USA vs. CSA

[mioque]

"Do you know that the USA was the only nation to stop slavery by violent means? The European nations stopped slavery without having to resort violence."
"
True, on the other one important lesson I learned on this board:"If Europeans do something differently than Americans, THEY...MUST...BE...WRONG!!!!"

Dale
"Have any of you considered the similarities of slavery to moderen industry?"
"
Sure and while we were doing that we noticed that you grossly underestimated the importance of the different levels of freedom involved in both practices.

 

[billwald]

The point should be that the Dec of Inde was nothing but propaganda and meaningless without the force to back it up.

I propose a test of the Dec of Inde: the USofA is to big. Let's divide into 4 sovereign nations: west of the Rockies, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, and along the Mason-Dixon line east of the Mississippi.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
Instead of having to leap around several threads, why don't we just use this one thread I am starting to discuss our disagreements on the War Between the States(1861-1865)?

There's no disagreement at this point. The area formerly calling itself the CSA lost. We're one nation, the USA.

I believe the Confederacy had just as much right to form a new nation as the the thirteen colonies did.

Well, the right of the original colonies was not given by legal charter. It was given by the fact that a war was fought, and the colonists won. If the colonists had lost, then the crown would have said it had a "right" to keep the colonies. Since the US Constitution has no express mode of secession for states, the "right of secession" issue isn't an issue at all. It's a matter of whether you win or lose. If the CSA had won, then their claim to a "right of secession" would have been gained.

Now, if you agree that these words spoke the truth for the thirteen colonies(which had slavery), why would anyone say that these words do not speak the truth for the Confederacy(which had slavery)?

The D of I was not a legal document. It was a declaration. That's all. It carried no legal or legislative weight whatsoever, and still does not.

 

[Stratiotes]

Legalized slavery is certainly wrong. But, then again, legalized abortion is certainly equally as wrong. We have to keep the discussion in the context of the times without a moral superiority or we will miss some of the most important lessons of history.

 

[billwald]

>Legalized slavery is certainly wrong.

What about legalized (biblical) voluntary slavery?

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tanker:
The rationale was that force was necessary keep the southern states in the union.

Aha! Thanks for admitting that. Now, let's move on.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I myself was wondering when someone....ANYONE was going to bring that up. I hate when people try to bring in the slant as slavery being the only reason the South Seceeded. There were other issues, mostly of the growing FEDERALISM, and the states that eventually seceded were not having their grievances redressed when they presented them. The constitution therefore gave them the right to act as they did in forming the CSA.

 

[just-want-peace]

The constitution therefore gave them the right to act as they did in forming the CSA.

Emphasis mine!

Another one bites the dust!!

 

[Daniel David]

I would have fought against the southern states because I believe they were traitorous. Actually, it had more to do with the leadership of the states.

States rights ended when they ratified the constitution. They were now a federally run one nation.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
I would have fought against the southern states because I believe they were traitorous. Actually, it had more to do with the leadership of the states.

States rights ended when they ratified the constitution. They were now a federally run one nation.

And I would have shot you, Yank!

 

[Daniel David]

The US constitution was not a NAFTA agreement, it was the legal binding document that joined all states into ONE nation. Hardsheller, you were outnumbered 2-1. The South had no chance of actually winning. They could only prolong the inevitable.

 

[AVL1984]

DD, I would have shot you too, and I'm a yankee.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Sometime it is worth standing and fighting for what is right, even though you know you will die.

Remember, the South was right, and sometimes when you are right, you still lose. Ask George H Bush in 92.

 

[AVL1984]

That's right Dr. Bob. Right doesn't necessarily mean might. Sometimes the bad guys do win, and Lincoln was one of them (and this is coming from someone who was raised in Illinois...LOL)

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Read, and note what Alexander Stephens called the 'cornerstone' of the Confederacy.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stephans.html

I had ancestors who served with the South. Nevertheless, I am glad the Confederacy is dead and gone.

 

[LadyEagle]

No surprise there.

 

[AVL1984]

JesusandGeorge...that's HIS opinion. Many others did not feel that way. And it's strange that many blacks VOLUNTARILY fought to save the confederacy. I had relatives on both sides of the war, my birth fathers mother and her relatives were from here in Tennessee, and my adoptive father and some of his relatives were from Missouri and Tennessee. None, as far as I know, owned slaves.

So, with your statement that you are glad the Confederacy is gone, you are glad that FEDERALISM is here, and enjoy too much government control in the decisions that rightfully should be made by each individual state?

 

[Dr. Bob]

19 out of 20 CSA soldiers never owned a slave. They were fighting AGAINST federalism that was trying to enslave THEM!

State's Rights was/is/will be RIGHT.

 

[AVL1984]

Amen, Dr. Bob. I think states need to fight to gain back some of the control taken from them by EVERY president. There are too many conditions put on the money the states pay the FEDERAL GOV'T to get allocations back.

 

[mioque]

"And it's strange that many blacks VOLUNTARILY fought to save the confederacy."
"
A civil war historian I know, has told me that the blacks voluntarily fighting for the confederate side is a bit of revisionist history on par with Holocaust denial.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by mioque:
"And it's strange that many blacks VOLUNTARILY fought to save the confederacy."
"
A civil war historian I know, has told me that the blacks voluntarily fighting for the confederate side is a bit of revisionist history on par with Holocaust denial.

Well perhaps you need to do some more research.

Start Here