"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    I think attempting to form a different government illegally is an act of war.

    Though you think differently, secession was not illegal.

    All powers not delegated to the central state were reserved to the people and the individual states. That is the point of the 9th and 10th amendment.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,118
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Though you think differently, secession was not illegal.

    All powers not delegated to the central state were reserved to the people and the individual states. That is the point of the 9th and 10th amendment.

    As it pertains to rebellion, I understand that this was the opinion of Jefferson Davis and the rest.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,172
    113
    Bloomington
    He launched a war that killed over 600,000 people in order to usurp a union by consent and replace it with a union by force.

    Do the homework reading and we can discuss.
    And liberating millions of enslaved people was just something he happened to do at the same time, and is to be given no credit for, despite spending most of his political career proclaiming that as one of his primary goals?

    The more this conversation goes on, the more I think this is ultimately the source of our disagreement (with regards to how we should view Lincoln, that is, not with regards to the definition of the war.)

    You see, we can debate the finer legal points of who had what legal authority, did the Constitution allow for secession or not, who did Fort Sumter really belong to and was attacking it justified, etc. But in my mind while those points affect whether or not we define the war as a "Civil War", they don't affect the morality of the war.

    In my mind, the reality of slavery is more pertinent than the legal questions. Even if the war truly was an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in my mind it was still justified. I realize that this is a radical position to take, but I truly believe that if a nation is founded almost exclusively for the purpose of perpetuating the enslavement of millions of innocents, then for another nation to invade and conquer that nation, and in the process liberate those slaves, specifically when the number of slaves being liberated far exceeds the number of civilian casualties caused, that is justified. Or, even if it is not justified, it falls into the category of morally ambiguous actions, not actions of a murderous tyrant.
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    No war was necessary to free slaves. There are numerous examples around the world...even in the states.


    ETA
    Interestingly, lincoln freed no slaves; even in the union where he actually had some influence.

    No....lincoln's war was one to create a union of force, expand the central state, and to ensure his railroad investments paid well.
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    The more this conversation goes on, the more I think this is ultimately the source of our disagreement (with regards to how we should view Lincoln, that is, not with regards to the definition of the war.)

    I think not.

    However, I have found that whenever one attempts to discuss the matter of secession and that the war was by definition not a civil war most want talk about nothing but slavery and the deification of lincoln.

    It's similar to trying to discuss a topic like poverty with somebody who thinks it and every other Ill is because of "racism".
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,172
    113
    Bloomington
    I think not.

    However, I have found that whenever one attempts to discuss the matter of secession and that the war was by definition not a civil war most want talk about nothing but slavery and the deification of lincoln.

    It's similar to trying to discuss a topic like poverty with somebody who thinks it and every other Ill is because of "racism".
    I think you're trying to say that the discussion of slavery and Lincoln doesn't really change whether or not the war is properly defined as a Civil war? If so, than I agree with you, and that's what I meant to say, but I must not have phrased it very well.

    I also have to point out that your were the first to bring Lincoln and slavery into the conversation, not me:
    Next thing I know you're going to be claiming lincoln freed slaves.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,172
    113
    Bloomington
    No war was necessary to free slaves. There are numerous examples around the world...even in the states.


    ETA
    Interestingly, lincoln freed no slaves; even in the union where he actually had some influence.

    No....lincoln's war was one to create a union of force, expand the central state, and to ensure his railroad investments paid well.
    Yes, it is entirely possible that slavery would have eventually ended without the war. That doesn't change the fact that the war did end slavery in the South.

    So if Lincoln was responsible for starting the war, and the war did, in fact, result is slaves being freed in the South, doesn't it follow that Lincoln was responsible for freeing slaves in the South?
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    I'm not surprised this is your source.

    DiLorenzo's books have been thoroughly debunked many times over. He mischaracterizes quotes, leaves words out when they don't fit his agenda, includes outright lies, and omits any events that don't agree with what he is pushing.

    In other words, he is to serious history authors what Michael Moore is to serious documentary makers. He is someone to be ignored.


    I don't doubt your next step will be to accuse me of being a Lincoln lover, which is funny. I find it hard to figure why historians routinely list him as one of our greatest presidents. His election triggered a civil war that resulted in about as many dead as all of our other wars combined. It seems really odd to me to consider him "great" in light of what happened during his administration. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean I ignore the difficult situation he was placed in, secession happening before he even took office, and it certainly doesn't mean I give any credence to people like DiLorenzo that write nonsense.

    My favorite explanation of Lincoln was provided by himself. An admirer wrote him a letter congratulating him on how well he controlled events. Lincoln responded by saying that he always thought events controlled him.
     
    Last edited:

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    There is a lesson to be learned in this thread... don't try to learn history by studying the writings of Libertarian economists. The regular historians have enough agendas to sift through as it is, but at least they keep each other somewhat honest.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Though you think differently, secession was not illegal.

    All powers not delegated to the central state were reserved to the people and the individual states. That is the point of the 9th and 10th amendment.
    Why could counties in the Southern states not leave the CSA?

    Why could a Southern state not leave the CSA?

    Why could a Southern state not prohibit slavery?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,118
    113
    Gtown-ish
    There is a lesson to be learned in this thread... don't try to learn history by studying the writings of Libertarian economists. The regular historians have enough agendas to sift through as it is, but at least they keep each other somewhat honest.
    Libertarians, or any ideologues really. The 1619 project, for example, which is even kookier.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,172
    113
    Bloomington
    Well, let's hone in for a second on the whole question of secession, and leave aside for the moment the debate on Lincoln's character, because I feel like we have to answer the first before we can fully discuss the latter.

    Let's say for a moment that at the time the Constitution was ratified, it was assumed that any state could secede anytime they want. Some of the quotes in the article linked by BigRed certainly seem to support the idea that the founding fathers thought that, and as far as I can tell they seem to be authentic. I'm digging into my memory to try and recall anything in the writings of the founding fathers that more explicitly talks about or fleshes out this idea, but I'm coming up empty.

    So lets say that the states when they ratified the Constitution assumed that they could secede at any time, and that most of the founders thought the same. Lincoln clearly disagreed with this notion quite strongly, and threatened war with the seceding states. This is where, in my mind, Fort Sumter really is a key point in the whole question. Not just because it was the first shot fired, but because it represents all those unanswered questions hanging in the air about how exactly secession would be handled. The fort was federal property, so would it still belong to the states remaining in the Union? Would it revert back to the state in whose borders it lay? If so, would they have to reimburse the Union at all? Who would own the equipment in the fort? Etc, etc.

    At the end of the day one side resorted to starting the shooting before these questions could be fully addressed, which is unfortunate.

    I feel like I really do need to do more reading on the whole debate, though. Maybe the Supreme Court case over secession would have some enlightening points of view. Not that I think its outcome is a definitive pronouncement on the issue, because at the point it was decided it was really just the federal government saying "we've investigated ourselves and found that we did no wrong," but maybe it would have arguments that more specifically address the thinking of the founding fathers on this, and the contract between that and the apparent silence of the Constitution itself on the matter of secession. I think I'll try to look it up and do some more reading...
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Why could counties in the Southern states not leave the CSA?

    Why could a Southern state not leave the CSA?

    Why could a Southern state not prohibit slavery?

    My comment is regarding secession of certain States from a union.

    All matters you are referencing came after secession when the individual States were free to make whatever arrangements they chose.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    My comment is regarding secession of certain States from a union.

    All matters you are referencing came after secession when the individual States were free to make whatever arrangements they chose.
    Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?

    Why couldn't Jones County secede from Mississippi?

    Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?
     
    Top Bottom