"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[BigRed]

A few quotes supporting my above claim:


-Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, in his "Cornerstone Speech"

-Mississippi's Secession Declaration

-South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes of Secession

I can easily provide more for anyone still feeling doubtful.

Slavery was "a cause". It was far from the primary cause. There were several others.

Regardless, it does not change the matter that it was not, by definition, a civil war.

 

[spencer rifle]

Actually it was the primary cause, but there were several others.
I look forward to more "Lost Cause" excuses and Abbeville propaganda.

Meanwhile, I have to prepare to represent the Union Navy at a local event. You know, the one that beat the **** out of the rebel navy. Repeatedly.

 

[BigRed]

The states that claimed secession were, despite their protests, still part of the Union.

If you revoke your membership in the ABA, are you still a member of the ABA?

 

[BigRed]

Actually it was the primary cause, but there were several others.
I look forward to more "Lost Cause" excuses and Abbeville propaganda.

Meanwhile, I have to prepare to represent the Union Navy at a local event. You know, the one that beat the **** out of the rebel navy. Repeatedly.

Cool

 

[Quiet Observer]

If you revoke your membership in the ABA, are you still a member of the ABA?

It works differently with political entities, like a nation. There has to be legal recognition by other nations in the form of treaties, exchange of ambassadors, official declaration, or similar act. No nation did any such action in regard to the Confederacy.

Milestones: 1861–1865 - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

 

[spencer rifle]

It works differently with political entities, like a nation. There has to be legal recognition by other nations in the form of treaties, exchange of ambassadors, official declaration, or similar act. No nation did any such action in regard to the Confederacy.

Milestones: 1861–1865 - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Though they did come close. Until the rebel defeats at Shiloh and New Orleans, both France and Great Britain were considering it. King Cotton never got crowned.

Shiloh was a near thing. New Orleans wasn't even close.

 

[BugI02]

The resolutions express the intentions of the Northern war aims at the beginning of the war, i.e. "preserve the Union."

Why did they need to preserve the Union? Southern secession.

Why did the South secede? Slavery. [States rights/voluntary union]

Fixy

 

[BigRed]

It works differently with political entities, like a nation. There has to be legal recognition by other nations in the form of treaties, exchange of ambassadors, official declaration, or similar act. No nation did any such action in regard to the Confederacy.

Milestones: 1861–1865 - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

When the 13 colonies concluded the war with Britain, they were recognized as 13 independent and sovereign States by Britain (as well as others, but will stick with Britain) in the Treaty of Paris.

Though these sovereign States later went on to delegate certain powers and authorities to a general government, their sovereignty was not forfeited in doing so.

When certain States seceded and recalled those delegated powers and authorities they simply remained what they had been....sovereign States.

Some of these States went on to form a confederacy with other sovereign States....just as they had formed a confederation prior to the constitution of the united States.

 

[Kurr]

The states that claimed secession were, despite their protests, still part of the Union.

My first question was a bit off the topic of the thread. So in keeping with the topic , if the Constitution has no prescribed manner for the secceeding (?) from the Union, nor anything in it to prevent them from seceding, then wouldn't it fall under the 10th amendment States Right to withdraw membership?

Amendment X​

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.

So where does the Federal Gov get the Authority to say how and when a State my leave? Is this a matter of "Might makes Right"?

Edit to add: If the Federal has the Authority to make a State stay, does it also have the Authority to repel or kick a State out of the Union? (Looking at you California!!)

 

[BigRed]

Is this a matter of "Might makes Right"?

It certainly was to lincoln and his acolytes that deify him to this day.

 

[JettaKnight]

Starting a new thread for this, which came up in a thread of a different subject.

 

[JettaKnight]

The war of "Northern Aggression" that began with rebellious traitors seizing federal properties and firing on a federal military installation?

OK

Debate what you want to debate. In the end, America won.

View attachment 207756

FIFY.

 

[BigRed]

The war of "Northern Aggression" that began with rebellious traitors seizing federal properties and firing on a federal military installation?

OK

Debate what you want to debate. In the end, we won.

