Civil War

[rlyons]

Hey Biggieou just wanted to say hello, I grew up in Pomeroy Ohio and worked in Athens for a while. Left there in 71 and never moved back, retired in Florida where it don't put down that white stuff in the winter.

Roy

 

[RustyJC]

I'm reading the Shelby Foote history - and I just got to the initial discussions of the Emancipation Proclamation. It only applied to the states in rebellion because Lincoln didn't believe he had the legal standing to issue it to all America as President, but as military Commander in Chief he COULD issue it as a military matter.

Lon,



Read some more. It didn't apply to all areas of the "states in rebellion". For two examples, see if New Orleans and environs along with Norfolk, Virginia and environs were included (hint - they weren't).



Rusty

 

[mcoleman]

William Quantrills men banded together to protect Missouri from Maruading kansans known as Redlegs that were murdering farmers and burning their homes down and then going back home to Kansas. The final straw for Quantrill was when these so called troops from Kansas imprisoned Quantrills mens wives and children in a run down 2 story house that fell in and killed the majority of the women inside. That is what provoked the raid on Lawrence. Quantrill's main mission as a soldier in the Confederate army was to protect Missouri's citizens from the ruthless Union Army that would drag out farmers in the middle of the night and shoot them as well as any children over the age of 16 that they considered Southern Sympathizers and then burn the homes and force the women and younger children to leave the state on foot. Look up info on General order #11 for more information on this. The best way to learn the true history of the War For Southern Independence is by reading old books from 1940 and older. Veterans from both sides tell the same stories in those years. Starting in the 1960s southern history has went through a 2nd reconstruction period where certain groups have tried to re-write our history in a very incorrect but politically correct to them manner.

 

[loncray]

Really? I will indeed have to read more - it's fascinating, just hard to put enough time together to read. As I said, I've just gotten to the initial discussions - apparently Lincoln shelved it for awhile after talking to his Cabinet about it. One Cabinet member (Seward?) told him he ought to proclaim it after a military victory, not in the middle of a military defeat. I'm amazed at how close the Federals came to taking Richmond VERY early in the war before they lost their nerve.

 

[mcoleman]

Issue 4 - Why The War Was Fought

In actuality the Southern States fought to repel aggression & invasion and also for self-government, just as the fathers of the American revolution had done.



President Abraham Lincoln himself confessed at first that he had no constitutional right to make war against a State, so he resorted to the subterfuge of calling for troops to suppress "combinations" of persons in the Southern States "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary" processes.



Now then, with that said, here are the perspectives from which the North and South went to war in 1861.







1) The North. The Northern States held approximately 80-90% of the industrial capabilities of the States. But, these industrial capabilities were useless without the raw products coming from the South. Tobacco, cotton, hemp, etc were what the North used to maintain its economic stranglehold and wealth. Without the South's raw materials, it would have been economic and political disaster. And this simply would no be tolerated by the North. The statement "War is money" was as valid then as it is now.



2) The South. The Southern States were simple workers who provided products that were shipped overseas. The North did not care what type of labor supplied these products. Slavery, to the North, was a Division Of Labor. And after many years of abuse and oppression, the South had tired from being subjected to Northern rules of politics, trade and economy. The "fat cats" of the North were strangling the South. And the South knew this. They simply tired of this folly, and proceeded to establish a new government for themselves as did the colonists when they wanted their freedom from King George III of Britain.

So, as you can see, slavery was not the issue for the War Of 1861 - 1865. Many want you to believe that the war was totally fought over the issue of slavery, but they are not the true purveyors of history. The same holds true today as it did years ago.



During the war, Frederick Douglass petitioned and lobbied Washington to get the war recognized as being fought solely over the issue of slavery. Douglass stated "That the war now being waged in this land is a war fought for and against slavery".



The Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln, publicly said time and time again that quite simply "The war is being fought for Union, not slavery".



One of the most outstanding statements that was ever uttered in the war, occurred in Tennessee in 1862. A Federal squad of soldiers had captured a single, ragged and underfed Confederate soldier. It was obvious that this Confederate soldier owned no slaves and was a worker of the land himself.



The Federal soldiers asked of the Confederate "What are you fighting for anyhow?"



The Confederate soldier simply replied "I'm fighting because you are down here".



I now pose to you a question. If strangers from a different land came into your cities and your homes to take from you what is rightfully yours, would you not fight for yourself and your family as well as your Constitutional rights? Or would you cower down to the aggressors and oppressors and allow yourself to be dictated to? I think the answer is quite obvious.



All in all the South only wanted was it's God given right to govern and defend themselves as provided under the Constitution.



Article 4 - Section 4 : The United States

 

[RustyJC]

Here's the excerpt - see the second paragraph:

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:



Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.



And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

Here's the cite: Yale Law School.



Rusty

 

[mcoleman]

Issue 3 - Was Secession Legal & Patriotic??

Absolutely!!!!!!!. Most of those who wrote and ratified the federal Constitution recognized secession as a legitimate, legal, and constitutional measure of protection against the possibility that the general government might in the future consolidate and centralize political power, violate the terms of the Constitution, and usurp the rights and liberties of the people of the sovereign States.



Thomas Jefferson himself believed in secession as a constitutional measure. Secession is a natural right of any people and has recently been exercised peacefully and successfully by many countries?Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine.



Now then... This is where the real substance of the War of 1861 comes into play. And I can do no better justice, logic and historic relevance, but as to quote the words of Thomas Guinn:



" If the Southern States hold no right of secession, then the secession of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain is invalid, and the revolutionary war to secure independence unlawful. In such case, we all remain as colonies, and are subject to the British Crown. The Secession of the Colonies, and the Secession of the thirteen States, can not be one good and the other evil, they are both one or the other. Similar conditions existed in both cases and both felt their liberties threatened. "



--Thomas Guinn

 

[loncray]

Ah - with the inclusion of the counties of West Virginia it actually makes sense - weren't those counties and parishes occupied by Union troops at the time? If they were 'in' the Union, they were treated the same as Kentucky and Maryland.

 

[RustyJC]

My point is this - occupied or not, those areas (except arguably what became West Virginia) were parts of "states in rebellion", yet the emancipation proclamation didn't apply to them. If the areas were occupied (under martial law), why wouldn't Lincoln go ahead and free those slaves as well under the "military" premise you cited earlier? Could it be that the Great Emancipator didn't have as much heartburn about the institution of slavery per se as most people might think?



Rusty

 

[mcoleman]

Issue 1 - The Flag

The "flag" that the gentleman from Michigan, and all others across the United States, are up in arms about is historically known as the Confederate Battle Flag. It was never a national flag of the Southern States, so how could it represent the Southern cause? It was simply a battleflag carried in war.



There a were 3 different Confederate National flags that flew during those war years. You may click here to view them. None of the South's National flags are at the center of controversy. And even more importantly never did the Confederate battle flag stand as a national symbol to fly over a slave nation!!!! So, you can see how distorted a person's conception over a simple piece of cloth has been terribly misunderstood.



Before another misconception gets started, the reason that the Confederacy had 3 different national flags was that the 1st was too similar in battle to the "Stars & Stripes". Lot's of confusion due to the similarities. The second was also mistaken at times for a flag of surrender. The 3rd national flag was the final result and the adopted flag of the Confederacy.



A compelling point to consider, is also the fact that the good old "Stars & Stripes" of the United States flew over a slave nation for over 80 years!! Wow, has everyone forgotten about that??



Why aren't the revisionists, lobbyists, minority groups and historically impaired trying to get the "Stars & Stripes" removed from government buildings, t-shirts, football teams, etc??? I will tell you why, because they are not truly aware of what they are trying to resolve. Confused, uneducated and terribly ill-informed.



This is also a pet peeve of mine when certain groups start trying to do away with part of the history of this country that many men died for.

 

[mcoleman]

http://www.scv674.org/SH-7.htm

I prefer this websites history information as they give their sources for where the information came from which gives it more value.

 

[ndurbin]

Lincoln stated in his own writings that he didn't consider the blacks and whites to be equal and that if he could have ended the war without ending slavery he would have done so. He wanted the union preserved purely to save the almight tax dollar and tariff moneys. The Southern states had the Consitutional right to succeed. It was put in our Constitution because of our experiences with unfair goverments. aka: England

Habous corpus was just the tip of the iceberg for what crimes Lincoln commited against humanity.

Can you say POLITICS? That is even done today, canidates well say anything to GET elected and to STAY elected. Once their in office it's a whole nother ball game.



Please tell me where in the Constitution that it specifically states succession is legal and constitutional? Yes the 10th Amendment grants States powers not granted by the US. But the States aren't allowed to have powers or laws that can go against the constitution. So how can that be used to defend succession when succession is not even addressed in the Constitution?

William Quantrills men banded together to protect Missouri from Maruading kansans known as Redlegs that were murdering farmers and burning their homes down and then going back home to Kansas. The final straw for Quantrill was when these so called troops from Kansas imprisoned Quantrills mens wives and children in a run down 2 story house that fell in and killed the majority of the women inside. That is what provoked the raid on Lawrence. Quantrill's main mission as a soldier in the Confederate army was to protect Missouri's citizens from the ruthless Union Army that would drag out farmers in the middle of the night and shoot them as well as any children over the age of 16 that they considered Southern Sympathizers and then burn the homes and force the women and younger children to leave the state on foot. Look up info on General order #11 for more information on this. The best way to learn the true history of the War For Southern Independence is by reading old books from 1940 and older. Veterans from both sides tell the same stories in those years. Starting in the 1960s southern history has went through a 2nd reconstruction period where certain groups have tried to re-write our history in a very incorrect but politically correct to them manner.

That sounds like Quantrill is a Saint. Thats ridiculous! They were just as much a bunch of murders as anybody else. Neither the Jayhawkers/Redlegs or the Bushwackers where very nice during that time period. There were great injustices done to both KS and MO citizens during that time period.

All in all the South only wanted was it's God given right to govern and defend themselves as provided under the Constitution.



Article 4 - Section 4 : The United States

Art. 4 Sec. 4 reads as follows "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "



That says nothing about defending themselves. It guarantees the right to a Republican For of Government and each state shall be protected from invasion and domestic violence. Now the word invasion can be twisted alot of different ways but to me that means by a foreign country. Now how can you claim that you were invaded by your own country when in fact you were no longer part of that country because you had decieded upon seccession?

Issue 3 - Was Secession Legal & Patriotic??

Absolutely!!!!!!!. Most of those who wrote and ratified the federal Constitution recognized secession as a legitimate, legal, and constitutional measure of protection against the possibility that the general government might in the future consolidate and centralize political power, violate the terms of the Constitution, and usurp the rights and liberties of the people of the sovereign States.



Thomas Jefferson himself believed in secession as a constitutional measure. Secession is a natural right of any people and has recently been exercised peacefully and successfully by many countries?Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine.



Now then... This is where the real substance of the War of 1861 comes into play. And I can do no better justice, logic and historic relevance, but as to quote the words of Thomas Guinn:



" If the Southern States hold no right of secession, then the sucession of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain is invalid, and the revolutionary war to secure independence unlawful. In such case, we all remain as colonies, and are subject to the British Crown. The Secession of the Colonies, and the Secession of the thirteen States, can not be one good and the other evil, they are both one or the other. Similar conditions existed in both cases and both felt their liberties threatened. "



--Thomas Guinn

Again I ask where in the US Constitution does it specifically state succession is legal? Yes the 10th Amendment grants States powers not granted by the US. But the States aren't allowed to have powers or laws that can go against the constitution. I BELIEVE succession is illegal as it is not provided for in the Constitution. And seems to be made clear to me in Art. 1 Sec. 10 Clause 3, that by the states joing together they had violated the Constitution



Nathan.

 

[Kissfan113]

As a lifelong resident of West Virginia, I will be frankly honest and tell you that WV was formed when the upper counties in the northern most part of the state bordering Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted for a state of their own. While West Virginia was an official union sided state, the men of the southern part of the state (Where I live) was Confederate through and through, many graves remain here with CSA markings on them. The 26th Virginia was form Greenbrier County, The 25th Virginia was from Upshur County, Both units fought throughout the war, The status of WV did not mean that the men from the area automatically changed sides nor did it reflect popular sentiment among the residents. West Virginia was in fact an illegally created state, created in the middle of a war where it was part of "enemy territory" so in fact i am still living in Virginia in my mind, just as it were in the times of the soldiers from the area I live in.

 

[loncray]

If this is going to turn into a discussion of the legality/lack thereof of secession, might I suggest we adjourn this thread and restart it in the Political Forum? This subject brings out some strong emotions and IMHO the Political Forum is a better place for that sort of thing.

 

[Carlsummers]

Actually, this thread could be replace by about 5 different discussions:



1. Legality of secession.

2. Flags of the Confederacy and misconceptions of such in today's USA.

3. Reasons for secession.

4. Was Lincoln actually a great president?

5. Which side had the "dirtiest" fighters?



Frankly, I love to see different views of the conflict. Remember, without knowing your history, you cannot prepare for the future.

 

[Boomer II]

Speaking of #4, I was reading something the other day about Lincoln, his popularity in his day was pretty low, much like our situation today.