Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 185

Thread: Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights"?

  1. #1

    Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights"?

    I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery. I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.

    Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."

    After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong. The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.

    Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south. But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.

    South Carolina's declaration of secession:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

    Even though they do mention "states rights" at the beginning, they later make it clear that A: They were specifically talking about states rights regarding slavery and B: Their belief was entirely one sided. They didn't support the States Rights of the northern states:


    The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

    Mississippi's declaration is the same:

    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp

    Starts with this:

    In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    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.





    I haven't read all of them that. I read a few in my college US history class, and I looked up a few other random ones on my own just to make sure they weren't cherry picking the data.

    The only one that I saw that didn't specifically mention slavery was Missouri which, oddly enough, also didn't actually secede.

    I know Rothbard was both brilliant and a revisionist on this issue. I am curious how he dealt with these documents, as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights." Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.


    FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  4. #3
    ^ this is true

    Neither side really gave a sh!t about slavery - at least not to the extent that they were willing to go to kill over it.

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  5. #4

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.
    1) Lee didn't want Virginia to secede either. http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011...on-to-a-point/

    As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

    2) Lee declined to free his father in laws slaves even though they were to be freed upon his father in law's death according to the will.

    http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...ly-Slaves.html

    FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?
    He's probably not aware of that because it's not true.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    He's probably not aware of that because it's not true.
    What makes you think slavery is illegal?
    Go ahead and provide a quote please.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.


    FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    1) Lee didn't want Virginia to secede either. http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011...on-to-a-point/

    As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

    2) Lee declined to free his father in laws slaves even though they were to be freed upon his father in law's death according to the will.

    http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...ly-Slaves.html



    He's probably not aware of that because it's not true.
    I understand what fisharmor is talking about, that we're all pretty much slaves to the State. We could debate to what extent, but not the reality of the situation.

    Look, I'm not going for the textbook "bash the south and exalt the north" position. I think both sides were evil, and I still think the North was more so, after all they were willing to invade another country to stop secession, yet they couldn't even be bothered to repel the fugitive slave act. I'm not a "Northern supporter" at all.

    And I agree that Lee was mainly concerned about defending Virginia. But Lee's reasons for joining the South and the South's reasons for seceding aren't the same thing.

    Fish, what's your opinion on the documents I posted?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #8
    You've discovered what I ran across years ago. Yes the south seceded in large part because they wanted to "right" to own slaves. It gets worse. Read the confederate constitution.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
    (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

    And Lincoln, for all his faults, did attempt compensated emancipation in the border states (his attempt failed) and he did succeed in compensated emancipation in Washington D.C. http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...35&subjectID=3

    People will throw a lot of irrelevant arguments at you over this. (The funniest one is most southerners didn't own slaves. Well most Americans don't own stock in oil companies either. The issue isn't what did the rank and file who fought the wars want. It's what did the elitists who started the war want.)

    Anyway, congrats on doing your own research on this and not just relying on some Thomas Dilorenzo video!

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery. I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.

    Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."

    After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong. The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.

    Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south. But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.

    South Carolina's declaration of secession:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

    Even though they do mention "states rights" at the beginning, they later make it clear that A: They were specifically talking about states rights regarding slavery and B: Their belief was entirely one sided. They didn't support the States Rights of the northern states:





    Mississippi's declaration is the same:

    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp

    Starts with this:



    I haven't read all of them that. I read a few in my college US history class, and I looked up a few other random ones on my own just to make sure they weren't cherry picking the data.

    The only one that I saw that didn't specifically mention slavery was Missouri which, oddly enough, also didn't actually secede.

    I know Rothbard was both brilliant and a revisionist on this issue. I am curious how he dealt with these documents, as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights." Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    What makes you think slavery is illegal?
    Go ahead and provide a quote please.
    The thirteenth amendment makes any involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime (which I would say could be morally justified if it was the only means to gain restitution for theft) illegal. Now, the US government doesn't actually follow the constitution, but slavery is unconstitutional unless its punishment for a crime.

    Now, I will agree with you that the constitution is too open ended about what "crimes" are punishable by involuntary servitude. The constitution isn't really a libertarian document per say, though it does theoretically allow for libertarianism if a state wants to do libertarianism. But, the constitution doesn't allow people to be enslaved without some kind of due process.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    What makes you think slavery is illegal?
    Go ahead and provide a quote please.
    You said "100% legal". It's not. I can go to any part of this nation and without fear of being impressed into a plantation as in the true story "Twelve Years a Slave". Is there tax slavery and national debt slavery? Sure. That existed in the confederacy as well. Oh and the confederacy instituted a draft before the Union did. They were enslaving white men to help them keep black men as slaves.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You've discovered what I ran across years ago. Yes the south seceded in large part because they wanted to "right" to own slaves. It gets worse. Read the confederate constitution.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
    (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

    And Lincoln, for all his faults, did attempt compensated emancipation in the border states (his attempt failed) and he did succeed in compensated emancipation in Washington D.C. http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...35&subjectID=3

    People will throw a lot of irrelevant arguments at you over this. (The funniest one is most southerners didn't own slaves. Well most Americans don't own stock in oil companies either. The issue isn't what did the rank and file who fought the wars want. It's what did the elitists who started the war want.)

    Anyway, congrats on doing your own research on this and not just relying on some Thomas Dilorenzo video!
    This is a topic we went over in school and we were shown primary source documents. I haven't looked at all of the documents yet but I looked at a few he didn't go over just to make sure he didn't cherry pick data. I didn't think he did but I wanted to make sure. And it doesn't seem like he did.

    I want to read DiLorenzo's "the real Lincoln" at some point. Lincoln's crimes have been verified by pro-Lincoln scholars who try to defend him. I wouldn't be shocked if Lincoln really believed he was doing the right thing, but it seems unquestionably the case that he wasn't. At least to me it does.

    It seems to me that even though most southerners didn't own slaves themselves, they supported the institution. It also seems to me that most of the small slaveholders had some type of paternalistic view toward their slaves, more treating them like children than like animals. I could be wrong about that though, but that's what I've seen from the limited amount that I've learned. Even that is bad enough though, there is no need to make every slave holder into a psychopath for the institution to be seen as awful and undefendable.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  14. #12
    I really enjoy Shelby's stories - he educated himself from source documents, which are still available today (who knows for how long)

    UNION: "What are you fightin for anyhow?"
    CONFEDERATE: "I'm fightin cause you're down here" <-says the man with no assets or slaves




    These men could not have cared less about slavery. Defining the civil war as a war for slavery was a political move, which was first employed to thwart confederate sympathizers in Europe (where slavery had been abolished 30 years prior - political suicide to support)

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  15. #13
    Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South. Had the south stayed...well South things might have gone differently. General McClellan had no interest in invading the South and barely defended the North. As for the southerners who didn't own slaves, I already addressed that. Most soldiers today have not clue as to why they are fighting. The real question is why did the elitists want to secede? Answer, in part, to protect slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
    I really enjoy Shelby's stories - he educated himself from source documents, which are still available today (who knows for how long)

    UNION: "What are you fightin for anyhow?"
    CONFEDERATE: "I'm fightin cause you're down here" <-says the man with no assets or slaves




    These men could not have cared less about slavery. Defining the civil war as a war for slavery was a political move, which was first employed to thwart confederate sympathizers in Europe (where slavery had been abolished 30 years prior - political suicide to support)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South. Had the south stayed...well South things might have gone differently. General McClellan had no interest in invading the South and barely defended the North. As for the southerners who didn't own slaves, I already addressed that. Most soldiers today have not clue as to why they are fighting. The real question is why did the elitists want to secede? Answer, in part, to protect slavery.
    OK, if this happens:

    Country A: We are separating from Country B and becoming our own country.

    Country B: YOu can't do that! We're keeping you in no matter what, even if it takes a war to "Preserve our union". Oh, and we're keeping armed soldiers in bases right in the middle of your territory.

    Country A: If you are going to threaten us like this, we are going to have to take control of the bases by force.

    Country B: Bring it on, we'll just use that as a justification to "defend ourselves."

    Country A: Attacks Base FS

    Country B: Now we will take you over and force you to stay in our country

    Country A: Proceeds to preemptively invade the southern part of country A in order to bring the fight to their territory.


    Based on this it seems like Country A is, at the least, MORE justified than Country B. Even if Country A's reasons for seceding were wrong, Country A is still morally justified in doing this in order to defend their country.

    The Confederacy is a really hard case of secession to defend because of their reasons, but they still did have a right to secede IMO. I think it was a war of evil against evil, but I don't think invading Maryland and Pennsylvania (the goal of which was to tire the North of fighting and get them to let the South go) was evil in and of itself.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #15
    Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.
    Huh?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights." Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.
    The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance. The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Huh?
    *sigh* Please read.

    http://www.historynet.com/why-did-th...-the-north.htm

    While the first major battle took place on Confederate soil, the Battle of Bull Run, that was only 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C. and was a defensive maneuver. The first full scale invasion of either side was General Lee invading the North.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance. The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.
    And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery. When slave owning president Andrew Jackson was faced with the nullification crisis, only South Carolina was willing to go as far as secession. And Andrew Jackson was willing to be far more brutal than Lincoln was. Why did the other states join S.C. years later? Slavery was threatened by the Republican push to stop its expansion. It's simple electoral math. The more free states allowed in the union, the less power the slave states would have. It's interesting that whenever these discussions come up, the pro Confederate side never wants to address what is actually documented.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #19
    Civil War Battles: By Year & Theater
    1861

    Eastern Theater

    April 12-14 - Battle of Fort Sumter - South Carolina

    June 3 - Battle of Philippi - Virginia

    June 10 - Battle of Big Bethel - Virginia

    July 21 - First Battle of Bull Run - Virginia

    October 21 - Battle of Ball's Bluff - Virginia

    November 8 - The Trent Affair - at Sea

    Western Theater

    August 10 - Battle of Wilson's Creek - Missouri

    November 7 - Battle of Belmont - Missouri

    1862

    Eastern Theater

    March 8-9 - Battle of Hampton Roads - Virginia

    March 23 - First Battle of Kernstown - Virginia

    April 5 - Siege of Yorktown - Virginia

    April 10-11 - Battle of Fort Pulaski - Georgia

    May 8 - Battle of McDowell - Virginia

    May 31 - Battle of Seven Pines - Virginia

    June 8 - Battle of Cross Keys - Virginia

    June 9 - Battle of Port Republic - Virginia

    June 26 - Battle of Beaver Dam Creek (Mechanicsville) - Virginia

    June 27 - Battle of Gaines' Mill - Virginia

    June 29 - Battle of Savage's Station - Virginia

    June 30 - Battle of Glendale (Frayser's Farm) - Virginia

    July 1 - Battle of Malvern Hill - Virginia

    August 9 - Battle of Cedar Mountain - Virginia

    August 28-30 - Second Battle of Manassas - Virginia

    September 1 - Battle of Chantilly - Virginia

    September 12-15 - Battle of Harpers Ferry - Virginia

    September 15 - Battle of South Mountain - Maryland

    September 17 - Battle of Antietam - Maryland

    December 13 - Battle of Fredericksburg - Virginia

    Western Theater

    January 19 - Battle of Mill Springs - Kentucky

    February 6 - Battle of Fort Henry - Tennessee

    February 11-16 - Battle of Fort Donelson - Tennessee

    April 6-7 - Battle of Shiloh - Tennessee

    April 12 - Great Locomotive Chase - Georgia

    April 24/25 - Capture of New Orleans - Louisiana

    June 6 - Battle of Memphis - Tennessee

    September 19 - Battle of Iuka - Mississippi

    October 3-4 - Second Battle of Corinth - Mississippi

    October 8 - Battle of Perryville - Kentucky

    December 26-29 - Battle of Chickasaw Bayou - Mississippi

    December 31-January 2, 1863 - Battle of Stones River - Tennessee

    Trans-Mississippi Theater

    February 21 - Battle of Valverde - New Mexico

    March 7-8 - Battle of Pea Ridge - Arkansas

    March 26-28 - Battle of Glorieta Pass - New Mexico

    1863

    Eastern Theater

    May 1-6 - Battle of Chancellorsville - Virginia

    June 9 - Battle of Brandy Station - Virginia

    July 1-3 - Battle of Gettysburg - Pennsylvania
    huh?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery.
    The southern oligarchs wanted independence from the northern oligarchs. Whether it was over slavery or a ham sandwich is immaterial. The north didn't invade to free anyone.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    OK, if this happens:

    Country A: We are separating from Country B and becoming our own country.

    Country B: YOu can't do that! We're keeping you in no matter what, even if it takes a war to "Preserve our union". Oh, and we're keeping armed soldiers in bases right in the middle of your territory.

