Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Union or Confederacy? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Salah ad-Din 
Samurai 
Joined: 15-Apr-2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 138 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Union or Confederacy?Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 18:07 |
|
|
Whom do you sympathise with, and why? An unrepentant Yankee, here :D
|
||
 |
||
|
Salah ad-Din
Samurai
Joined: 15-Apr-2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 138 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 18:09 |
|
|
Question is self-explanatory :)
|
||
|
||
|
red clay
Administrator 
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 18:32 |
|
|
Umm, yes, but the poll over simplifies the question. States rights as a reason for the Civil war is usually considered fairly lame. You had many regional influences as well as the slavery issue at work.
I consider myself a "West Virginia Yankee". To fully understand that, you have to be one.
 |
||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
||
|
||
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor 
Joined: 18-Aug-2006 Location: The Llano Online Status: Offline Posts: 7392 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 18:56 |
|
|
A North Panhandle Texan who believed that Sam Houston was right and secession was wrong. At some point the institution would have died a natural death. Would that had justified it's ongoing presence until such date?
No.
But by 1880 the demographics and the ongoing industrialization of the country and the effects of the same have doomed it. Cotton and tobacco had long since been and would be replaced by cattle and oil as Kings. Continuing developments in mass transport and communications allied with on-going societal rejection and movements established to increase personal liberties and equalities among women and minorities..finish the peculiar institution.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 14-Aug-2011 at 18:57 |
||
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
||
|
||
|
Mosquito
Caliph 
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 18:58 |
|
|
I dont know why but I had always more sympathy for Confederates than for Yankees. In my eyes they were more noble and definatelly were better cavalrymen than Yankees. They fought for their freedom and independence. And also I had always admired general Lee who was really one of the greatests commanders of his times.
|
||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 19:11 |
|
|
I'd support the union as sooner or later Lincoln would abolish slavery
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2011 at 19:32 |
|
|
||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||
|
||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Aug-2011 at 23:24 |
|
|
I picked the Confederacy. There was nothing in the pre war constitution that forbade leaving the union. As CV mentions, slavery was going to become un economical by 1880. as for ethnic diversity, the confederacy allowed Jews and Catholics to serve in senior positions, something that the north did not allow.
The issue of slavery is more complex than equating the north with abolition and the south with slavery. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware were all union states and were also slave states. The union states of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio were free states, that had also forbidden free blacks from settling in their states. Thus they were both free as in no slaves, but also "free" of black residents. The complexity of Slavery in the United states is also demonstrated by the slaves that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free: - Slaves in pro union states -Slaves that were physically located in confederate states, but were owned by union officers. -Confederate owned slaves if the individual owner was willing to take a loyalty oath to the union Edited by Cryptic - 17-Aug-2011 at 23:41 |
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Aug-2011 at 19:38 |
|
|
Limited abolition would eventually become universal sooner or later. Abolitionists used Lincoln's proclamation to call for a crusade against slavery. When the South refused to surrender slavery's days were numbered
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Aug-2011 at 21:46 |
|
And it also had a huge impact on the slave population in the south. For the first two years of the war, emancipation was not a stated union goal and many slaves were either ambivalent to the union cause and some fought for the Confederacy (either directly or indirectly). The Emancipation Proclamation then led many slaves to welcome the invading union armies. Of course, the Emancipation Proclamation contained alot of fine print exceptions and some / many union soldiers and commanders were just as racist as some / many confederates. |
||
|
||
|
tjadams
Chieftain 
Suspended, go back to historum Joined: 17-Apr-2011 Location: Texas Online Status: Offline Posts: 1188 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Nov-2011 at 17:12 |
|
|
For my standing, I'd be wearing the Confederate Gray.
|
||
|
||
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator 
Master of Meanings Joined: 06-Nov-2010 Location: / Online Status: Offline Posts: 17084 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 03:04 |
|
|
union of confederacies is starting line for reunification also disintegration.My advise:let you stop here.
|
||
|
||
|
Jarns
Janissary 
Joined: 05-Nov-2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 18 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 15:02 |
|
|
Despite living in Texas, having been born in Texas and having a deep, deep love for Southern culture, I'm an American first-and-foremost and would have gone with the Union.
|
||
|
||
|
tjadams
Chieftain
Suspended, go back to historum Joined: 17-Apr-2011 Location: Texas Online Status: Offline Posts: 1188 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2011 at 09:29 |
|
|
Therein lies the difficulty of the American CW: divided families & populations. Imagine the difficulty CSA Robert E. Lee felt and wrangled over when he decided to select a side. |
||
|
||
|
Autie
Knight 
Joined: 01-Dec-2011 Location: OHIO Online Status: Offline Posts: 55 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Dec-2011 at 21:38 |
|
|
A damn yankee by birth (and proud of it), yet hold my rebel cousins in high regard with total respect to their heritage. Honor and pride go a long way in my book.
|
||
|
“[I have] too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders...” - Terry to Custer
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2011 at 08:48 |
|
|
The Confederates. More interesting characters on that side. People like Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, etc. Plus, I do understand their reasons for wanting to leave the Union, and even though slavery was a big issue, it was definitely just one piece of a large puzzle.
|
||
|
||
|
LuciusCorneliusSulla
Janissary
Joined: 30-Nov-2011 Location: New York Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2011 at 22:56 |
|
|
The argument that secession was legal always interested me, especially since many people attempt to apply the bill of rights and yada yada to justify it, when all they need do is read Article 1 Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution....
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Hence, secession 100% illegal. Although I would have enjoyed meeting such intriguing figures as J.E.B. Stuart, I certainly would not be comfortable with the religious zealotry of Tom Jackson. Goona have to go with the Union here, simply because secession was clearly illegal, the south fired the first shot, and the states rights argument is always poorly constructed.
|
||
|
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
||
|
||
|
LuciusCorneliusSulla
Janissary
Joined: 30-Nov-2011 Location: New York Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2011 at 23:15 |
|
Of course, this ignores the fact that slavery had been abolished in all states north of Pennsylvania by 1800... discrimination sure, slavery? nope - prohibited. Also, you are ignoring the Emancipation proclamation Lincoln made prior to the official document, and ignoring Lincoln's political history in general, and his self-admission that "There can be no moral right in connection with one's making a slave of another," as well as his approval of Butler's confiscations prior to the first confiscation act, pretty well indicate that Lincoln was anti-slavery. Also, I won't even bring in the numerous diary pages and personal correspondences he wrote condemning the institution during his time in the legislature. If you are familiar with the man at all, you will find that the private Lincoln condemned slavery, despite what his official statements indicate (don't forget, he had to attempt to make the copperheads happy.) Also, there were very few Black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, most were used as, wait for it, slave labor, digging trenches, building camps, etc, for the confeds. Compare that role to the Union roll of actually giving them rifles and sending them to the front lines, over 100,000 of them, and your comparison seems rather absurd. Many Union men were racist sure, but slave owners, nope, so that is a misleading statement. And, actually, Emancipation was called for prior to the war in the North, maybe you missed the whole 1800 - end of slavery North of Pennsylvania bit, and the fact that the Missouri compromise happened, and the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the whole, all Africans are emancipated in the Northern states by a series of statues beginning as early as 1770 (Vermont territory), 1780 (Penn.), 1783 (Maine, NH), 1784 (Conn., RI.) etc.. Only a fool can state, without contradicting himself, that emancipation was not a Northern cause, it had been for decades. Oh, and "alot" is not a word, it is actually two - a lot. (peeve of mine
 )Edited by LuciusCorneliusSulla - 26-Dec-2011 at 23:37 |
||
|
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
||
|
||
|
LuciusCorneliusSulla
Janissary
Joined: 30-Nov-2011 Location: New York Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2011 at 23:35 |
|
There WAS something that made slavery illegal in the constitution, perhaps you missed it, Article 1... The ethnic diversity bit is a red herring. as to the Emancipation bit.... Why would the Union emancipate people who had already been emancipated... the border states are irrelevant, that was an appeasement maneuver to guarantee their loyalty. Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines had previously been held by the Union Army as "contraband of war" under the Confiscation Acts; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. Slaves in the border states were allowed to be considered under the confiscation acts, and many chose to do so, while others were freed after a Northern advantage was secured and the loyalty of the border states was no longer in question/important. Read the autobiography of Booker T. Washington to see the black response to the act: ecstatic. James M. McPherson stated that "If the election was in any sense a referendum on emancipation and on Lincoln’s conduct of the war, a majority of Northern voters endorsed these policies." sic: the north supported emancipation. They actually gained seats in the senate... You are viewing the Emancipation Proclamation out of context and drawing conclusions with that skewed context, the Emancipation proclamation was a war measure, nothing more, it even states that in the Proclamation itself: "Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaim..." But, and this is a big stinky but  (I couldn't resist), in light of previously mentioned evidence, it is absolutely untrue to argue that Lincoln and the North somehow condoned/supported slavery. |
||
|
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
||
|
||
|
Zeeboe
Janissary
Joined: 29-May-2011 Location: Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 23 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-May-2012 at 10:40 |
|
|
I am a Lincoln Loyalist from the Southern region of the Union. I support President Lincoln because I support the United States of America and the United States Constitution, and despite what neo-rebs like to think, President Lincoln did not violate the rules in United States Constitution.
Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Article I, Section 10 places important restrictions on powers states might otherwise exercise. The third paragraph of that section in particular commands that:
"no state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state."
In other words, states may enter into an "agreement" or a "compact" the other states, but only with the consent of Congress. Some states may find it useful, economically, socially, or otherwise, to make certain agreements with others regarding the use of a common river or mineral rights for adjacent lands, but the requirement that Congress consent to such agreements ensures that they are not designed to injure the common good or the integrity of the Union. Any agreement between individual states must be authorized by a constitutional majority of Americans as represented in Congress.
The first paragraph of Article I, Section 10 is even more prohibitory:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
Further, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the national government to:
"guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government", meaning that the national government has the constitutional power to oppose any monarchial or any other non-republican form of government that one or several of the states might attempt to implement."
Section VIII of Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is justified by the United States Constitution. It says in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in time of a foreign invasion or a domestic rebellion if the public safety requires it, and if there ever was a case of domestic rebellion, it was the American Civil War.
Not according to the Confederate States Constitution. Unlike the Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution, who were too embarrassed to mention slavery by name in their document, the Founding Fathers of the Confederate States Constitution refer to slavery explicitly throughout their paper.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."
Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:
"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it's political reach, and more then a few Confederates had their eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest.
Unlike the Confederate States Constitution, the United States Constitution freely permitted states to abolish slavery. If the day ever came when slavery was eliminated voluntarily throughout the United States of America, not one word of the United States Constitution would need to be changed, whereas slavery could never lawfully be abolished under the Confederate States Constitution.
Both Frederick Douglas and President Abraham Lincoln would probably be shocked to learn that some modern academics use theoretical economics to argue that the Confederate States Constitution offered greater protection for freedom then the United States Constitution. Edited by Zeeboe - 18-May-2012 at 10:46 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
