Civil War and some Myths.

[rightwinger]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

Got all but the last question right.

I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.

Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley

 

[Sunni Man]

And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.

A threat is not a legal precedent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

Got all but the last question right.

I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.

Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley

A sub was attempted to be used before, unsuccessfully of course. Can't remember when but it was a long time ago.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.

A threat is not a legal precedent.

When issued by the Commander in chief of the Military and the President of the Country and BACKED UP by Congress it sure as hell is.

 

[martybegan]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

Got all but the last question right.

I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.

Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley

Turtle (submarine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The machine gun reference as well was kind of a right answer, as the gatling gun was a civil war invention, albiet not used very much.

If you modify the question to say used sucessfully then ironclads becomes the definite right answer. I think that was one they added as a toughie.

 

[Sunni Man]

And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.

A threat is not a legal precedent.

When issued by the Commander in chief of the Military and the President of the Country and BACKED UP by Congress it sure as hell is.

Congress did not enact legislation to back up Present Jackson's threat.

Thus it was just a verbal threat with no legal basis.

 

[zzzz]

Approximately 21 million people lived in 23 Northern states.
The South had about 9 million people which included 3.5 million slaves (11 States)

In 1860, the North manufactured 97 percent of the country's firearms, 96 percent of its railroad locomotives, 94 percent of its cloth, 93 percent of its pig iron, and over 90 percent of its boots and shoes. The North had twice the density of railroads per square mile. There was not even one rifleworks in the entire South.

Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South [ushistory.org]

In war, morale is the determining factor that decides the ultimate outcome. The morale of the civilian population and the morale of the truths. In this war the South's morale was at a peak in the first few years but as the North gradually bled the South in a war of attrition that morale crumbled. There were 2 ways that the South could have won. One was a quick victory in the first few years before the North could mobilize its resources. The other way was to have a European intervention like what is happening in Libya, a European Navy ending the blockade and providing resources and maybe even troops.

 

[Sunni Man]

Ratified in 1791

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"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".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ratified in 1791

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"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".

That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.

Using your logic, since no State has passed any legislation on the procedures or requirements to leave the UNION then the people retain the right. SO tell me? what do you think would happen to Joe Blow if he announced he had left the Union and no State or Federal laws applied in his new Country?

 

[Sunni Man]

Ratified in 1791

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"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".

That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.

Again, you keep citing a law that was enacted "after" the Civil War.

Before the war the states had every right to leave the Union.

Because according to the 10th Amendment of 1791

States were free to enact any law or pursue any course of action that was not forbidden by the Constitution.

 

[paperview]

Does it say anything in there about a state's right to seize federal properties and fire on federal forces?

 

[Sallow]

States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.

The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.

Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.

His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.

It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.

The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.

Yeah..it was.

And as I've said before..Sherman didn't go far enough.

Vlad Dracul had the right idea when he impaled the bodies of his enemies along the road when the Turks sent emissaries to ask for tribute. And nailing the Turbans to their heads didn't hurt either.

 

[Old Rocks]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.

Yep. States rights to immorally have one man master of another. And they got their butts good and royally kicked for being such immoral bastards.

 

[hortysir]

Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.

The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.

Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.

Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.

I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.

And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.

Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.


They fought a magnificent war against the North, but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.

i.e. tobacco, cotton, citrus, etc.....

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican people accuse Bush of being.
With Bush it was, "all about the oil".
With Lincoln it was, "all about the agriculture".
(that and being the head of a new, and more powerful, centralized government, of course)

 

[The Gadfly]

Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.

The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.

Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.

Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.

I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.

And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.

Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.


They fought a magnificent war against the North, but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.

That's actually a pretty good summation, although there are a couple of additional points to consider. Another factor was that with the Radical Republican victory in the 1860 election, the nation was, for the first time in the hands of a purely sectional political party.The most troubling aspect of that, from a Southern point of view, is that the Southern states now faced the real prospect of a growing majority of states whose political and economic interests would be adverse to those of the South. Many concluded (correctly, as it turned out), that this would now inevitably occur, war or no war. Combine that, with the fact that a number of state legislatures, in the legislation by which they had ratified the constitution, had specifically reserved to themselves the right to leave the union if they desired. This was not only true of the Southern states; some New England states had done the same, and Massachusetts had in fact threatened to leave during the War of 1812. The question was in fact never submitted to the Supreme Court prior to the outbreak of hostilities; had it been the likelihood is that that court, led by Chief Justice Taney, would have upheld the legality of secession. It was not until the later years of Reconstruction that the question was submitted to a court purged of its more conservative justices, these replaced by the illegitimate "rump congress" ( the Southern portion of which was elected through Radical Republican fraud and disenfranchisement of White Southern voters) with some more amenable to the Radical point of view. Before the retirement of some of the more conservative members of the court, the Radicals so feared the idea of having the question reach the court, that they decided not to try Gen. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As one of them put it (in a moment of candor) "it would be a pity for the Union to have waged a successful war, only to have it declared unconstitutional" (which it very likely was).

With all that, the South finally concluded (some more reluctantly than others) that it had little to lose by trying to become independent. It was either that, or be crushed by a more and more powerful central government inimical to the South's interests (which is exactly what has transpired since the Late Unpleasantness) Even now, I and many other Southerners find being little more than the occupied territory of a Yankee dominated central government less than appealing, socially, culturally, or politically. I suggest that any of you liberals who think otherwise consider the idea of letting us put it to a vote. Seriously. Throw us out like Bob Beckel suggested you do, in 2004, or just let us leave, so you can have the socialist paradise you want. As it is, our history and culture are being suppressed, in the unholy name of Political Correctness. Oh, and one more thing; those of you up North, please, whatever you do, STAY THERE! Your presence here is neither needed, nor particularly appreciated. If you hate us, please stay away and leave us alone. No self-respecting Southerner wants to live in the North, so perhaps, you could reciprocate?

 

[The Gadfly]

States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.

The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.

Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.

His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.

It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.

The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.

Yeah..it was.

And as I've said before..Sherman didn't go far enough.

Vlad Dracul had the right idea when he impaled the bodies of his enemies along the road when the Turks sent emissaries to ask for tribute. And nailing the Turbans to their heads didn't hurt either.

I almost wish your side had tried that; it would have guaranteed European intervention, AND a permanent guerrilla war against Yankeedom until you decided you'd bled enough. Either, or both, and we'd have an independent South today. Rest assured, we know most of you feel that way, and if there ever is a "next time", we'll remember that, and deal with you accordingly.

 

[JW Frogen]

One Civil War fact little known is that General Grant's liver never died with him, it has been transplanted and re-transplanted from generation to generation of drunks and now resides in the body of Larry Hagman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.

I really liked #4, isn't that a favorite of all the people that want to claim that the Civil War was about slavery? I think it also contradicts the notion that this was not rooted in state's rights. How could one side be fighting for one thing if the other side was fighting against something else? Maybe the reason that there is so much debate about the causes of the Civil War is both sides want to rewrite history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.

The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.

Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.

His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.

It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.

The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.

SCOTUS actually ruled that the issue was settled by the Civil War. I am not sure how that proves that the war itself was legal or Constitutional, but I would be interested in seeing some sort of logic that does not simply point to a decision that acknowledged that they cannot change what already happened.

 

[geauxtohell]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.