    Country A: If you are going to threaten us like this, we are going to have to take control of the bases by force.

    Country B: Bring it on, we'll just use that as a justification to "defend ourselves."

    Country A: Attacks Base FS

    Country B: Now we will take you over and force you to stay in our country

    Country A: Proceeds to preemptively invade the southern part of country A in order to bring the fight to their territory.


    Based on this it seems like Country A is, at the least, MORE justified than Country B. Even if Country A's reasons for seceding were wrong, Country A is still morally justified in doing this in order to defend their country.

    The Confederacy is a really hard case of secession to defend because of their reasons, but they still did have a right to secede IMO. I think it was a war of evil against evil, but I don't think invading Maryland and Pennsylvania (the goal of which was to tire the North of fighting and get them to let the South go) was evil in and of itself.
    And what about the people in regions C and D that are a part of country A that despise country A's reasons for secession and would rather be a part of country B?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Virginia

    And remember. The south instituted a draft before the north did. Why does a state have a right to force people to fight for its "right" to secede? I say a pox on both sides.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance. The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.
    I agree with part of this. I think its ethically undeniable that "Saint Abe" is guilty of mass murder. I also think its undeniable that the North's main motive, at least at first, was to prevent secession. But, the reason secession happened is that the Northerners were not willing to abide further expansion of slavery, which the South insisted on.

    I don't have to support the North to acknowledge that. Long run, I actually think we would have been better off had the South won (for one thing, it wouldn't be as easy for the US Empire to murder people today, and I don't think slavery would have lasted that long.) I am not defending the North here. But I won't defend the South either.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery. When slave owning president Andrew Jackson was faced with the nullification crisis, only South Carolina was willing to go as far as secession. And Andrew Jackson was willing to be far more brutal than Lincoln was. Why did the other states join S.C. years later? Slavery was threatened by the Republican push to stop its expansion. It's simple electoral math. The more free states allowed in the union, the less power the slave states would have. It's interesting that whenever these discussions come up, the pro Confederate side never wants to address what is actually documented.
    My US History professor thinks that this is because South Carolina had the biggest vested interest in slavery. I'm less certain that he's right on that point. What do you think?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And what about the people in regions C and D that are a part of country A that despise country A's reasons for secession and would rather be a part of country B?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Virginia
    While you can make an argument that West Virginia seceding from Virginia isn't "constitutional", I think logically and philosophically speaking they should have been able to do it.

    I believe in secession all the way down to the individual.

    And remember. The south instituted a draft before the north did. Why does a state have a right to force people to fight for its "right" to secede? I say a pox on both sides.
    I agree that they do not (seriously, did you think we would disagree on this?) I said "more justified" not "justified."

    BTW: I have no issues with "a pox on both sides."
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    huh?
    You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states? Huh? (Hint. They weren't).
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The southern oligarchs wanted independence from the northern oligarchs. Whether it was over slavery or a ham sandwich is immaterial. The north didn't invade to free anyone.
    Nobody ever said they did. The southern oligarchs seceded in large part to protect slavery though.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    While you can make an argument that West Virginia seceding from Virginia isn't "constitutional", I think logically and philosophically speaking they should have been able to do it.

    I believe in secession all the way down to the individual.


    I agree that they do not (seriously, did you think we would disagree on this?) I said "more justified" not "justified."

    BTW: I have no issues with "a pox on both sides."
    I knew we wouldn't disagree which is why I brought that up.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states? Huh? (Hint. They weren't).
    Unlike you, I'm counting every battle up to Lee's "invasion".

    Your assertion:
    Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South
    is unfounded.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    the reason secession happened is that the Northerners were not willing to abide further expansion of slavery, which the South insisted on.
    The northern states didn't secede.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    huh?
    "you must spread some reputation around before giving it to otherone again"
    Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade southern states such as South Carolina. That caused other states most notably Virginia to secede.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    *sigh* Please read.

    http://www.historynet.com/why-did-th...-the-north.htm

    While the first major battle took place on Confederate soil, the Battle of Bull Run, that was only 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C. and was a defensive maneuver. The first full scale invasion of either side was General Lee invading the North.
    So the north "wasn't down there" when they were killing people on Southern soil? wth?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Votes No on GMO Labeling on "States Rights" Grounds
    By presence in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-17-2016, 10:21 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 03:17 PM
  3. "States' Rights are anachronistic"
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 01:02 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •