The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[rightwinger]

Well then, slavery was legal and protected by the Constitution. Which means the North was fighting against the Constitution. The South was not traitor to the Constitution. The North was.

Quantrill

The South attacked Ft Sumter, an act of war
They got their butts kicked because of it

 

[Failzero]

There were Confederate Officers who were practitioners of Judaism

 

[Unkotare]

Attacking Ft Sumter was not legal and was an act of war
The Confederacy was not invaded over slavery

They were not "invaded" at all. Those states never ceased to be part of the United States of America despite what some treasonous criminals wanted to tell themselves in order to justify slavery.

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White

^^^^

 

[Failzero]

They were not "invaded" at all. Those states never ceased to be part of the United States of America despite what some treasonous criminals wanted to tell themselves in order to justify slavery.

What do Democrats tell themselves today to Justify Marxism / Socialism / Collectivism / Progressivism ???

 

[Unkotare]

What do Democrats tell themselves today to Justify Marxism / Socialism / Collectivism / Progressivism ???

Whatever some lefty media outlet tells them to.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The South attacked Ft Sumter, an act of war. They got their butts kicked because of it

The attack on Sumter hardly justified a full-scale invasion. The attack, though idiotic and foolish in the extreme, was bloodless. Not a single federal soldier was killed during the bombardment, and the federal soldiers in the fort were given full military honors and then allowed to return home in peace. Moreover, the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South and to pay the South's share of the national debt.

After the Sumter incident, the Confederacy took no hostile action against the North. The wounding and dying did not start until a federal army invaded Virginia in July, three months after the bloodless Sumter assault. Under the Constitution, no federal force could intervene in a state without the permission of the state's legislature or governor, so if one insists on claiming Virginia was still in the Union, then the federal incursion was illegal.

The British were far slower to resort to force than the Republicans were. When the Patriots burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772, the British did not respond with a massive invasion.

In September 1776, even after four battles had been fought, including the bloody Battle of Bunker Hill, the British were willing to meet with Patriot leaders and offered full pardons and several major concessions in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and a resumption of British rule.

Amazingly, in 1778, after many battles and much loss of life, the British offered the Colonies representation in Parliament, the repeal all of the punitive acts of Parliament against the Colonies, and a form of self-rule that would include exemption from British taxation, if the Colonies would cease fighting and would recognize British rule. This was virtually everything the Patriots wanted. It would have granted the Colonies functional autonomy in almost every meaningful regard.

 

[Unkotare]

They were not "invaded" at all. Those states never ceased to be part of the United States of America despite what some treasonous criminals wanted to tell themselves in order to justify slavery.

^

 

[Unkotare]

...

Amazingly, in 1778, after many battles and much loss of life, the British offered the Colonies representation in Parliament, the repeal all of the punitive acts of Parliament against the Colonies, and a form of self-rule that would include exemption from British taxation, if the Colonies would cease fighting and would recognize British rule. This was virtually everything the Patriots wanted. It would have granted the Colonies functional autonomy in almost every meaningful regard.

It was not our destiny to become Canada, thank goodness.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They were not "invaded" at all. Those states never ceased to be part of the United States of America despite what some treasonous criminals wanted to tell themselves in order to justify slavery.

Those states had revoked their ratification of the Constitution and had formed their own national government, which they had every right to do under the original understanding of the Constitution. The founding fathers bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the Colonies to give up their independence and rejoin the British empire. The founders argued that the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England and that the British should respect that right.

Also, four of the 11 Confederate states did not secede over slavery. They only seceded months later because they objected to the use of force to maintain the Union, correctly noting that the Union was never intended to be maintained by coercion.

Proof That the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation: The Founding Principle of Secession

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White

^^^^^^

 

[rightwinger]

The attack on Sumter hardly justified a full-scale invasion. The attack, though idiotic and foolish in the extreme, was bloodless. Not a single federal soldier was killed during the bombardment, and the federal soldiers in the fort were given full military honors and then allowed to return home in peace. Moreover, the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South and to pay the South's share of the national debt.

After the Sumter incident, the Confederacy took no hostile action against the North. The wounding and dying did not start until a federal army invaded Virginia in July, three months after the bloodless Sumter assault. Under the Constitution, no federal force could intervene in a state without the permission of the state's legislature or governor, so if one insists on claiming Virginia was still in the Union, then the federal incursion was illegal.

The British were far slower to resort to force than the Republicans were. When the Patriots burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772, the British did not respond with a massive invasion.

In September 1776, even after four battles had been fought, including the bloody Battle of Bunker Hill, the British were willing to meet with Patriot leaders and offered full pardons and several major concessions in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and a resumption of British rule.

