States Rights to Succession.. will the South Rise Again?

[Westy]

Yes!    And Freedom Fried Chicken dinners too

[lasersailor184]

I'll wager I've read far more about the Secession and Civil War than you have.

Highly doubtful.  I may be just out of highschool, that doesn't mean I'm a handsomehunk though.

Your implication that it was the form of the South's Constitution that lost the war shows little study of the actual conflict. Try that premise on a roomful of legitimate Civil War military historians and see how far you get.

Who the **** do you think I learned from?

Mary ****in poppins?

Many people are led to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.

The civil war was about slavery.  Any other reason you can possibly think of points directly back to slavery.  The Economics of Slavery.  The State's rights to keep slaves...

It goes on and on.

Most Southerners did not believe in slavery and it probably would have been abolished within 20 years anyway.

There's nothing to say to this but bull ****.  The reason the south kept slaves while the North abolished it was because the south believed in slavery.  At anyone time the southern people could have easily over thrown the Southern aristocracy and abolished slavery.

But they didn't.  Think about that one.

My question to you is-why would so many Southerners be willing to die for something they did not have?

Because they were led to believe that the attacks were a general attack on the South's way of life.

Anyone who didn't fight was a coward and didn't want to fight for their land.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Highly doubtful.  

Highly likely. It was a hobby of mine long before you were born. LONG before.

Try this one; 10 Civil War historians on why the South lost. See if ANY point to the Souther Constitution.

Why the South Lost the Civil War

Here's another to widen your horizons on the origin of the Civil War.

A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War

[Sombra]

This discussion reminds me of an article I've recently read:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa04.html#usa1104i

greetings

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Toad
True, Skuzzy.

But when do you decide that jumping over the side is better than going down with the ship? How long do you wait?

Is the ship foundering?

Normally, abandonment prior to command decison is considered cowardice or deriliction of duty. In the absence of command and faced with obvious evidence of immininent sinking abandonment is appropriate.

I see the ship is afloat, I see the idiot captian is still in command, I see damage control parties at work, I see the ship may survive. To abondon would be desertion... I may keep an eye on the boat station and my section chief, but I ain't diving over the rail just yet.

[Skuzzy]

Matter of perspective Hang.  

She may not be under the water yet, but my socks sure are getting wet.

[Toad]

Nobodies diving over the rail. Skuzzy was asking what would it take; it'd take abridgement of signficant parts of the Constitution.

Suppose they suspended the 1st and started jailing newspapers editors for printing editorials disfavorable to the administration in 2015. Along with that they suspended the 4th and searched anyone's home anytime, anywhere without warrant. At the same time they do away with the 6th and just toss you into jail with no due process, no trial.

What you gonna do then? I suspect that many of us will toss out minor differences like political nametags and oppose the tyranny. You and I, opposite on so many current issues, probably see this situation the same way, eh?

[lasersailor184]

The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion. Thirteen southern states in 1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did when they seceded from Britain. A more accurate name for the war that took place between the northern and southern American states is the War for Southern Independence. Mainstream historiography presents the victors’ view, an account that focuses on the issue of slavery and downplays other considerations.

I was reading the link you gave and actually taking it seriously up until I read this paragraph.  I'm going to stop here and refuse to read any further into this bull ****.

Try this one; 10 Civil War historians on why the South lost. See if ANY point to the Souther Constitution.

Almost all Civil War Historians focus on only the civil war and immediate events after and before.  They might focus further back, but only tracing slavery.

I would highly doubt there are that many people out there as intelligent as I am to pick out the real problems.

Highly likely. It was a hobby of mine long before you were born. LONG before.

And I know all of this information because I've never ever read a single book about the Civil War.  I've never studied history at all.  I only know that Lincoln was president during that time because it was brought up at a party once.

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by Toad

The South came VERY close to winning. Have you read about Ewell's failure to take the Heights south of Gettysburg, specifically Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill? Had that been accomplished according to Lee's orders, it would have meant the end of the Union army and Washington would have lain open to invasion. Had Jackson been available to lead that engagement, the results would most likely have been vastly different.

 

Huh? Thats the same thing I said when nominating Jackson for "General of the Year" award in the "Best Commanders Evar" thread.

Laser, your arrogance is clouding your comprehension. The slavery issue was brought up by Lincoln 2/3 of the way through the war as a wedge to drive the people of the south apart. The emancipation proclomation, while not something he was against, was a political tool used in hopes of formenting a rebellion among the slaves against the owners in the hopes of further crippling the souths ability to sustain the war.

The revisionist's of the past 50 years have done a rather good job of convincing people that slavery was the main issue that brought war, when it was not.

[lasersailor184]

The revisionist's of the past 50 years have done a rather good job of convincing people that slavery was the main issue that brought war, when it was not.

No, it is just the opposite.  More and More increasingly, the reason for the Civil war has diverged from Slavery to other issues.

Don't act like you or I have never heard this before.  I used to think the exact same way.  I could point to all issues that I thought (key word there) had nothing to do with slavery.



It took a great History Professor to convince me otherwise.  (This man had forgotten more about the Civil war then you or I will ever know combined).

I tried arguing him down mid class about the reasons for the civil war.  I must have had 10 or 15 reasons.  Every single one he specifically pointed back as Slavery being the cause of it.  The connections weren't vague either.  He pointed out slavery as the direct cause of it.

Needless to say, I came out at the end of the class very embarassed.  I went to research all of these things (no way was a professor going to top me).  I honestly had to come back the next day to admit he's correct.


The major tendency for young people is simplicity.  But as you get older you think that things can't possibly be simple.  You demand complexity.

Same thing goes for the Civil War.  As you get older you try to see things as being complex.  But the truth of the matter is it just isn't.


Slavery was the only cause of the Civil War.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I was reading the link you gave and actually taking it seriously up until I read this paragraph.  I'm going to stop here and refuse to read any further into this bull ****.

[/b]

And you wonder why I struggle to take you seriously. You don't have to agree; you have to consider. Your willingness to read and consider views that don't match your previously held conclusions is duly noted and not at all suprising.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Almost all Civil War Historians focus on only the civil war and immediate events after and before.  They might focus further back, but only tracing slavery.

[/b]

In other words, NONE of the 10 Civil War historians even mention the South's Constitution as a reason for the loss of the war, so you dismiss them too.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would highly doubt there are that many people out there as intelligent as I am to pick out the real problems.

[/b]

I have no doubt. I eagerly await your book on the subject. Do let me know when you publish.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And I know all of this information because I've never ever read a single book about the Civil War.  

Well, your posts to date at least support that statement.

[Toad]

Liz, I hope you don't think I'm plagiarizing you. I don't recall even seeing your comment on Jackson.

As for Lasersailor.... I'm guessing there's no use trying to discuss anything with him. He's made up his mind and has no need of historical fact.

[nirvana]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Toad, you are far more optimistic about it than I am.  Most kids coming out of high school have no idea how our government works.  
Ask a high school kid why the Declaration of Independence was written and watch them succumb to the emptiness that is ignorance.  All of them can cite the preamble, but none of them (for the most part,....I am generalizing a bit here) can tell you what it actually means, or stands for.

Why would they ever fight for something they have no clue about?

From a soon to be high school sophomore this is what it is to me-A way of telling the British WE ARE a union and WE WILL stand up against you.  We can govern ourselves without any help from you.  We don't need your taxes or your BS rules and laws.  This is our nation to rule and we will do it.  We desire independence and we will have it.


Close or way off?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
Sandy, Lincoln obviously did disagree.

However, I pose you the question I posed in the other thread:

Where in the Constitution does it delegate to the Federal Government the power to militarily force States to remain in the Union?

Because that power is not specifically enumerated, the 10th Amenedment would apply, would it not?

I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution to prevent a state from attempting secession (again).

[VOR]

Laser, you're out of your element.