Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession  (Read 40620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Santiago Johimbe

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • ....by the river now. Hey! Where are my nachos?
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2009, 09:24:49 PM »

Mah Kountry, raght or rong! Worship it!!!


Yeah, you like that, dontcha, bitch!

Sorry, Luke, but the whole "Yay Team" mentality is the realm of low-information voters who'd rather just
take it on faith that their team MUST be right, even when it's wrong. Easy, no thought required, and you
can leave anything other than pre-packaged "morality" in the closet.

Luke=FAIL
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2009, 03:36:43 AM »

No Dylboz. I'm not trying to be powerful and important through allegiance to the state. Hell, my allegience isn't even to the state. It's to the nation. That's why I despise traitors and praise those who serve the nation. I could care less about the state. If the entire government were diselected tomorrow and an entirely new group of 30 million or however-many-there-are government officials were in their place I could care less. Might be nice if the new group weren't so far to the left, but that's not the big point. The big point is that we are a nation that is founded on the principles of rule by law and republicanism. Not lawlessness, anarchy, or anything like that. If you want to live in a lawless, anarchic society, then you need to move to a society that is lawless and anarchic like Somalia rather than trying to force the US or New Hampshire to become lawless and anarchic.

By your own logic, you can have no objection to a bunch of people moving to New Hampshire and convincing (not forcing!) everyone to choose liberty over statism.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

JosiahWarren

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2009, 06:38:56 AM »

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=2879

excerpt:

It is heartening that at last, thanks to a few off-the-cuff remarks by Texas governor Rick Perry on “tea-party” day, people are starting to talk about secession in these not-very-United States, and for the most part taking the concept seriously. (”Secession Talk,” as the New York Times put it, “Stirs Furor.”) It’s the first time it has been a genuine subject in American public discourse, says Emory University secession scholar Donald Livingston, since the war of Southern Independence was settled in 1865.

So it’s no surprise that a lot of people have completely misunderstood it, and that the nerve in their knees often impels them to declare it illegal and unconstitutional. Robert Schlesinger, a columnist for U.S. News, is typical: under a headline “Texas Can’t Secede,” he wrote that “one third of the voters think the state has the legal right to secede from the Union.” Then, so sure of his errant position he could get cutsey, he added, “Ummm, no,” and went on to scold them for being so ignorant.

But the plain truth is that Texas has that right, and so do the other 49 states.

In fact, there has never been a real question about the legitimacy of secession. It was the principle that led the 13 colonies to fight to get out from under the British crown in the war of 1776. It was the principle implicit in the 13 states ratifying the Constitution in 1789, made explicit in the ratifying documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island. It was the option understood to be available to all states from that time until 1861, and considered by New England states at the Hartford Convention of 1814. No one put forth a compelling argument that secession was unconstitutional, and the fact that the US Congress in 1861 debated and failed to pass a law against it proves that it was not illegal even in that year.

Lincoln put forth various, and often greatly varying, arguments against secession, but, as Livingston says, relying on their refutation by pro-Unionist philosopher Christopher Wellman (A Theory of Secession, 2005), “Lincoln’s arguments are preposterous.” He was not relying on reason and history and philosophical argument, no more than his party did, but on instinct and temperament, with pride and egotism (”Not on my watch”) mixed in.

(In fact, so far as reason has to do with it, Lincoln had previously argued that “any people anywhere… have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better,” and in his First Inaugural held that “if a majority deprives a minority of a clearly written constitutional right,” that would justify revolution.)

Of course it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed–but that didn’t make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that’s all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right. In fact it dealt only with the question of whether secession would work that one time, decisively decided in the negative by an autocratic, unconstitutional usurpation of power and the waging of a deadly war that defied all civilized standards of warfare to date.

Amid all the talk today, it will be necessary for those who know history and the Constitution to refute those who throw up the rhetoric of “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and the like so that we can get on to an examination of its particular merits.
Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2009, 06:55:21 AM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 

The Constitution includes a clause which is the consent of the governed.  This means when the consent is withdrawn they are free to leave.  Many of the Anti-Federalist would have never signed the US Constitution if it did not include an escape clause. http://mises.org/story/3427 The Inalienable Right of Secession.  Really good article about the legal grounds on which secession can be established.  Sorry Luke no mention of it being treason.
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2009, 08:12:34 AM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 


Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .

You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2009, 09:27:23 AM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 


Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .

You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.

I don't think so.  Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace.  It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves.   General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves.  However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves.  This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist.  It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests.  Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.   
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2009, 09:39:48 AM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 


Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .

You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.

I don't think so.  Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace.  It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves.   General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves.  However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves.  This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist.  It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests.  Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.   

not to even mention all the machines that were making agricultural slave-labor terribly obsolete...

Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2009, 11:24:35 AM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 


Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .

You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.

I don't think so.  Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace.  It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves.   General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves.  However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves.  This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist.  It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests.  Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.   

Southerners didn't want to live with free Blacks either.