Amazingly, in 1778, after many battles and much loss of life, the British offered the Colonies representation in Parliament, the repeal all of the punitive acts of Parliament against the Colonies, and a form of self-rule that would include exemption from British taxation, if the Colonies would cease fighting and would recognize British rule. This was virtually everything the Patriots wanted. It would have granted the Colonies functional autonomy in almost every meaningful regard.

A lengthy artillery barrage on a US fort is an act of war.
It was so in 1861 as it is today.
The fact that they didn’t kill anyone is irrelevant as they attacked and captured a US Fort.

The Confederacy attempted to buy the fort but the United States refused. That is not a justification to attack and take it by force.

Lincoln had no choice but to go to war and kick the Souths ass.

Like you said, it was a stupid thing to do because it gave the US a reason to go to war.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Texas v. White

Show me in that shallow, partisan decision where that packed court addressed any of the evidence I present in Proof That the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary and The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation: The Founding Principle of Secession.

A lengthy artillery barrage on a US fort is an act of war.

So was the 1772 Patriot destruction of the HMS Gaspee, yet the British chose not to respond with a massive invasion.

It was so in 1861 as it is today.
The fact that they didn’t kill anyone is irrelevant as they attacked and captured a US Fort.

One, under the original understanding of the Constitution, Sumter was no longer a U.S. fort the moment SC revoked its ratification of the Constitution.

Two, the fact that the attack was bloodless (because the Confederates warned the garrison when the attack would occur) and that the federal soldiers were not taken prisoners but were allowed to return home is only "irrelevant" to someone with a militaristic mindset who is looking for any excuse for war.

The Confederacy attempted to buy the fort but the United States refused. That is not a justification to attack and take it by force.

That's the same argument the British used when the Patriots began seizing British property after issuing the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln had no choice but to go to war and kick the Souths ass.

Of course he had a choice, just as the British had a choice after the destruction of the HMS Gaspee and chose not to use the incident as excuse for war. The Republicans could have simply accepted the Confederate offer to pay for all former federal installations in the South and to pay the South's share of the national debt, and the Confederate offer to establish good relations, including Most Favored Nation trading status.

Like you said, it was a stupid thing to do because it gave the US a reason to go to war.

A very flimsy reason. Indeed, it was more of an excuse than a reason. If the Republicans had been running England, the British would have sent a massive force to the Colonies soon after the destruction of the HMS Gaspee.

 

[rightwinger]

So was the 1772 Patriot destruction of the HMS Gaspee, yet the British chose not to respond with a massive invasion.

Not even close to a comparison
The Gaspee was not attacked by a Colonial Government or even Rhode Island government. It was an independent attack by local citizens
Sumter was attacked by organised militia acting on the orders of the Confederate government……an act of war

 

[rightwinger]

One, under the original understanding of the Constitution, Sumter was no longer a U.S. fort the moment SC revoked its ratification of the Constitution

You can’t have it both ways

You cannot claim that the Confederacy was trying to buy Sumter from the US and then claim it was not theirs
Sumter was US property, built by the US.
An armed attack and seizure is an act of war

 

[rightwinger]

The Republicans could have simply accepted the Confederate offer to pay for all former federal installations in the South and to pay the South's share of the national debt, and the Confederate offer to establish good relations, including Most Favored Nation trading status.

Yea, maybe up until the time the Confederates attacked Ft Sumter and took it by force.
Over time, your scenario may have worked out as tensions between the US and Confederacy eased.

Up until Sumter, Lincoln was offering concessions to get the South to re enter the Union. Once they took Sumter by force, Lincoln had no choice but to go to war. He was already weak politically. If he just let Sumter go, no way could he have governed

Like you said. Listening to hotheads and attacking Sumter led to the demise of the confederacy

 

[Quantrill]

It worked
Count those stars

That didn't save the Union. That destroyed the Union.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The South attacked Ft Sumter, an act of war
They got their butts kicked because of it

Why did the North invade the South, as you claimed.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

They were not "invaded" at all. Those states never ceased to be part of the United States of America despite what some treasonous criminals wanted to tell themselves in order to justify slavery.

Who says?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

A lengthy artillery barrage on a US fort is an act of war.
It was so in 1861 as it is today.
The fact that they didn’t kill anyone is irrelevant as they attacked and captured a US Fort.

The Confederacy attempted to buy the fort but the United States refused. That is not a justification to attack and take it by force.

Lincoln had no choice but to go to war and kick the Souths ass.

Like you said, it was a stupid thing to do because it gave the US a reason to go to war.

Acts of war already occurred before the South fired on Sumter. The movement of troops from Moultrie was an act of war. Sending the Star of the West was an act of War. Sending the Naval fleet to reinforce Sumter was an act of war. All done by the North.

South Carolina didn't have to buy the Fort as it was theirs. First by the U.S. failure to complete Sumter within 3 years. Second, by secession.

Yes, the North was stupid as it started the war and was guilty of some 800,000 deaths and destruction.

Glory, glory...hallelujah.

Quantrill