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

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad

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.

The South lost the war because they started it at Ft. Sumter.

If they had not, I do not believe Lincoln could have rallied support for a war. A quiet secession was the way to go.

[Xargos]

http://www.scv.org/

[Xargos]

Originally posted by Sandman
The South lost the war because they started it at Ft. Sumter.

If they had not, I do not believe Lincoln could have rallied support for a war. A quiet secession was the way to go.

You are very right Sandman.

[ASTAC]

Ahh... Lincoln.."The great Centralizer"

He was actually the beginning of the end of the Constitution as it was written.

A few of my thoughts.

The term "Civil War" is way innaccurate..civil war refers to fighting inside of a single country..this was a war of two soveriegn nations.


It was started by Lincoln..He was warned that US Ships were not to enter into Charleston Harbor.

No part of the Constitution prohibited a state from leaving the union.

I'm from the south...I believe that states rights and bullying by the northern states were the main reasons this all started. Slavery is probrably one of the many, but not the first and foremost. Remember history is written by the victorious not the loser.

My problem with the whole "civil war" thing is what happened after the war. How the south was degraded and taken advantage of  by the Govenment and the carpet baggers. Made to jump through hurdles to gain admission back into the union. It was low, vengeful, and just wrong.

[Flit]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.

 I think you should read more books about the Civil War, and depend less on what you heard at a party or the believes of a single history teacher.(BTW, I think, and I could be wrong here, that high schools have teachers, and collages have professers)

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by ASTAC

I'm from the south...I believe that states rights and bullying by the northern states were the main reasons this all started. Slavery is probrably one of the many, but not the first and foremost. Remember history is written by the victorious not the loser.
 

States rights were part and parcel of the issues that brought Secession to a head and brought about the Civil War, but bullying had nothing to do with it.  The Civil War was coming from the time they started dividing up the new lands in the western US and arguing the issues of slavery vs free states.  The old compromises werent holding.  Lincoln was always against the idea of slavery, but was of the opinion that time would deal the death blow to the institution, that interference was not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful to the Union and the safety of the citizens of slave states if they were freed.  I lay most of the blame for igniting things past saving on Stephen Douglas.  His deal making pushed the hottest issues of the day onto the front burner and caused tempers across the country to flare at a time when they were already hot to start with.

[Xargos]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdouglas.htm

[BlkKnit]

Lasersailor, you got a pretty one-sided point of view.   Not saying your completely wrong, I just think that if you cant argue both sides, you cannot effectively argue one.

Slavery was the issue which led to secession.  Northern industrialism led to the war.  In the end, ole Dixie was doomed for many reasons, but the truth of what was gained by our civil war is both important and in some ways, hard to fully understand.  The enforced freedom of the slaves made life difficult for them and possibly is still making life difficult for our minorities, I am no expert on anything, especially this.  I have read that Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves, and in truth he didn't.  The emancipation proclimation wasn't a legally binding document, it was a political, and partially, a military ploy.  But in the end, right was done in this matter.  Waiting for the southern aristocracy to come to thier senses might have taken quite a while, but had such been done and they been freed in a more organized manner, and during a calmer and more solvent time for our nation, things may have turned out better.  But, again, I am going off on a tangent here, and am quite probably wrong about many things.

Many people in the south still hold to the ideal of the confederacy, and not as a nation of slave holders.  Its the thought that we lost a war to a bunch of yankees that really gets in our craw.  

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Toad
The Confederacy didn't fail because the idea of States Rights was wrong. It failed because the North had more resources.

It's easily demonstrable that the Southerners had better military leadership and fought more effectively until the North basically overwhelmed them with numbers/material.

 

LOL confederacy is like the Germans in WW2, plus they had cooler uniforms and weapons to boot!

[Xargos]

Truth is like picking berries, if you look at the tree from only one angle you'll miss a lot of berries.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/

[lasersailor184]

.(BTW, I think, and I could be wrong here, that high schools have teachers, and collages have professers)

Good call.  

I think you should read more books about the Civil War, and depend less on what you heard at a party or the believes of a single history teacher.(

I was being sarcastic.  I know that Sarcasm is a new topic to broach for you guys.  




I used to agree with every single thing you've said about the reasons and causes for the start and end of the war.  I was so confident in what I knew that I was willing to step infront of an entire class and try to prove the Professor wrong.

I pretty much got smacked like a red headed step child.

Just because I have an opinion that is different than yours, doesn't mean that I haven't looked at all viewpoints.

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.

I was considering!  I was reading every single word and paragraph.  But I just got to there and I had to stop.  I took a quick look past it and saw that it got even worse.

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

Like I have said many times, the founding or seceding of people from a government is not found in the constitution.  

How many more times will I have to say it?

[Pei]

So would California count as a Southern or Nothern state in the next Civil War?

[Hangtime]

i expect the other 49 states will succeed from california before they get around to each other.

[Leslie]

Originally posted by Hangtime
From another thread that wandered a bit off topic. However, it's a powerful question..



The question rather than it's answer poses a question from me...

"Why?"

Does the south require a seperate nation.. or is it time for a 'new union'? What are the key current motivations to rise in rebellion against the current federal republic?

I live in the South and I haven't heard talk of secession or anything of the sort.  Even in 1861 Alabama didn't want to secede.  I think it passed by a very narrow margin of votes.  Woulda been hard to not secede after Mississippi and Florida did.  After that it was like a domino effect for the other states.  Am not very knowledgeable about how the other states viewed secession, but Alabama almost didn't secede, the main pressure coming from her neighbors.

*Used to have a good link that talked about that, but I did write it down and now that has disappeared - (may be wrong about the exact vote number outcome.)

Change of subject:

About secession, to me it just makes sense that after the war, some kind of provision would be in place to make secession unlawful.  I believe this is what Toad is talking about, and he is asking about if and where it exists.  Or that he is claiming there is nothing in the present day constitution that specifically deals with secession.  Is this correct Toad?  There have been no amendments?  It is my understanding at the time of the War Between the States, secession was not unconstitutional.

Whether it's there or not, I believe the US would not allow it in any event.  Even if the Feds allowed it, secession by a state would probably be met with the same enthusiasm as making Washington DC into a state.




Les

[Lizard3]

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

 

Well, not plagarizm so to say, but I thought perhaps I had inspired you to take a look at it. It weird in that its almost verbatim. Of course, I couldn't remember the name of the hills.