The CSA was pretty much intolerant to black people, and was one, at the time, one of the three last slaveholding countries in the Western world. (The other two were the USA, in some districts, and the Empire of Brazil, which didn't free their slaves until the 1880s.)

I reiterate, neither side was really the "good guy" in that conflict. Both the Union government and the Confederate government could be considered to be oppressive.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Cowcidile

  • Cruel Tyrant Cason
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2009, 12:32:55 PM »



No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.

Dude, what is with you and Nam?




I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.


Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2009, 12:35:24 PM »



No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.

Dude, what is with you and Nam?




I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.




petition for a new internet law: anyone who finds a way to connect The Big Lebowski with any internet argument automatically wins
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Osborne

  • Worshipful Grand Conspirator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1241
    • View Profile
    • Sakal/CAI
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2009, 03:44:39 PM »

The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer.

That is really interesting. Do you have a citation for that? Would love to read up on it.
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2009, 05:21:03 PM »

The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer.

That is really interesting. Do you have a citation for that? Would love to read up on it.

If that would have happened it likely happened near the end of the war, when there were proposals to form all-Black regiments out of slaves anyway.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2009, 05:37:57 PM »

With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.

What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede?  The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression.  And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.  75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms.  Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes.  Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves.  The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts. 


Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .

You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.

I don't think so.  Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace.  It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves.   General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves.  However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves.  This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist.  It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests.  Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.   

Southerners didn't want to live with free Blacks either.

The CSA was pretty much intolerant to black people, and was one, at the time, one of the three last slaveholding countries in the Western world. (The other two were the USA, in some districts, and the Empire of Brazil, which didn't free their slaves until the 1880s.)

I reiterate, neither side was really the "good guy" in that conflict. Both the Union government and the Confederate government could be considered to be oppressive.
Obviously still indoctrinated by public schools which are a product of the Union North.  The president of the Confederacy adopted an abused black child and while he was being tried by the North for demanding freedom for his people.  He made sure that his adopted son's education was paid for in advance no one forced him to do this.  Also several Confederates who were intermarried with blacks left the country after the war and set up a colony in Brazil.  The leader of this group was married to a Black woman and they had several children.  

The Confederates refused to fight a gorilla war and the placement of landmines considering their defensive position it would have been a better tactic.  Yet Sherman and the North had no problems with genocide, slash and burn of the south forcing thousands upon uncounted thousands of Southern Blacks and Whites to starve to death or expose them to deadly illnesses.  The commandant of a Southern prisoner of war facility which wouldn't have been necessary if the Union hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges.  Sent all captured children back home even without and exchange for their safety, typically these were drummer boys.  The Union made no such concession for Confederate boys but in fact tortured Confederate prisoners.  Even Union prisoners testified at the trial of the Confederate commandant that he was a fair and just individual attempting to do the best he could in the situation.  The situation being that even the civilian population was starving.  No charges were ever brought against the sadistic Union commandants even though their abuses were well documented.   http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/

A fairly good essay on the Civil War http://www.san.beck.org/LincolnCivilWar.html  It is very difficult subject to research not because things didn't happen but because the victors write the history books.  Even so many of the facts have been uncovered.
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #43 on: May 05, 2009, 06:27:27 PM »

Quote
Obviously still indoctrinated by public schools which are a product of the Union North.  The president of the Confederacy adopted an abused black child and while he was being tried by the North for demanding freedom for his people.  He made sure that his adopted son's education was paid for in advance no one forced him to do this.  Also several Confederates who were intermarried with blacks left the country after the war and set up a colony in Brazil.  The leader of this group was married to a Black woman and they had several children. 

Yes, all of that being after the war. And "freedom"? More like freedom to keep his profits. Jefferson Davis was a planter and a lawyer and, from all histories I've read of him, less than an astute politician.

Quote

The Confederates refused to fight a gorilla war and the placement of landmines considering their defensive position it would have been a better tactic.  Yet Sherman and the North had no problems with genocide, slash and burn of the south forcing thousands upon uncounted thousands of Southern Blacks and Whites to starve to death or expose them to deadly illnesses.  The commandant of a Southern prisoner of war facility which wouldn't have been necessary if the Union hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges.  Sent all captured children back home even without and exchange for their safety, typically these were drummer boys.  The Union made no such concession for Confederate boys but in fact tortured Confederate prisoners.  Even Union prisoners testified at the trial of the Confederate commandant that he was a fair and just individual attempting to do the best he could in the situation.  The situation being that even the civilian population was starving.  No charges were ever brought against the sadistic Union commandants even though their abuses were well documented.   http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/

So what? You fight a war to win it. You fight a civil war as harsh as you can.

Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Brooklyn Red Leg

  • The Red Legged Devil
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession
« Reply #44 on: May 05, 2009, 09:23:51 PM »

Hell, my allegience isn't even to the state. It's to the nation.

Then that makes you a Fascist douchehole.
Logged
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken


Er_Murazor's KoLWiki Page
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 32 queries.