"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[MinuteManMike]

I wasn't completely sure on the context of this question, but I think you're asking me to show you someone who deserves the credit for ending slavery in the USA more than Lincoln does?

I don't think there is one; that's the point. As much as a single person could ever take credit for such a thing, I think the credit rightly goes to Lincoln.

The North literally committed treason by illegally denying the South the right to leave (10th Amendment) and then levying war against them (the very definition of treason in the US Constitution).

All because they couldn't let their tax base that was financing the corrupt industrialists in the North get away.

There is no possible argument to be made for saying Lincoln was a good person in 1861 unless you say Washington was a bad person in 1776.

 

[jamil]

A republic in name only

Republic has a pretty broad definition. China calls itself a Republic too for **** sake. And technically it is. You pretty much just have to have the head of state that's a "public" ruler, rather than private. So a private ruler would rule over a country he or she mostly owns. Kinda like a monarchy. The queen of England is officially the head of state. She "owns" the Crown Estate. The US is a republic.

Now, if you want to say that the US form of republican government no longer truly represents the will of the people, I'd grant you that. But it is a republic in every sense of the definition.

 

[MinuteManMike]

And as far as Fort Sumpter goes, that's irrelevant.

Lincoln refusing to abandon the Fort was an act of occupation of a sovereign nation. Plus, the history of the US is littered with "us" baiting others into shooting first or outright faking incidents to get the wars we want.

 

[jamil]

The North literally committed treason by illegally denying the South the right to leave (10th Amendment) and then levying war against them (the very definition of treason in the US Constitution).

All because they couldn't let their tax base that was financing the corrupt industrialists in the North get away.

There is no possible argument to be made for saying Lincoln was a good person in 1861 unless you say Washington was a bad person in 1776.

A "good person" is quite subjective. It doesn't require any arguments to say one is good or one is bad. It's an opinion. One can just say it. One can reasonably hold the subjective opinion that Lincoln and Washington were both "good", or were both "bad" by their own qualifiers. Who gets to confine the qualifiers that makes one good or bad to the ones you have? If you insist that taxes were the sole cause of secession, you're ignoring a very large body of literature written and spoken by the very people who led the rebellion. Not everyone chooses to be so selective to arrive at a position they wish to justify.

 

[jamil]

And as far as Fort Sumpter goes, that's irrelevant.

Lincoln refusing to abandon the Fort was an act of occupation of a sovereign nation. Plus, the history of the US is littered with "us" baiting others into shooting first or outright faking incidents to get the wars we want.

The property belonged to the US government, which it can occupy at it's pleasure.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I thought we started off a republic of individual States.

OK... I used the wrong word.

My point still stands. All the individual States... belonged to the one Republic...
Some tried to call it quits.
In the end, that was still the case.
Ergo... civil war.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

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

One of the "terrible costs" I was talking about in my original post. Besides all the loss of life, and destruction, I feel this is where we went down a dark path. Many in power were frightened by the war, and determined not to allow the country to be torn apart again. I their overzealousness to save her from further death & destruction, they went too far the other way, paving the way that brought us to where we are today, with power hungry people at the top.

At least, I'd like to think they were trying to save her, but who knows. There's always somebody out there just in it for themselves.

 

[BigRed]

OK... I used the wrong word.

My point still stands. All the individual States... belonged to the one Republic...
Some tried to call it quits.
In the end, that was still the case.
Ergo... civil war.

Individual States belong to one republic created by those individual States?

Tell me more.

I am particulary interested in how delegated authority cannot be withdrawn.

 

[BigRed]

Republic has a pretty broad definition. China calls itself a Republic too for **** sake. And technically it is. You pretty much just have to have the head of state that's a "public" ruler, rather than private. So a private ruler would rule over a country he or she mostly owns. Kinda like a monarchy. The queen of England is officially the head of state. She "owns" the Crown Estate. The US is a republic.

Now, if you want to say that the US form of republican government no longer truly represents the will of the people, I'd grant you that. But it is a republic in every sense of the definition.

I am confident your understanding of what is a republic is limited...and not fully appreciated.

That is not a criticism towards you, jamil. It is simply an observation.

 

[jamil]

I am confident your understanding of what is a republic is limited...and not fully understood.

That is not a criticism towards you, jamil. It is simply an observation.

Perhaps you should do a deep dive into what is a republic rather than the cursory interpretation from zealot websites.

 

[BigRed]

Perhaps you should do a deep dive into what is a republic rather than the cursory interpretation from zealot websites.

My dive has been deeper than you will ever know.

 

[BigRed]

Perhaps you should do a deep dive into what is a republic rather than the cursory interpretation from zealot websites.

Regarding the topic of the thread, it was not a civil war.

 

[jamil]

Regarding the topic of the thread, it was not a civil war.

When I say "deep dive" I mean into literature that's critical of your own viewpoint.

