Stupid Dred Scot causing the Civil War. How dare he!
What I read at first it was more of an issue of states rights then slavery itself wasn't it? Nevertheless it was a civil war, because Americans were killing Americans, not so much colonists vs limies.
It was one nation before, during and after the war. As soon as the South seceded, nobody recognised the secession other than the south. The north considered it rebellion. Yeah, it was about states rights over a stronger federal government, but also about state rights to hold and continue to hold slaves. Something the US government was trying to curb at the time.lowing wrote:
It was one nation BEFORE the war. As soon as the south seceded, it then became 2 nations. The war was also not about slavery, it was about states rights over a stronger federal govt. I made the comparison between the secession of the south and the colonies break form England. Was this also a civil war based on your criteria?
Also I am not sure why you are being so condensending so how about lightening up a bit.
What does the label matter anyway, are you headed somewhere with this?
Based on your criteria, the revolutionary war was also a civil war then. It was concidered a rebellion and the only difference was it was lost by the mother country.AussieReaper wrote:
It was one nation before, during and after the war. As soon as the South seceded, nobody recognised the secession other than the south. The north considered it rebellion. Yeah, it was about states rights over a stronger federal government, but also about state rights to hold and continue to hold slaves. Something the US government was trying to curb at the time.lowing wrote:
It was one nation BEFORE the war. As soon as the south seceded, it then became 2 nations. The war was also not about slavery, it was about states rights over a stronger federal govt. I made the comparison between the secession of the south and the colonies break form England. Was this also a civil war based on your criteria?
Also I am not sure why you are being so condensending so how about lightening up a bit.
What does the label matter anyway, are you headed somewhere with this?
The war between the states is no different. If you insist it was a civil war, then you must also insist the war for independence was also a civil war, and I doubt you will go there.
Slavery was certainly a component but yes, the core of the conflict was about states rights. If the south had won I do believe it would have been called the war for southern independence.lowing wrote:
It was one nation BEFORE the war. As soon as the south seceded, it then became 2 nations. The war was also not about slavery, it was about states rights over a stronger federal govt. I made the comparison between the secession of the south and the colonies break form England. Was this also a civil war based on your criteria?AussieReaper wrote:
They were not established in the concept of ending slavery, which was one of the main factors leading to the South's withdrawal from the Union. Have a look at the motives behind the Southern secession. They were against the ending of slavery that the previous government was pressing, and that concept was to be further pressed and eventuate under Lincoln.lowing wrote:
Dependant BEFORE secession, independant and trade with other nations AFTERwards.
the federal govt. was not established? By the time the civil war broke out the federal govt. was on its 16th ELECTED president. Sounds established to me.
Oh and thanks for clearing up that they were dependant before secession. Because your OP suggested it was more of a war between nations since they were so independent. I guess you've proven yourself wrong on that fairly well. The states were dependent, and thus it was a civil war. Not a war between nations.
Also I am not sure why you are being so condensending so how about lightening up a bit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"What's so civil about war, anyway?"
- Axl Rose
- Axl Rose
I should put this in the book club thread.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OD … C8E18PAKS6
Excellent. I have What Hath God Wrought also and it is also .
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OD … C8E18PAKS6
Excellent. I have What Hath God Wrought also and it is also .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Maybe I used the wrong word. How about 'within the same nation' ? And most of the times within the confines of said nation's boarders. In that sense the American civil war was civil.lowing wrote:
Well if that were the case, WW1 WW2 and just about every other war is a civil war. Being from a different country does not make you a different race.oug wrote:
A civil war is called an 'εμφύλιος' in Greek - meaning 'within the same race'. I hope that clarifies things.
ƒ³
It's pretty obvious that the War of Independence was not a civil war. It was a war between nations and recognised as such by the international community.lowing wrote:
Based on your criteria, the revolutionary war was also a civil war then. It was concidered a rebellion and the only difference was it was lost by the mother country.AussieReaper wrote:
It was one nation before, during and after the war. As soon as the South seceded, nobody recognised the secession other than the south. The north considered it rebellion. Yeah, it was about states rights over a stronger federal government, but also about state rights to hold and continue to hold slaves. Something the US government was trying to curb at the time.lowing wrote:
It was one nation BEFORE the war. As soon as the south seceded, it then became 2 nations. The war was also not about slavery, it was about states rights over a stronger federal govt. I made the comparison between the secession of the south and the colonies break form England. Was this also a civil war based on your criteria?
Also I am not sure why you are being so condensending so how about lightening up a bit.
What does the label matter anyway, are you headed somewhere with this?
The war between the states is no different. If you insist it was a civil war, then you must also insist the war for independence was also a civil war, and I doubt you will go there.
Nope based on your criteria, there was no USA before the esar began they were sugjected to English rule and flew the union jack. When the war broke out they declared their independence but was not a country until the war ended and their independence won.AussieReaper wrote:
It's pretty obvious that the War of Independence was not a civil war. It was a war between nations and recognised as such by the international community.lowing wrote:
Based on your criteria, the revolutionary war was also a civil war then. It was concidered a rebellion and the only difference was it was lost by the mother country.AussieReaper wrote:
It was one nation before, during and after the war. As soon as the South seceded, nobody recognised the secession other than the south. The north considered it rebellion. Yeah, it was about states rights over a stronger federal government, but also about state rights to hold and continue to hold slaves. Something the US government was trying to curb at the time.
What does the label matter anyway, are you headed somewhere with this?
The war between the states is no different. If you insist it was a civil war, then you must also insist the war for independence was also a civil war, and I doubt you will go there.
This is exactly what the southern states did, the only difference is they lost, and it all happened on the same continent.
scoreboardlowing wrote:
the only difference is they lost.
I always assumed its called the Civil War because the Union won and to call it something like the Confederate United States war of independence (or you know something like that) would be frowned upon
The history books are written by the victors, no?
The history books are written by the victors, no?
The question is.. Did they have the right to secede?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Their reasons for seceding (see the last paragraph) is pretty much the things lowing said they were already freely doing. If lowing is right and their rights were not being infringed upon why did they secede?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Their reasons for seceding (see the last paragraph) is pretty much the things lowing said they were already freely doing. If lowing is right and their rights were not being infringed upon why did they secede?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
In their eyes their rights ( states rights) were being infringed upon.Kmarion wrote:
The question is.. Did they have the right to secede?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Their reasons for seceding (see the last paragraph) is pretty much the things lowing said they were already freely doing. If lowing is right and their rights were not being infringed upon why did they secede?
I know. That's what I have been saying the entire thread. My question is were they actually being infringed upon?lowing wrote:
In their eyes their rights ( states rights) were being infringed upon.Kmarion wrote:
The question is.. Did they have the right to secede?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Their reasons for seceding (see the last paragraph) is pretty much the things lowing said they were already freely doing. If lowing is right and their rights were not being infringed upon why did they secede?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
right to secede? no. the southern slave states were a bunch of over-represented, spoiled brats. especially, south carolina, who, previous to the civil war, had already threatened secession two or three times, whenever something was unfair or threatened the dixie balance.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-06-16 21:27:58)
The New England Federalists were the first to attempt to secede.
Madison said that states were sovereign. "The federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states."
Madison said that states were sovereign. "The federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states."
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com … -text.htmlFather of the constitution wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
SourceWhat makes a civil war? wrote:
Strictly speaking a civil war takes place within the same political community and represents a struggle for power between competing factions that is decided through violence.
The American civil war fits the category as it was about one part of the country's attempt to break away from the rest and it involved a clash between organised armies.
After the Bolshevik revolution there was a civil war in Russia as the 'white' forces loyal to the old order fought the 'red' forces of the new.
Pronounced differences in religion or ethnicity may produce a civil war if one community decides it is intolerable to live in a state dominated by another.
The militants will use sectarian attacks in order to polarise the country and undermine any claims by the state to be representing all sections of the population.
The Irish Civil War refers to the internal struggle that took place in the 1920s between factions of the Republican Movement over whether or not to accept partition.
This would have given them their own state in the South but left the six counties of the North controlled by Protestants determined to maintain the union with Great Britain.
When the Provisional IRA mounted a violent campaign to separate the North from Great Britain and attach it to the South they might have wished this to appear as a civil war.
Yet in practice it was seen as a vicious reflection of the Catholic-Protestant sectarian divide.
It's a BBC article on whether or not Iraq can be considered a civil war. But has some relevance.
