Confederate History Month

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

You must know something I don't. I mean, we celebrate US Independence Day, although the crown presumably thought our declaration and subsequent rebellion were illegal, right?

Quoted from the movie 1776

You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as in "our rebellion".

It is only in the third person as in "their rebellion" that it is illegal.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quoted from the movie 1776

You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as in "our rebellion".

It is only in the third person as in "their rebellion" that it is illegal.

Originally Posted by razark

That's because we won that one. The Confederacy didn't win theirs.

That's what I thought, and I said as much. Platapus has a history of knowing things I don't, though. so I had to ask.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Difference is the Redcoats fired first. The south decided to declare war by firing on the fort thus is completely in the wrong any way you slice it.

So simple is it? Very well, then. I believe I'll help myself to a portion of your income, and you're no longer allowed to buy or sell as you please. You have to consult me if you want to conduct any transactions outside of what I approve of, because I'm bigger than you, I have more guns, and I'm a better shot. If you fail to comply, I'll have no choice but to raid your home and jail or kill you.

Don't fire at me, though. We wouldn't want to be doing anything "wrong" would we?

[Buddahaid]

Oh what's the big deal, it's still the history of the area whether you like it or not. Should we just pretend everything we currently don't like in history didn't happen, and revise all the books? Get over yourselves and move on.

[Zachstar]

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

It's still the history of the area no matter what government existed. And the BTW points sounds a bit familiar even now, their just buried behind more noble facades.

I'm not supporting a return of the Confederacy, or it's ideals, I just think it should be allowed to be recognized for what it was.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

You're as unreachable as I was at your age.

Buddahaid has a good point, and I like to think that I do as well. It's not a matter of good or evil states in most cases; it's a matter of the nature of states in general.

Governments are what governments are; force monopolies. Even with the consent of the governed, they are still monopolies on the use of force. Governments are also made of people, not angels, and there is no way to ensure that the "right" people are in government at any given time, no matter what nation sponsors it.

When one combines a monopoly on force with people, one will invariably arrive at the same result that every nation in the history of the entire world has; the will of the few dominate the will and needs of the many. The mechanisms by which they arrive at this condition differ, but the principle always hold true.

That idea was the genius behind the US Constitution; if government was forced by itself to limit its own power, and the will of the people was protected, it could never abuse its own power.

Sadly, it didn't work out quite as well as intended, but such are the plans of mice and men. Voltaire once said that there was no problem capable of withstanding the assault of sustained thinking. I don't believe that's entirely true, but I certainly believe he was correct when one considers the nature of any human institution. The US has certainly helped to prove that in the creative way it has bypassed its own Constitution.

It isn't as black-and-white as you think, ZS. There are aristocrats and manipulators on both sides of any battle line. You do yourself a disfavor by accepting one preached doctrine over another. It is only when we value individuality and personal judgement that we gain freedom, and that is why I side with the CSA, despite the fact that they also used manipulative tactics.

Actually, that remains true to this day. I said earlier that the CSA never enstated the draft, but I was somewhat wrong. The CSA began what is now known as "stop-loss" in 1862, well before the Union enstated the draft in 1863. They forced Confederate soldiers who signed one-year contracts to serve for three.

Some historians argue that this constitutes a draft. Others say it was not because the soldiers volunteered to begin with. I ask: What kind of conflict, if it is supported by the populace, requires such measures if it is truly justifiable? What it boils down to, what is always boils down to, is the few controlling the many.

Given a choice, I'd side with the government that used states' rights as its' rationale, not becuase I really buy it, but because it will be held accountable to some greater degree than a state that professes a desire for union at any cost.

[TLAM Strike]

One reason I was tought as to why we went to war with the south was that they made a treaty with each other and some native tribes which is in violation of Article II of the US Constitution.

The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Oh what's the big deal, it's still the history of the area whether you like it or not.

Its still the history, but its if people who want to celebrate one aspect of the history and also want to sanitise that history to make their celebration more palatable.
Like Randomizer points out

In the Southern States the aim was to subtract slavery from the "Cause" thus purifying the motives of those who sanctioned succession and later a war that actually destroyed all that was being fought for. This version of events was begun almost on the heels of Appomattox and subsequently prospered under the aegis of groups like the Southern Historical Society.

[CaptainHaplo]

Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government.

So the rich and powerful were only to be found in the CSA, while the North was run by paupers who only had the welfare of the people in their hearts and minds? Things are rarely that black and white - and a look at history shows that your idealism in viewing that time frame is misplaced.

The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

It is often said that the Civil War was a war that tore apart families - not only due to the deaths and injuries - but because it pitted brother against brother due to the ways people saw things. This idea that "the rich" had everyone snookered is further demonstration that you have swalled a revisionist version of history.

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

You seem intent on your view regarding slavery. So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery - the North would have stopped said practice - and it did not. Secondly - why is it the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the states and areas that were rebelling against the Union (Federal) government, yet kept slavery as a legal institution in the "Northern" states?

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?

Thats easy, only some in the North had accepted the flawed world view that god had decided the negroes were really human, so the union had to keep these scientific people on board by agreeing the blacks were meant to be slaves as it is ordained that a negro shall be inferior to a white man.
Come to think of it the Confederates really were the strict constitutionalists.
After all the constitution is based on the ideals of the declaration and the notion is that all men are equal and have inalienable rights like liberty, and as all men are equal and only white free males really count then it goes without saying that non whites certainly ain't human or they would be free

CaptainHaplo wrote

So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery...

The issue for the Federal Government in Washington was not slavery in the beginning but the issue for the South was Abolition from day-one. Without slavery there would have been no radical abolitionist movement that so enraged Southern politicians so you are standing your strawmen on their heads.

Do you really believe that abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten near to death on the floor of the United States Senate by slave-holding South Carolina representitive Preston Brooks over tariffs or states rights?

The Brooks-Sumner incident is indicative of the violence resulting when the subject of abolition was broached in the presence of the slave-holding Southern gentry.

[nikimcbee]

Good post Steve.

...and now for something completely different.

Another interesting subject was the state of the CSA economy, or better to say, lack there of. I don't remember how long it took, before the CSA currency was worthless and they just started printing more money. Economically, the South didn't stand a chance. The North, around 1863ish started running out of money and quite litterally was taxing everything to fund the war effort.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

One reason I was tought as to why we went to war with the south was that they made a treaty with each other and some native tribes which is in violation of Article II of the US Constitution.

I don't think anyone would go to war over this. A state can make its own treaty, it just is not going to be recognized by the Federal Government and, nowadays, could not be in any violation of any federal law.

Besides, based on our performance, treaties with Indians were not only not enforceable, they were often just ignored when convenient.

[Ducimus]

You know, i was stationed in Mississippi for a year and a half and i learned one very important thing. Some things are very deep rooted in the south. Confederate history month..... sure whatever.....

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't think anyone would go to war over this. A state can make its own treaty, it just is not going to be recognized by the Federal Government and, nowadays, could not be in any violation of any federal law.

Besides, based on our performance, treaties with Indians were not only not enforceable, they were often just ignored when convenient.

There are no minor parts of the Constitution, only minor interpretations of it.

I'm curious where it states that a State has the right to make a treaty? Article II says the Executive branch of the Federal Government has that power (pending ratification by the senate).

The US Constitution... its an awesome thing to discuss and debate.