View attachment 207756

He clearly enjoyed the burning, looting, and murdering along the way. Such things still garner much support in our time.

To be fair, I cannot say for sure it was the burning, looting, and murdering he appreciated.

It may have been the pillaging raping of civilian women that pleased him.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

When the 13 colonies concluded the war with Britain, they were recognized as 13 independent and sovereign States by Britain (as well as others, but will stick with Britain) in the Treaty of Paris.

Though these sovereign States later went on to delegate certain powers and authorities to a general government, their sovereignty was not forfeited in doing so.

When certain States seceded and recalled those delegated powers and authorities they simply remained what they had been....sovereign States.

Some of these States went on to form a confederacy with other sovereign States....just as they had formed a confederation prior to the constitution of the united States.

But surely you have to acknowledge that their is some ambiguity here? If I sign a contract with you that has no mention of an expiration date, I'm pretty sure that contract would be considered binding forever (or at least until one of us dies) unless we can come to an agreement otherwise.

In this case the States all entered into an agreement with each other. In hindsight it was probably a mistake to not have addressed explicitly if/how a State could go about rescinding their agreement, but since it wasn't mentioned, it seems like the reasonable, default position is that it's not allowed unless all parties agree to it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

By "show me one", I mean "show me (or name for me) a single slave that was freed by lincoln".

Even his so called "emancipation proclamation" did not free slaves. His "emancipation" only applied to geographical areas over which he had no authority.

Interestingly, slaves held in geographical areas where lincoln did have authority, such as Union States", were excluded!

That could be a topic for another thread. This thread is about whether or not it was a "civil war".

I think it's closely related enough to keep discussing here, but we can move it to another thread, if you prefer.

It was the election of Abraham Lincoln that was the catalyst for the Civil War to start. It was the Civil War that enabled the federal government to impose the abolition of slavery upon the Southern States. Without Lincoln, it is doubtful whether or not this would have happened, as both during his candidacy and presidency he made it clear that abolishing slavery was his foremost goal, whereas Congress, especially near the beginning of the war, seemed to indicate that they valued the preservation of the Union over the abolition of slavery. Yes, his "emancipation proclamation" was largely symbolic at the time it was signed, but he did go on to achieve the ability to enforce it, and did so.

Just as any historical figure who achieved something of large import, he cannot claim 100% credit for his accomplishment; he didn't single-handedly do it on his own. But I will confidently point to all the slaves held in bondage in the Confederate States who were freed immediately after the war and say that Lincoln deserves the majority of the credit for the accomplishment, at least in the immediate sense.

 

[BigRed]

But surely you have to acknowledge that their is some ambiguity here? If I sign a contract with you that has no mention of an expiration date, I'm pretty sure that contract would be considered binding forever (or at least until one of us dies) unless we can come to an agreement otherwise.

In this case the States all entered into an agreement with each other. In hindsight it was probably a mistake to not have addressed explicitly if/how a State could go about rescinding their agreement, but since it wasn't mentioned, it seems like the reasonable, default position is that it's not allowed unless all parties agree to it.

A breach of a contract renders it void.

Regardless, the Constitution is a document of negatives. Lest there be any doubt, the matter was addressed in the 9th and 10th.

 

[BigRed]

he made it clear that abolishing slavery was his foremost goal,

Utterly false.

lincoln's foremost goal was to "preserve the union".

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
- lincoln 1862

Of course, lincoln did not "save the union". He killed a union of consent and replaced it with a "union by force".

To claim lincoln "saved the union" is akin to an abusive husband killing his wife when she announced she was leaving and then claiming he saved the marriage.

But again, we are straying off topic.

 

[jamil]

He clearly enjoyed the burning, looting, and murdering along the way. Such things still garner much support in our time.

To be fair, I cannot say for sure it was the burning, looting, and murdering he appreciated.

It may have been the pillaging raping of civilian women that pleased him.

Ever read his memoirs?

 

[BigRed]

Ever read his memoirs?

I have not.....just his actions.

 

[jamil]

I have not.....just his actions.

His actions as described by whom? I’m pretty sure you did not witness them personally.