But anyway, I strongly suspect your position is ideologically derived. I don't think we're will get anywhere here. Anyone can just make a claim and fold their arms, and define things such that they can never be wrong, Kinda like how BLM redefines racist so that they can never be called racists. I think we might as well talk about pizza and what doesn't belong on it.

But one last thing. I recommend reading the memoirs of the people hate from the civil war era. You might not hate who you think are the villains as much as you do now.

Warning. Sherman's, as I recall, was pretty dry. Mostly operations type stuff. Troop sizes. Logistics. Strategies. Chapter after chapter of that stuff. It's a hard read. But worth it overall because he does talk about some things that give you insight into his thinking.

It'll probably kill you to read Lincoln's if you haven't already read his collection of memoirs. It's pretty short. It's worth the read.

Grants was interesting. That dude was about as pragmatic as they come. But, it's a very uncritical view of himself. No mentions of his drinking problems, for example.

I've been reading Jefferson Davis's off and on. That guy wrote after the fact, as if he had not said the things he said when the confederacy had formed. If you've read it already, I can see why you might believe some of the things you believe.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The North literally committed treason by illegally denying the South the right to leave (10th Amendment) and then levying war against them (the very definition of treason in the US Constitution).

This is legally ambiguous. The South didn't even try to work it out peacefully before they started attacking the Union.

There is no possible argument to be made for saying Lincoln was a good person in 1861 unless you say Washington was a bad person in 1776.

Umm... How about Washington was fighting against an oppressive, tyrannical government that imposed onerous laws without representation, whereas Lincoln was fighting a foreign nation (yes, I'll just accept that for the moment, for the sake of conversation) that attacked his country and was literally founded in order to perpetuate the mass enslavement and oppression of innocents?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

And as far as Fort Sumpter goes, that's irrelevant.

Lincoln refusing to abandon the Fort was an act of occupation of a sovereign nation. Plus, the history of the US is littered with "us" baiting others into shooting first or outright faking incidents to get the wars we want.

Yeah, right. Fort Sumpter was federal property. Countries don't automatically get to take property away from another country just because it's within their borders. Lots of countries have military bases set up within another country with their permission, and those countries can't just one day wake up and decide, "Hey, changed my mind, gimme that base back."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Regarding the topic of the thread, it was not a civil war.

The Constitution made no mention of nor provision for secession. If we are to believe that the powers granted the federal government were revocable at any time whatsoever, then the Constitution was always a meaningless document, nothing but a farce.

This legal ambiguity was not solved at the time, so I think the only fair interpretation is to assume that what was one country immediately before the war, was one country immediately after the war, and was disputed as being one country during the war, is fair enough to call one country for the purposes of naming the war.

 

[jamil]

This is legally ambiguous. The South didn't even try to work it out peacefully before they started attacking the Union.

Umm... How about Washington was fighting against an oppressive, tyrannical government that imposed onerous laws without representation, whereas Lincoln was fighting a foreign nation (yes, I'll just accept that for the moment, for the sake of conversation) that attacked his country and was literally founded in order to perpetuate the mass enslavement and oppression of innocents?

I stopped taking that post seriously at "literally committed treason".

 

[1DOWN4UP]

A little off course, but kinna fits...

Treasure hunters accuse FBI of making off with tons of Civil War gold

The agency has adamantly denied it found anything. The treasure hunters say the FBI has consistently stonewalled.

www.al.com

FBI records on search for fabled gold raise more questions

The report, by a geophysicist who did microgravity testing, hinted at an underground object with a mass of up to 9 tons and a density consistent with gold.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[jamil]

The Constitution made no mention of nor provision for secession. If we are to believe that the powers granted the federal government were revocable at any time whatsoever, then the Constitution was always a meaningless document, nothing but a farce.

This legal ambiguity was not solved at the time, so I think the only fair interpretation is to assume that what was one country immediately before the war, was one country immediately after the war, and was disputed as being one country during the war, is fair enough to call one country for the purposes of naming the war.

Jefferson Davis, in his memoirs, tries to make the constitutional case for treason. But secession was untrod ground. The constitution doesn't address how a state might withdraw from the union, or that it even can. His reasoning is deterministic and rationalizing.

We talk about seceding now, especially Texas. But SCOTUS ruled in Texas v White (1869) that states could not unilaterally secede without revolution, or with the permission of the other states. More recently Scalia said, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

I think a belief that a state can just decide to leave is constitutionally based, is the requirement of an ideological need for that to be the case.

 

[JettaKnight]

The North literally committed treason by illegally denying the South the right to leave (10th Amendment) and then levying war against them (the very definition of treason in the US Constitution).

That's really stretching the 10th.



That's the same illogical argument being used to say abortion is a right afforded by the constitution.

I stopped taking that post seriously at "literally committed treason".