Confederate History Month Possible
- Thread starter crabcake
- Start date
beerlover
New Member
The Confederate states were well within their rights under the Constitution as it stood at that time to secede from the union. Slavery was not the main issue. It was a dispute about the rights of individual states as sovereign members of a Union, versus the growing power of a centralized government which was advanced by the northeastern states. Slavery was the hot-button issue, but not the main underlying cause. The states had every right to withdraw from the voluntary union when they felt their sovreignty was being infringed upon, the same way all the states seceded from the original articles of confederation. Slavery has been advanced as the "righteous cause" of the war between the states because it is the history written by the victors. The southern side of things has been largely ignored because "to the victor go the spoils". Did you know that under the Constitution of the CSA the slave trade was outlawed? And Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in southern states, over which he had no authority. It was still perfectly legal to own slaves in the northern states until after the war, and thousands did. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING SLAVERY WAS O.K. SLAVERY WAS WRONG. But less than 5% of southern people owned slaves and the vast majority of the soldiers were not fighting for the right to own slaves, but the right for self-governance within their home states. The northern soldiers were not fighting to free the slaves, either. They were fighting to preserve the union, which they believed to be the correct course of action. Confederates were not traitors and their soldiers served with honor for a cause that they and their countrymen held dear, and deserve to be remembered for that.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter...
That is why Lincoln and Davis played their dance so close; trying to get the other to make the first use of violence. Davis lost as federal arsenals were pillaged in several states, including the first, I think, in North Carolina, long before the US supply ship (Evening star? Morning star? Something Star...) was fired on in Charleston Harbor.
Arguing over the use of force is pointless for anything other than who actually initiated hostilities which, for those keeping score, goes to the Southerners.
There was much debate over the right of secession for years and I think New Hampshire actually came closest to actually doing it in the mid 1820's, if memory serves. New York threatened it during the war. Several Southern states wanted to succeed from the Confederacy when they weren't happy with getting their way during the war.
As for slavery, new import trade has been long outlawed in the entire nation before the war. The South merely re-affirmed it. And I'm pretty sure the only states where slavery was legal in the North were the border states, which all had divided loyalties anyway, not all of them.
Everyone at the time knew secession very likely meant war, on both sides. It's was only a question of who would throw the first punch. The radicals of the North and the 'fire eaters' of the South wanted to settle this, once and for all, in blood wich made a prophet out of the most hated man in the South; John Brown.
Had the South kept their cool and negotiated the transfer of Federal assets I think secession might have been peaceful.
Good post my man.
beerlover said:
That is why Lincoln and Davis played their dance so close; trying to get the other to make the first use of violence. Davis lost as federal arsenals were pillaged in several states, including the first, I think, in North Carolina, long before the US supply ship (Evening star? Morning star? Something Star...) was fired on in Charleston Harbor.
Arguing over the use of force is pointless for anything other than who actually initiated hostilities which, for those keeping score, goes to the Southerners.
There was much debate over the right of secession for years and I think New Hampshire actually came closest to actually doing it in the mid 1820's, if memory serves. New York threatened it during the war. Several Southern states wanted to succeed from the Confederacy when they weren't happy with getting their way during the war.
As for slavery, new import trade has been long outlawed in the entire nation before the war. The South merely re-affirmed it. And I'm pretty sure the only states where slavery was legal in the North were the border states, which all had divided loyalties anyway, not all of them.
Everyone at the time knew secession very likely meant war, on both sides. It's was only a question of who would throw the first punch. The radicals of the North and the 'fire eaters' of the South wanted to settle this, once and for all, in blood wich made a prophet out of the most hated man in the South; John Brown.
Had the South kept their cool and negotiated the transfer of Federal assets I think secession might have been peaceful.
Good post my man.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
List of U.S. state secession proposals
Still Alive and Well ...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States
Still Alive and Well ...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States
BuddyLee
Football addict
kwillia said:You can't demand the eviction of the country's government out it's own property and think you can get away with it...dur...
I understand the point Bud, perhaps that is what they meant. However, that still doesn't refute the fact that the Rebs fired first.:shrug: