User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:33:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Honestly? Whichever side drafted me. Most of the people on either side were not warrior poets fighting on the basis of philosophy. They were conscripts. And most of us Appalachian Mtn. folk hid in the hills, hoping that a army didn't come through, stealing what we were growing/raising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:34:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Since slavery was outlawed first under wartime powers of the President in those areas in insurrection, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, the two situations are entirely unrelated. The President, nor Congress, had at that time the power to end slavery or to seize property without due process of law. Any acts to that end were unlawful. Furthermore, it was not an insurrection, it was secession in keeping with the tradition from which the American one was derived (and which was used to justify secession from Britain); the two are not the same thing. The Union had no lawful authority in the seceded States from the moment of their secession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:35:38 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY!  Somewhere, my love. Quoted:
Quoted:
No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections.
So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). It is if you lose. ETA: Which is my entire point. As I said to someone else, no it's not. Words have meanings. Either something was treason or it was not; it is not a relative concept. Losing a war does not give the victors the power to alter truth; no person is so capable. It is transcendental. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:35:48 PM EDT
[#4]
I'll fight for the side with cookies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:38:15 PM EDT
[#5]
The Confederacy. They had better riflemen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:39:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes it is, they were rebelling against the legitimately elected government. Besides, we're talking about insurrection here.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted:
Quoted:
No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections.
So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. Rebellion and insurrection are not treason. All three words have different meanings, especially when we consider the very limited legal definition of treason in the U.S. Secession is not a power denied to the States by the Constitution which define dfthe Union which they joined; the original States joined under the understanding that it was not a perpetual bond; they had all very recently fought a war of secession in opposition to that idea as held by the British government. Furthermore, a government being elected does not make it irreproachable or make force against it or secession from it ilegitimate; that is quite the democratist attitude, there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:39:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: The Confederacy. They had better riflemen. Lot of good that did against cannon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:39:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, so the warrant was never served (which I knew)? So Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant but did he ever issue it? Quoted:
Quoted:
He never tried.
Quoted:
Hard to imagine I would ever fight for el presidente who arrested members of the media who didn't support his unconstitutional agenda and arrested the Maryland state legislature so they couldn't take a vote on secession... just sayin' Hell, when Lincoln's agenda became clear even New Yorker's didn't want to fight for him NY Draft Riots You forgot trying to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to prevent him from ruling against him .... He damned sure did plan to do so - and the Federal Marshal for Washington D.C. at the time confirmed that Lincoln gave him orders to that effect. De wiki: "The single primary source document is a manuscript written in the 1880s by Ward Hill Lamon, Lincoln's friend, bodyguard, and United States Marshal for the District of Columbia during his administration. According to the manuscript, which is a brief history of Ex Parte Merryman by Lamon: After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him. The warrant was never served, according to Lamon, for reasons that are not given. The manuscript dates from the 1880s and resides in the collection of Lamon papers at the Huntington Library." I made it biger. Perhaps you will see it this way. How do you know what he was thinking? Perhaps he wrote it out and changed his mind and put it in his desk (where it was found after his death)? Not to mention that this is based off an account by a person who may or may not have seen the events of this warrant written years after the event took place.
He was Lincoln's friend, bodyguard, and, oh, incidentally, the Federal Marshal of the Washington D.D> district at the time in question. The man making the allegation is the the man who would have done the arresting. [/quote] Not a lot of evidence there that you provided that says he actually tried to have the Chief Justice arrested.....
[/quote] ...just the words of the Marshal himself, plus the fact he had at least one other Federal judge arrested for political reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:39:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? Which was ratified after the war. No such power existed before then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:40:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes it is, they were rebelling against the legitimately elected government. Besides, we're talking about insurrection here.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted:
Quoted:
No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections.
So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. No insurrection. Just leaving - as the have (and still have) the right, power and authority to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:40:37 PM EDT
[#11]
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:41:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The Confederacy. They had better riflemen. Overall, certainly. But I will say that alot depends on the unit. Berdan's Sharpshooters were as good, or better, than most. Some Confederate units would have had mostly townsmen and city boys that would be better equipped with smoothbore muskets to utilize the "buck-n-ball" load. It was the country boys that grew up with rifles and could use them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:41:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? Which came first - the Emancipation Proclamation or the amendment? Oh, by the way, the states that were illegally forced to remain in the union were also coerced into ratifying that amendment. The whole thing is bogus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:42:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They weren't foreign forces and it wasn't an independent state, therefore it was an insurrection. Rebels fired on federal troops, on a federal base located next to a state of the union. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted:
Quoted:
No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections.
