Did they have the right

[Salty]

In another thread, brought up the discussion of the right of the CSA to succeede from the Union.

What say you?

 

[billwald]

When the Constitution was written, "state" meant "sovereign nation." Powers not granted to the Federal Government are retained by the states as sovereign nations.

 

[blackbird]

I don't know about you, Salty

but(and its a big one!!!!!)

Richmond just "sounds" like it'd had made a better capitol than DC!!!

And a true story from the banks of the Mississippi River just south of Baton Rouge at a place called Nottoway Plantation

Seems like there was a Trigger happy US Navy River Boat Captain who took pleasure in "fireing upon" hapless dwellings along the banks of the Mighty Mississippi

"There's a house yonder-----see it????"

"Yes, Captain!!"

"Open fire!!"

"Eye Eye, Skipper!!!"

And the houses were blown to "Smith--err--reens!!!"

But when the Navy Captain came upon Nottoway-----he told the crew

"Hold your fire, Men!!!!!"

www.nottoway.com

 

[BigBossman]

I believe the South was justified in breaking apart from the Union. However, I'm glad that we're not two separate nations today. Contrary to what a lot of people would believe, The Confederacy wasn't formed because of slavery. It was formed for the purpose for state's rights.

Putting the Confederacy capital as Richmond, VA was a tactical error though. They should have made the capital deeper in the South. I probably would have put it into central Texas (Austin or San Antonio) since there is no water surrounding or near that area.

Also if I had been around during that era, I would have gladly fought & died for the South.

 

[Salty]

Rush Limbaugh is one who does not believe the WBTS was fought over States (or Commonwealth) rights

 

[StefanM]

Even if the US used that theory to break from England, it was still illegitimate then. The American Revolution was an illegal, traitorous war from England's perspective.

If the South had won, they would have done so by force, not by legitimacy.

 

[Salty]

Even if the US used that theory to break from England, it was still illegitimate then. The American Revolution was an illegal, traitorous war from England's perspective.

If the South had won, they would have done so by force, not by legitimacy.

And the current English government is not legitimate - think 1066 AD

 

[Palatka51]

Even if the US used that theory to break from England, it was still illegitimate then. The American Revolution was an illegal, traitorous war from England's perspective.

If the South had won, they would have done so by force, not by legitimacy.

That's just pure drivel.

 

[just-want-peace]

Rush Limbaugh is one who does not believe the WBTS was fought over States (or Commonwealth) rights

Well, JWP is one who believes that this "war of northern aggression" was fought precisely for that reason!

So much for Rush's beliefs!

Incidentally, why did you post Rush's beliefs on this topic?

 

[StefanM]

And the current English government is not legitimate - think 1066 AD

Almost no government has an ironclad, legitimate origin.

 

[StefanM]

That's just pure drivel.

So you think England thought the war was legitimate?

The Civil War, at its core, was little more than a rebellion of the rich, powerful individuals seeking to preserve their economic situation by convincing everyone else it was about states rights and "Northern Aggression." Sure...states rights to preserve an economic system of slave-based agriculture. Northern aggression? Maybe some heavy-handed political dealings, but if you believe that the Civil War would have occurred if the 900 lb. elephant of slavery weren't in the room, you would be mistaken.

 

[Surfer Joe]

I believe the South was justified in breaking apart from the Union. However, I'm glad that we're not two separate nations today. Contrary to what a lot of people would believe, The Confederacy wasn't formed because of slavery. It was formed for the purpose for state's rights.

Putting the Confederacy capital as Richmond, VA was a tactical error though. They should have made the capital deeper in the South. I probably would have put it into central Texas (Austin or San Antonio) since there is no water surrounding or near that area.

Also if I had been around during that era, I would have gladly fought & died for the South.

You're right about why they seceded but I'm not sure they were justified. Either they wanted to be Americans or they didn't. On the other hand, they were guilty of nothing more than those who seceded from England.

I'm not sure who I would have fought for. Are you into civil war re-enacting?

 

[StefanM]

You're right about why they seceded but I'm not sure they were justified. Either they wanted to be Americans or they didn't. On the other hand, they were guilty of nothing more than those who seceded from England.

I'm not sure who I would have fought for. Are you into civil war re-enacting?

What's the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War?

Foreign intervention.

I am not sure who I would have fought for either. I wouldn't be particularly enthused about fighting for either side, honestly, and who knows what I would have believed had I lived at the time. I will say this, however. I wouldn't be particularly interested in laying down my life for the right of others to keep men and women in bondage.

 

[Surfer Joe]

What's the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War?

Foreign intervention.

I am not sure who I would have fought for either. I wouldn't be particularly enthused about fighting for either side, honestly, and who knows what I would have believed had I lived at the time. I will say this, however. I wouldn't be particularly interested in laying down my life for the right of others to keep men and women in bondage.

I wouldn't be particularly interested in that either. I agree.

 

[Salty]

What's the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War?

Foreign intervention.

In the American Revolution there was foreign intervention. Germans and the French fought for the Colonials.

Surfer Joe said:

Either they wanted to be Americans 
or they didn't.

Keep in mind, back then, citizens thought of themselves as citizens of a particular State or Commonwealth, not of the US. That is the precise reason Robert E. Lee decided to fight for the correct side


Homework for tonight: Which Union Generals had slaves, and which CSA Generals did not?

 

[BigBossman]

Are you into civil war re-enacting?

I'm not into re-enacting wars, but I do find them fascinating to a degree. I was just simply thinking how I would have done things if I were the leader of the Confederate army.

 

[BigBossman]

I am not sure who I would have fought for either. I wouldn't be particularly enthused about fighting for either side, honestly, and who knows what I would have believed had I lived at the time. I will say this, however. I wouldn't be particularly interested in laying down my life for the right of others to keep men and women in bondage.

It sounds like you would have fought for the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't discriminate between their soldiers. All were paid equally & the platoons were not segregated. The Union soldiers were paid differently (by race) & their platoons were segregated.

I also didn't approve of the tactics used by General Sherman (a Union general). His campaign took him through Atlanta, GA. He was known for torching everything, including innocent civilians. He didn't care if it was a person's home, men, women, or children. He didn't discriminate between soldiers & civilians.

War is an unfortunate fact of life. I think if the Civil War didn't happen in the 1860's, it would have happened later on. Every country at one point or another has some kind of civil war or conflict. I'm glad we have gotten that out of our system.

One thing you can always count on is as long as there are different people, different beliefs, & different view points there will always be war or at least conflict.

 

[StefanM]

It sounds like you would have fought for the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't discriminate between their soldiers. All were paid equally & the platoons were not segregated. The Union soldiers were paid differently (by race) & their platoons were segregated.

I also didn't approve of the tactics used by General Sherman (a Union general). His campaign took him through Atlanta, GA. He was known for torching everything, including innocent civilians. He didn't care if it was a person's home, men, women, or children. He didn't discriminate between soldiers & civilians.

War is an unfortunate fact of life. I think if the Civil War didn't happen in the 1860's, it would have happened later on. Every country at one point or another has some kind of civil war or conflict. I'm glad we have gotten that out of our system.

One thing you can always count on is as long as there are different people, different beliefs, & different view points there will always be war or at least conflict.

The Confederacy had the preservation of slavery enshrined in its constitution. Now, I've never been a rich person, and I certainly would have no interest in fighting to preserve a system that allows the rich to own other human beings. I know that the Union Army was anything but a racism-free beacon of hope. Even Lincoln himself was a racist to some degree.

The actions of the Union Army would make me reticent to serve with them as well. The North had its own problems.

 

[Salty]

The Confederacy had the preservation of slavery enshrined in its constitution.

The United States had the preservation of slavery enshrined in its constitution

 

[StefanM]

The United States had the preservation of slavery enshrined in its constitution

From the CSA constitution:

" No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

That is ironclad. Nothing of the sort exists in the US constitution.