The IRS was supposed to be temporary. That is how Robert E. Lee got kicked off his land which became Arlington Cemetary. So, how is that IRS agency going?

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 08:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

Post by ckleisch » 17 Jun 2003 00:31

General Robert E Lee received taxation papers for his home in Alexandria. He sent the money by his cousin and was informed that the owner would have to pay in person. At the same time General meigs of the Commissary department US had just lost a son in battle. Bitter he wanted revenge of a sort. His job was to bury the dead or find a place of burial. He hit upon the idea of placing the bodies on RE Lees Arlington property. He placed them directly in the middle of the property so it could never again be used as a residence. In the 1880s the property was restored to the lee family by act of congress. Custis Lee the inheritor made a monetarty agreement with the government and the property was sold to the US government to become Arlington Cemetary

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 17 Jun 2003 01:24

He buried his son right in the center of Mrs. Lee's Rose garden. I believe they had a problem with each other streching back to the Mexican -American war.

I tell you the view from the porch of Lee's house is the best in America.

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

confederacy and civil war

Post by col. klink » 17 Jun 2003 05:44

I don't understand the point about Brazil, Mike. Brazil was the last country in the western hemisphere to end slavery. Do you think it should have been the United States or the Confederate States of America that should have been last? Would that have been another part of the southern heritage to be proud of? What is the evidence that the Confederacy was planning to end slavery? They certainly didn't start and wage the war to end slavery did they?
As far as Lincoln's jurisdiction goes, once the Union Army arrived in the area he pretty much had the ability to do what he wanted sort of like Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the areas that remained in the Union it would and did take a constitutional amendment to end slavery.
The Confederacy reminds me of the kid on the block that didn't like the way the game was going so takes his ball and goes home. The south lost the election of 1860 and decided they didn't like the way the game was going. That is the Southern Heritage . Boo hoo :cry: :cry: :cry:

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 08:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

Post by ckleisch » 17 Jun 2003 06:30

What evidence was there that the Confederate States was aware slavery as an institution was seen in the March 1865 bill that passed the confederate congress calling for freedom for any slave that enlisted. A call for three hundred volunteers went out. Units were being formed and drilled when the war ended.

As to Lincoln's policies, when he became president and war leader a shift was occurring at the highest level of government. Founded from thirteen british colonies, the United States was for decades simply what the name implied: a union, or federation, of semiautonmous states. It was clear to lincoln that a loose confederation could not wage a successful war. Exerting what became war powers the president took actions that had no approval from congress or the supreme court.As the war progressed power was concentrated and rights and powers formerly regulated to the states were defined and limited. With the central goverment now dominant governors and legislators found themselves controlled from Washington. federal programs, agencies and regulations proliferated. what was had was a complete shift in power.

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

confederacy

Post by col. klink » 17 Jun 2003 17:13

In other words roughly a month before the end of the war that the Confederacy initiated and was on the verge of loosing they decided to free slaves who enlisted the Confederarte Army. They would be freed if the Confederacy won a war that it was loosing. The way the Confederates treated the Union soldiers who were black I can just imagine how these slave soldiers would have been employed.

The slave states didn't argue the point for states rights when it wanted the Federal Government to insure their rights to treat people as property in states that were anti-slavery. They demanded and got the Federal Government to support runaway slave laws in anti-slavery states.
The Confederacy and the war it started was all about a group of slave owners demanding their freedom to enslave people. It was not about states rights or tariffs or the like.

A confederation was tried by the US after War for Independence under the Articles of Confederation and it was a failure. That's what led to the Constitution. Why the Confederacy would adopt a form of government that had failed before is interesting.

In a sense the Civil War comes down to a question of grammar. Do you say the United States is a nation or the United States are a nation. I choose the singular form of the verb.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 18 Jun 2003 06:07

Saying that States Rights was the cause of the Civil War without mentioning slavery is like saying that Lincoln died of a hole in his head without mentioning that John Wilkes Booth put it there.

Carp all you want about proximate causes (like the election of Lincoln) or window dressing (like States Rights) or how most Union solders weren’t fighting to free anyone, but it doesn’t change the fact that the fundamental disagreement was over slavery.