But imo, the ACW was fought as a means of deciding whether the South had a right to form their own country. They lost and in so doing lose that right, therefore it can't be anything other than a civil war. Even if Britain and France were considering recognising the South as a separate country, they never did formally during the war, and went in the opposite direction after Gettysburg.
Except for that danged old necessary and proper clause. It's a good thing the south had all those "workers" to fill the census. how else would they fend off the big bad north in congress.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com … -text.htmlFather of the constitution wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-06-16 22:35:56)
Gettysburg was poetry, not logic.AussieReaper wrote:
SourceWhat makes a civil war? wrote:
Strictly speaking a civil war takes place within the same political community and represents a struggle for power between competing factions that is decided through violence.
The American civil war fits the category as it was about one part of the country's attempt to break away from the rest and it involved a clash between organised armies.
After the Bolshevik revolution there was a civil war in Russia as the 'white' forces loyal to the old order fought the 'red' forces of the new.
Pronounced differences in religion or ethnicity may produce a civil war if one community decides it is intolerable to live in a state dominated by another.
The militants will use sectarian attacks in order to polarise the country and undermine any claims by the state to be representing all sections of the population.
The Irish Civil War refers to the internal struggle that took place in the 1920s between factions of the Republican Movement over whether or not to accept partition.
This would have given them their own state in the South but left the six counties of the North controlled by Protestants determined to maintain the union with Great Britain.
When the Provisional IRA mounted a violent campaign to separate the North from Great Britain and attach it to the South they might have wished this to appear as a civil war.
Yet in practice it was seen as a vicious reflection of the Catholic-Protestant sectarian divide.
It's a BBC article on whether or not Iraq can be considered a civil war. But has some relevance.
But imo, the ACW was fought as a means of deciding whether the South had a right to form their own country. They lost and in so doing lose that right, therefore it can't be anything other than a civil war. Even if Britain and France were considering recognising the South as a separate country, they never did formally during the war, and went in the opposite direction after Gettysburg.
...before I screw it up ..lol'
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1110Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You need to elaborate. Please use a complete sentence.Reciprocity wrote:
Except for that danged old [i]necessary and proper clause[/]. It's a good thing the south had all those "workers" to fill the census. how else would they fend off the big bad north in congress.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com … -text.htmlFather of the constitution wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What's the difference between a revolt, a revolution, a rebellion, a coup and a civil war?
How the victor chooses to name it.
How the victor chooses to name it.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
yeah, if you take the speech completely out of context. lincoln took that opportunity to piggyback onto the abolition movement and take the war to that next, moral, level. the "people" he's referring to are his new black friends. now, whether some conscript from new york felt that way while bleeding to death on that field, we'll never know. that was lincoln's political move. but the confederates certainly weren't fighting for the right of slaves to govern themselves.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1110Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
article one, section eight, clause eighteen:Kmarion wrote:
You need to elaborate. Please use a complete sentence.Reciprocity wrote:
Except for that danged old [i]necessary and proper clause[/]. It's a good thing the south had all those "workers" to fill the census. how else would they fend off the big bad north in congress.
It's the blurry line between state and federal dominion. to avoid abuse by the much more populous north in congress, slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a citizen which would keep the south's representation artificially high. the first half of the 19th century was a series hissyfits any time a new state was proposed. would it be a slave state or a free state?The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
the civil war was the result of 80 years of compromise between two very different cultures. it was the inevitable result of our victory in the war of independence. much as WWII was the inevitable result of WWI.
Right, and when the decleration of independance said "all men are created equal. " They were talking about slaves too.Reciprocity wrote:
yeah, if you take the speech completely out of context. lincoln took that opportunity to piggyback onto the abolition movement and take the war to that next, moral, level. the "people" he's referring to are his new black friends. now, whether some conscript from new york felt that way while bleeding to death on that field, we'll never know. that was lincoln's political move. but the confederates certainly weren't fighting for the right of slaves to govern themselves.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1110Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
No, it was about the right to self govern. The fact that he cited a Decleration of Independence, the thing he was trying to stop, should at least be a clue that he had it ass backwards. It was not about slavery. Lincoln never originally intended to abolish it. He certainly wanted to eventually rid us of it, but his biggest prioirty was preserving the union. In fact the Emancipation Proclimation only freed slaves in southern states. It did not free the slaves in the north. Lincoln said during the Douglas debates that "I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
Lincoln, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
Xbone Stormsurgezz