"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[BigRed]

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

Let me restate...I have read the accounts of his actions.

Are you suggesting those in his command did not burn, loot, murder and rape?

 

[jamil]

Let me restate...I have read the accounts of his actions.

Are you suggesting those in his command did not burn, loot, murder and rape?

They did.

 

[BigRed]

They did.

Fine.
You do know my comment was directed at a sarcastic meme, correct?

 

[jamil]

I’m still waiting for evidence that Sherman enjoyed it.

 

[jamil]

Fine.
You do know my comment was directed at a sarcastic meme, correct?

So you don’t think Sherman enjoyed it? It’s hard to know when you’re serious.

 

[BigRed]

So you don’t think Sherman enjoyed it? It’s hard to know when you’re serious.

Whether he did or did not, I will judge him by his actions.

 

[DragonGunner]

Whether he did or did not, I will judge him by his actions.

Well Southern historians have concluded that Atlanta was burned by Southerners who looted and Sherman got the blame. Like I have said before, there were atrocities from both sides. Shall we play this game….? I hope not.

 

[BigRed]

Well Southern historians have concluded that Atlanta was burned by Southerners who looted and Sherman got the blame. Like I have said before, there were atrocities from both sides. Shall we play this game….? I hope not.

Did I say otherwise?

Regardless, off the topic of the thread...ie: "Was it a civil war?"

 

[DragonGunner]

Did I say otherwise?

Regardless, off the topic of the thread...ie: "Was it a civil war?"

I would say it was. I don’t see anything to convince me otherwise.

 

[jamil]

Did I say otherwise?

You kinda did.

Regardless, off the topic of the thread...ie: "Was it a civil war?"

Yes.

 

[BigRed]

Yes.

By definition, no.

 

[Quiet Observer]

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.

Nations do not normally give up territory or allow portions to succeed. A sovereign nation is going to demand and enforce the right to remain intact.

The states signing the Articles of Confederation agreed to a perpetual Union. It did allow for succession.

Article II – “ Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”.

Certain rights and jurisdictions were given to the U.S. Congress above the states.

Part of Article VI stated that, “No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue”.

Article IX stated that only Congress could make peace or war. Article VI did give an exception in case of invasion, but the state still have to go to Congress

Article XIII - "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Articles Text

Articles of Confederation Full Text To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed t...

www.articlesofconfederation.com

 

[jamil]

By definition, no.

The definition applied to the facts in evidence. Yes.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

So... you're asking for us to give our opinion on what we thought it was...

OK, I'll bite.

It was a civil war.

We started off as one single nation.
Part of that nation (the south) tried to break away, attacking the part that they were trying to break away from.
The other side (the north) fought to keep the entire nation together as one.
In the end, the nation was preserved as one single entity, but at a terrible cost.
Civil war.

You can argue slavery, states rights, whatever the reasons, till you're blue in the face... but that's what happened.

 

[Kurr]

We started off as one single nation.
Part of that nation (the south) tried to break away, attacking the part that they were trying to break away from.
The other side (the north) fought to keep the entire nation together as one.
In the end, the nation was preserved as one single entity, but at a terrible cost.
Civil war.

I thought we started off a republic of individual States.

 

[jamil]

I thought we started off a republic of individual States.

That was one of the costs of the civil war. Still a republic. But the federal government became stronger after.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

What is the breach of contract, in this case?

Even with the 9th and 10th it still seems ambiguous to me. The Constitution enumerates certain powers of the federal government, but it seems a stretch for a State to be able to say "Oh, yeah, the federal government has those powers, but the Constitution still leaves me with the power to revoke those powers, because that power wasn't enumerated in the Constitution." That just makes whole Constitution meaningless.

Now could there be a legal process by which certain States would secede? Absolutely (and personally, I'd love to see that being pursued by certain states nowadays) but until given the ambiguity, I think it's a stretch to say that the separation is fully enacted simply by a State decreeing it to be so.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

I wasn't so much referring to his foremost goal in the War, as to his foremost "life goal", so to speak. He knew full well that his election, combined with his stance on slavery, was likely to form a split in the country, but he did not soften his stance on slavery regardless. Yes, he had to paint the war in terms of "saving the union" to get Congress on his side, but if you look at his words and actions before his election as president, and later in the war as well as after it, I think it become clear that ending slavery was his paramount life goal, though "preserving the union" was a close second (you could argue that it was really the first, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be the case to me from the various writings and recorded speeches of Lincoln that I've read.)

But to get back to a more relevant point to the topic at hand; you keep saying/implying that the Southern States were being abused by the federal government in some fashion, even before their attempt to secede. What, precisely, were these abuses?

 

[BigRed]

Nations do not normally give up territory or allow portions to succeed. A sovereign nation is going to demand and enforce the right to remain intact.

The states signing the Articles of Confederation agreed to a perpetual Union. It did allow for succession.

Article II – “ Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”.

Certain rights and jurisdictions were given to the U.S. Congress above the states.

Part of Article VI stated that, “No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue”.

Article IX stated that only Congress could make peace or war. Article VI did give an exception in case of invasion, but the state still have to go to Congress

Article XIII - "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Articles Text

Articles of Confederation Full Text To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed t...

www.articlesofconfederation.com

The articles of confederation were not in effect at the time of secession. They had been replaced with the constitution.

Certain states seceded and were no longer party to the constitution.

The war became one of the United States vs other states. By definition, that is not a civil war.

 

[BigRed]

That was one of the costs of the civil war. Still a republic. But the federal government became stronger after.

A republic in name only