Lecture up and down abut the “legality” of seccession, you cannot defend the indefensible. Seccession was a desperate ploy to protect the institution of chattel slavery and (whatever its legal merits) is thus morally repugnant.

Go on all you want to about “Southern Heritage,” the Confederate Jack is too stained with slavery, insurrection, Jim Crow, and segregation to really fool anyone.

I’m not “politically correct,” I’m not calling for banning the Jack, or speech codes, or reparations. I can’t stand Al Sharpton, and I think that A. Philip Randolph was one of the greatest Americans that ever lived. I don’t like affirmative action one bit but I don’t like it that Harvard sets aside 30% of its slots for legacies either. I think Western Culture is better than any other and I think all this talk of “Multi-Culturalism” is just West-bashing. I’m proud of this country when we do something right and I’m ashamed when we do something wrong.

Let’s not fool ourselves with this myth of the Lost Cause any longer. Slavery was wrong, the Confederacy was built upon slavery, and a lot of decent people were swept up in a false patriotism defending it. We should have enough perspective now to condemn the Southern oligarchy, absolve the common solder, and renounce the false principles of States Rights and embrace the real freedom of human rights.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 18 Jun 2003 13:31

That does it. You can never have a Krispy Kreme donut again! :lol:

About 5 years ago a headline went across the globe. It was discovered that slaves built New York City. And they weren't slaves from the south. How had this fact been lost?

Karl Marx covered the Civil War for a New York newspaper, and at first referred to it as the bloody failure of a bourgeois, or however you spell that word, revolution. And he wasn't talking about the states leaving. He was referring to the "mercantile" revolt against the British! He didn't even use the term slavery in his analysis, because during the war there were Northern states that still had slaves.

However, after the speech at Gettysburg Marx hailed Lincoln, as communists have from that time forward. He said that by using the slavery card Lincoln had changed the issues and made the war progressive, and history would forget the first couple of years of war and why they were fought. Boy was he right. That is also why the left will attack an Ashcroft or Bush, say they are worse than Hitler, then defend Lincoln shutting down newspapers and holding reporters without charges. And then without skipping a beat, explain why it was wrong for McCarthy to go after communist spies during the cold war because when the nation is at war is when you need your Civil liberties the most, but Lincoln had to do what he wanted because we were at war and we don't need civil liberties during war. The tactics used to crush the south by Sherman were just what the South deserved. But the same tactics used in the Indian wars by Sherman were "genocide".

The mind boggles. What a mish mash!

Jeff Davis was approached by a couple of states to allow the importation of slaves into the south because there hadn't been any brought in since before the war. He refused to allow it. Slavery had started to vanish up north as the costs of owning slaves rose. I believe without bringing in new slaves that would have continued.

But the biggest mystery with the Lincoln lovers is why did Lincoln send thousands of troops into the south, instead of suing in court to decide if they could leave and not firing a shot? What is the Supreme Court for? Why were newspapers that urged Lincoln to take it to court shut down, the writers put in jail without trial? Why doesn't that bother you?

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

confederacy and the civil war

Post by col. klink » 18 Jun 2003 18:05

The ending of the importaion of slaves forced owners to reconsider their treatment of their property. Instead of working their slaves until they could no longer work and buying a new one they had to consider the welfare of the slaves. On the one hand you're arguing that the South would have ende slavery on its own in some distant time and then you point out how some in the South wanted to reinstate slave importation. You seem to imply the humanitarian aspect of Davis's decision but not mention the political and diplomatic aspects to it. Whatever foreign support the Confederacy had at the time would have been lost by reinstating slave importation.
I have yet to see any of the neo confederates and Southern apologists here condemn slavery. You say it was on its way out, you say it built New York but you haven't said it was evil or wrong. Your final answer?
Maybe the reason Lincoln sent tropps into the South was to protect the federal forts from coming under attack by rebelious militias. And surprise, the forts were attacked by rebelious militias!
I guess on the other hand, the voices in the South who opposed seceding were treated with full respect to their rights and newspapers opposed to the Confederate rebelion were allowed to continue publishing through out the course of the war.
I notice you've stopped using the arguments about Lincoln and the draft. Guess you've read that the Confederacy was the first "country" in North America to introduce conscription. I guess that means they were also the first in North America to use draft dodging too.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 18 Jun 2003 18:45

Psycho Mike wrote:That is also why the left will attack an Ashcroft or Bush, say they are worse than Hitler, then defend Lincoln shutting down newspapers and holding reporters without charges. And then without skipping a beat, explain why it was wrong for McCarthy to go after communist spies during the cold war because when the nation is at war is when you need your Civil liberties the most, but Lincoln had to do what he wanted because we were at war and we don't need civil liberties during war.


The parallel between Lincoln and McCarthy is specious for several reasons.

1] There was an insurrection going on when Lincoln suppressed some of the dissenters, actual treason, right here in the U.S.A,. There was no war, no insurrection, no risible threat to us during the "Cold War" that could justify repression on the scale pursued by McCarthy, H.U.A.C., et. al. after 1949.

2] Lincoln allowed those dissenters who were not actually involved in advocating treason to go unmolested. McCarthy used the "communism" issue to suppress all progressive pollices (e.g. unionism, socialised medicine, equitable tax pollices) and to promote alliances with repressive dictators the world around.

3] Lincoln's government actually found traitors. McCarthy never found a single communist.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 18 Jun 2003 20:06

all of these crypto Hitler fans sound more and more to me like the Southern crypto racists that we have here in the U.S. of A.! For all of you Europeans who have never run into one of these unregenerate Confederates, these are the sort of lies they try to pass off:

Why do you even post such garbage? Do you just want to offend people and start an arguement? And then you act so surprised and irritated when anyone dis-agrees with your "warped" view of history and reality. I especially like how you seem on a religious mission trying to convince "Europeans", how evil some Americans are when the only thing you know about "unregenerate" (is this a word?) confederates is what you see in the movies. You are like a little kid who won't eat something because they never tasted it.

On this all this racism crap , it has been said by many "black leaders" that this tv racism you scream about is the least offensive and easiest to deal with. The hardest racism is the covert kind that you obviously know nothing about because it if you did you would be concerned about what is going on up "north". Real racism is a much bigger problem where you live than where I live.

How many topics do you have going on this same rant anyway? Reminds me of Goebbel's- A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. you seem to have convinced yourself and closed your mind.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 18 Jun 2003 20:17

Joe McCarthy brought 56 into hearings. The majority were reds already under FBI monitoring. However 56, most of whom were in fact agents for the Soviets, does not seem anything like what you are talking about. What are you talking about?

Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with suppressing unions or socialized medicine. None of those issues ever came up for a vote when he served.

Lincoln's government didn't find traitors as there were never any trials. People were held without charges. I understand the urge to whitwash Lincoln- it makes him a potent symbol. And the urge to turn McCarthy into the devil. And then lump him into a group that is blocking from the grave, modern social issues. However this is a history forum.

You might want to read over this thread for a view of history you have never heard of http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... highlight=

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 18 Jun 2003 20:56

1] There was an insurrection going on when Lincoln suppressed some of the dissenters, actual treason, right here in the U.S.A,. There was no war, no insurrection, no risible threat to us during the "Cold War" that could justify repression on the scale pursued by McCarthy, H.U.A.C., et. al. after 1949.



Actual treason, gee whiz I did not know a "state "could be guilty of treason.
I guess all those nuclear weapons pointed at the US by Russia was not a visible threat as you say.


] Lincoln allowed those dissenters who were not actually involved in advocating treason to go unmolested.

I don't suppose locking up thousands in Maryland so they could not vote and suspending "Habeus corpus" so they could not get out is considered "molesting" where you live. Molesting only occurs in the inbred South right?

[/quote]and to promote alliances with repressive dictators the world around.


[/quote]
You are quite right , the Irish consider England a repressive dictatorship. And all of Nato what would be nato, was run by Hitler or something like that. In truth we did support some dictatorships and still do, but exceptions do not prove this point.

Return to “Other eras”