So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). South Carolina seceded, which was within its rightful powers. Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution. When a State secedes from the larger party, it ceases to be a part of that larger body. If it is not a part of the larger body, it is foreign to it, and vice versa. The forces were part of the entity to which the State was formerly in union, and thus were foreign to the State and were at the same time no longer welcome. Under those circumstances, the use of force by South Carolina was totally legitimate. It was not an insurrection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:44:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rebels can't alter the truth either. They were never not part of the United States, no matter how much the rebels said they were.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. Well, I'm not a relativist. It was not treason, and losing the war does make it so, either. Victors can't alter truth, even if they try their hardest to obfuscate it. That is simply not true. If they secede, they are no longer part of the Union. The States chose to join the Union, and they can choose to leave it. Whether they are able to leave then comes down to a matter of force, not a matter of what is right and what is wrong. But force does not alter the truth of the matter (i.e. what the status of the seceded State was). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:46:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? Which came first - the Emancipation Proclamation or the amendment? Oh, by the way, the states that were illegally forced to remain in the union were also coerced into ratifying that amendment. The whole thing is bogus. The 14th Amendment even moreso. Freedom and Federalism, by Felix Morley, has a decent introductory account to that whole process and also quotations regarding the true intentions of the "Radical Republicans" that forced the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:49:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: The Confederacy. They had better riflemen. Lot of good that did against cannon. Confederates had almost half as many losses as Federals. Roughly 70,000 dead Confederates and 140,000 dead Federals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:52:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side! Both sides were pretty herped to the derp. As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason that secession had to result in a war. It didn't even have to result in the entire south seceding. If Lincoln had ignored the secession declarations by the lower South and not tried to reinforce Fort Sumter, Virginia would not have seceded. And without Virginia, there was no viable CSA. That said, seceding over slavery was ultimately retarded. Based as much on special interest as irrational racist phobias. Preserving the institution wasn't even a long term winner for the South in general or the slave-owners specifically. One of the (unfounded) hopes that alot of southerners placed their faith in was that Great Britain would intervene and break the blockade for want of southern cotton. In reality, the British were only too happy to see the trade get cut off as it meant their stocks of cotton that they already were glutted with only increased in value. And oh btw, higher quality Egyptian cotton was just around the corner, too. Stupid. Half a million lives wasted. Several more million altered forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:56:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side! Both sides were pretty herped to the derp. As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason that secession had to result in a war. It didn't even have to result in the entire south seceding. If Lincoln had ignored the secession declarations by the lower South and not tried to reinforce Fort Sumter, Virginia would not have seceded. And without Virginia, there was no viable CSA. That said, seceding over slavery was ultimately retarded. Based as much on special interest as irrational racist phobias. Preserving the institution wasn't even a long term winner for the South in general or the slave-owners specifically. One of the (unfounded) hopes that alot of southerners placed their faith in was that Great Britain would intervene and break the blockade for want of southern cotton. In reality, the British were only too happy to see the trade get cut off as it meant their stocks of cotton that they already were glutted with only increased in value. And oh btw, higher quality Egyptian cotton was just around the corner, too. Stupid. Half a million lives wasted. Several more million altered forever. I do think the southern States chose the wrong hill to die on, and now we all have to suffer for the increased centralization of government, reduction in liberty, and harm to federalism and the principle of subsidiarity which all resulted from the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:01:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I'm from New York, so, Confederate for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:02:23 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly? Whichever side drafted me. Most of the people on either side were not warrior poets fighting on the basis of philosophy. They were conscripts. And most of us Appalachian Mtn. folk hid in the hills, hoping that a army didn't come through, stealing what we were growing/raising. Damn revnoooooers! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:04:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Whereever the Irish were, so probably both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:12:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would not fight for wealthy people's right to own other humans. Good thing that wasn't the crux of the issue. 
Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States This is a quotation from Mississippi's declaration: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "States' Rights" is Southern revisionist history from the 1930s. This is an excerpt from The Cornerstone Speech delivered by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy on March 21, 1861: Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. Not about slavery? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would not fight for wealthy people's right to own other humans. Good thing that wasn't the crux of the issue.
Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States This is a quotation from Mississippi's declaration: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "States' Rights" is Southern revisionist history from the 1930s. Secession was about slavery in large part. The war was about secession, tho. Slavery really didn't have a damn thing to do with it, aside from as a tool to help ensure non-interference by the Brits and French. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:16:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side! Both sides were pretty herped to the derp. As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason that secession had to result in a war. It didn't even have to result in the entire south seceding. If Lincoln had ignored the secession declarations by the lower South and not tried to reinforce Fort Sumter, Virginia would not have seceded. And without Virginia, there was no viable CSA. That said, seceding over slavery was ultimately retarded. Based as much on special interest as irrational racist phobias. Preserving the institution wasn't even a long term winner for the South in general or the slave-owners specifically. One of the (unfounded) hopes that alot of southerners placed their faith in was that Great Britain would intervene and break the blockade for want of southern cotton. In reality, the British were only too happy to see the trade get cut off as it meant their stocks of cotton that they already were glutted with only increased in value. And oh btw, higher quality Egyptian cotton was just around the corner, too. Stupid. Half a million lives wasted. Several more million altered forever. Also, because of King Cotton, the advent of the windmill and dry land farming the south was expanding westward faster onto the Great Plains than the North. The way to hamstring the southern cotton industry from turning western territories into wealthy southern Dem. states, thus upsetting the electorial balance in Washington, was to remove a critical key in the cotton industry and that was it's slave labor. It wasn't a humanitarian movement on the part of Mr. Lincoln and the North but rather a cold, calculated strategy just as slaughtering the great buffalo herds was the means to conquer the Plains Indians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:28:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? I find your demeanor fascinating. We are not talking about illegalizing over 16 oz soft drinks. We are talking about subjugating humans and forcing them to work for free. Yea I think a federal law is reasonable. This is the mentality I am talking about. No offense Mike. The emotional, "we are talking about babies dying and women's health care here!" Of course we need a national solution. That how we get stuff like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:28:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Since slavery was outlawed first under wartime powers of the President in those areas in insurrection, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, the two situations are entirely unrelated. Interesting. So just declare a war, then you can pass whatever you like.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:29:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Mexicans
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:30:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? After the south was defeated, of course it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:31:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? Which came first - the Emancipation Proclamation or the amendment? Oh, by the way, the states that were illegally forced to remain in the union were also coerced into ratifying that amendment. The whole thing is bogus. That is how I recall it as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:43:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
That is what I find so sad. They were used by an aristocracy in an attempt to retain a system that made them rich but did nothing for your family. They were defending their states from invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:49:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Rights and powers are specifically pointed out in the constitution. States don't have rights. People have rights. States have power to do certain things. Ex: 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Ex: 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (tired sigh) Yes, I'm (and everyone in this thread, I'm sure) familiar with the argument you're making. It's technically correct, but "State's Rights" has long been shorthand for "a State's reserved powers". You can keep arguing over that, if you want, but it won't change the phrase that goes back two centuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:49:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
My great grandfather put down the insurrection. Seems to me it was the correct way to go. It wasn't an insurrection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:53:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Since slavery was outlawed first under wartime powers of the President in those areas in insurrection, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, the two situations are entirely unrelated. Interesting. So just declare a war, then you can pass whatever you like.
Thats pretty much it. Slavery couldn't be outlawed without the slaves states seceding, a state's right and condition when joining the Union that was excercised by the South. Lincoln overstepped his powers by forcing those states to stay in the Union which resulted in another ammendment that was the product of wartime powers which was states were no longer permitted from seceding from the Union. The only valid case the Federalists had toward a southern state leaving the Union was the Port of New Oleans, bought and paid for by the North as part of the Northern shipping industry. The North warned if Louisiana seceded, 100,000 Federal troops would march down the Mississippi with bayonettes drawn to reclaim New Orleans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 4:56:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side! Both sides were pretty herped to the derp. As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason that secession had to result in a war. It didn't even have to result in the entire south seceding. If Lincoln had ignored the secession declarations by the lower South and not tried to reinforce Fort Sumter, Virginia would not have seceded. And without Virginia, there was no viable CSA. That said, seceding over slavery was ultimately retarded. Based as much on special interest as irrational racist phobias. Preserving the institution wasn't even a long term winner for the South in general or the slave-owners specifically. One of the (unfounded) hopes that alot of southerners placed their faith in was that Great Britain would intervene and break the blockade for want of southern cotton. In reality, the British were only too happy to see the trade get cut off as it meant their stocks of cotton that they already were glutted with only increased in value. And oh btw, higher quality Egyptian cotton was just around the corner, too. Stupid. Half a million lives wasted. Several more million altered forever. Also, because of King Cotton, the advent of the windmill and dry land farming the south was expanding westward faster onto the Great Plains than the North. The way to hamstring the southern cotton industry from turning western territories into wealthy southern Dem. states, thus upsetting the electorial balance in Washington, was to remove a critical key in the cotton industry and that was it's slave labor. It wasn't a humanitarian movement on the part of Mr. Lincoln and the North but rather a cold, calculated strategy just as slaughtering the great buffalo herds was the means to conquer the Plains Indians. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 5:24:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Since slavery was outlawed first under wartime powers of the President in those areas in insurrection, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, the two situations are entirely unrelated. Interesting. So just declare a war, then you can pass whatever you like. You have to understand that slaves were legally property, and that property –– especially strategic property can be confiscated in times of war. Also, manumission of the slaves that you own was also legal at the time. So the Union was well within its right to confiscate and free slaves. Of course, the 13-15th rendered the whole question academic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 5:32:46 PM EDT
[#37]
The confederacy. The commute's shorter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 5:59:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Too late, ya whore.
Quoted:
Neither. I would've opened up a business supplying war materials and sold stuff legally to one side and smuggled it to the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:03:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Madame, I concede that you are to polish the leathers of another man.
Quoted:
I'm from Virginia, so I'd probably try to find some way to make myself useful to the southern cause. Perhaps doing Bobby Lee's laundry, or keeping John S. Mosby's tent and personal effects tidy and in good order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:11:17 PM EDT
[#40]
HAHA poll fuck obama
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:11:42 PM EDT
[#41]
wow @ these results
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:13:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Wow, another that didn't learn why the war really came about and didn't learn the truth on their own.
Quoted:
wow @ these results |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:16:16 PM EDT
[#43]
THE UNION FOREVER!
HURRAH BOYS! HURRAH! DOWN WITH THE TRAITOR! UP WITH THE STAR! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:16:54 PM EDT
[#44]
huh, another GD Civil War thread, what could possibly go wrong
anyway, I'd fight for the Union, since a few of my ancestors fought in PA Bucktail Brigades and I'm also distantly related to Gen William Tecumseh Sherman |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:21:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: The confederacy. The commute's shorter.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:22:40 PM EDT
[#46]
CSA. My homeland.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:23:03 PM EDT
[#47]
The states rights side.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:30:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Well, seeing as how I am from Florida. Where she goes, so go I.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:44:35 PM EDT
[#49]
CSA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 6:54:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd fight for the herp side, fuck the derp side! Both sides were pretty herped to the derp. As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason that secession had to result in a war. It didn't even have to result in the entire south seceding. If Lincoln had ignored the secession declarations by the lower South and not tried to reinforce Fort Sumter, Virginia would not have seceded. And without Virginia, there was no viable CSA. That said, seceding over slavery was ultimately retarded. Based as much on special interest as irrational racist phobias. Preserving the institution wasn't even a long term winner for the South in general or the slave-owners specifically. One of the (unfounded) hopes that alot of southerners placed their faith in was that Great Britain would intervene and break the blockade for want of southern cotton. In reality, the British were only too happy to see the trade get cut off as it meant their stocks of cotton that they already were glutted with only increased in value. And oh btw, higher quality Egyptian cotton was just around the corner, too. Stupid. Half a million lives wasted. Several more million altered forever. Actually, British efforts to raise cotton in Egypt and India were mostly failures. The quantity needed never materialized. There were massive riots and starvation in England as the textile mills shut down for lack of fiber, so the bizarre notion that the British were happy about the situation is, quite frankly, very, very wrong. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
