Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is There Something Wrong With The Term: "War Between the States?"
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 01-06-2014 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-333 next last
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

It makes perfect sense. Really? Think hard. What if you’re living in a state that’s about 50-50 lib-conservative? But the libs get a slight majority and vote to secede and establish Cuba North. Do you think that’s logical?


151 posted on 01/11/2014 3:58:18 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

-— Do you think that’s logical? -—

As long as residents are allowed to flee, I don’t have a problem.

But i don’t think it will be easy to get a majority to vote for secession, even if the population is 60% moonbat, for example.


152 posted on 01/11/2014 4:03:42 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

“I enjoy using an older title: “War of Northern Aggression”.”

I lean that way also. But today I think we could call it the War to End The Police State.


153 posted on 01/11/2014 4:05:35 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Except there really wasn’t a police state.


154 posted on 01/11/2014 4:11:54 PM PST by Wyrd bi ful ard (Gone Galt, 11/07/12----No king but Christ! Don't tread on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

The same could be said of joining the union; that the nuts could join against the will of the people.


155 posted on 01/11/2014 4:26:17 PM PST by CodeToad (When ignorance rules a person's decision they are resorting to superstition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Korea used to have a large caste of state slaves

Isn't every person in North Korea essentially a slave?

156 posted on 01/11/2014 4:49:49 PM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I meant NOW not the 1860s


157 posted on 01/11/2014 4:58:10 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

There was no tyranny - except that coming from the slavrocracy. The south had full voice in Congress, and had held the presidency more often than not. That the had a temper tantrum and a meltdown when they didn’t get their way is telling.


158 posted on 01/11/2014 4:59:30 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

But basically the South’s only chance was a kind of delaying action that might make the war weary Northern population give up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, I have wondered about that. What if the South had never used the traditional warfare practices of the day, but, had waged a low simmering guerrilla war instead. They might have won and those in the North grew weary,


159 posted on 01/11/2014 5:10:30 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

“But today I think we could call it the War to End The Police State.”

Key word is today.


160 posted on 01/11/2014 5:13:47 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
What if the South had never used the traditional warfare practices of the day, but, had waged a low simmering guerrilla war instead. They might have won and those in the North grew weary,

I live in Missouri which bore the brunt of 4-plus years of guerrilla warfare that devastated the border area and resulted in terrible suffering for the civilian population. There is no reason to believe that the same wouldn't have happened to the other Confederate states.

161 posted on 01/11/2014 5:19:45 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

Yep.


162 posted on 01/11/2014 5:30:00 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Ok. It is 9:30 AM, Sunday morning here, so let me get back to watching the Colts/Patriots game live, by streaming on my computer. I have to get up at 2 AM tonight, to see Sunday’s games live. Later bro.


163 posted on 01/11/2014 5:48:13 PM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

later!


164 posted on 01/11/2014 6:03:27 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

So.......say you’re living in a state that’s split about evenly between libs and conservatives. And your state is doing very well economically. Including yourself and the area where you live. Then some commies take over the state by a simple majority, and you think it would be perfectly fine if they split off from the rest of the country and formed a commie nation. Are you serious or just yanking my chain?


165 posted on 01/11/2014 6:11:57 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Lee was asked to do that and responded by saying he didn’t want to be a bushwhacker the rest of his life. Certainly, the South could have used guerilla warfare. But to what end? I think both sides were pretty sick of the war after four years. And Southerners were affected a lot more adversely than Northerners. I think most other Southern officers, like Lee and Longstreet, knew that a prolonged guerilla war would only make things a lot worse and accepted the end.


166 posted on 01/11/2014 6:16:38 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Two may vehemently disagree, but what matters is who throws the first punch.


167 posted on 01/11/2014 6:16:50 PM PST by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

The Republicans did NOT support slavery and in fact were constituted around the notion that it was not an institution that should continue.

I am aware there were elements of pro and anti slavery to be found in all areas of the nation.


168 posted on 01/11/2014 6:17:05 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

I’m serious. Even if a state is 51% moonbat, do you think they’d immediately vote to secede? Would conservatives? You’d have to be pretty PO’d.

I’m guessing that it would take a 66% moonbat majority to secede, and if they did, wouldn’t that be fair, especially with free emigration?

I think this would conform with the principal of subsidiarity.


169 posted on 01/11/2014 6:21:07 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Mayland was a separate nation in the Appalachians. Mayland seceded from the Confederacy immediately after the southern states seceded from the Union.


170 posted on 01/11/2014 6:24:01 PM PST by gitmo (If your theology doesn't become your biography, what good is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero; Wyrd bið ful aræd
That's the whole problem. Lawyers.

Proposition: States (that is, ruling regimes) have powers; private individuals do (or don’t) have rights, according to their ruling legal document(s).

I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.

171 posted on 01/11/2014 6:47:57 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

“At this point, what difference does it really make?”


172 posted on 01/11/2014 7:44:36 PM PST by outofsalt (If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Where did you learn history from, “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not’’?.


173 posted on 01/11/2014 7:48:17 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck
A war between peoples of the same nation or country is a ‘’civil war’’. Whatever the name, the outcome is unalterable. The South started the war and lost. Get over it.
174 posted on 01/11/2014 7:50:17 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I agree.


175 posted on 01/11/2014 7:51:16 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

We’re putting the cart before the horse. Why do you think states have the right to secede? Nowhere in the constitution does it give them the right. Something as serious as dissolving the union would have something explicit written wouldn’t you think?


176 posted on 01/11/2014 8:14:16 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

We seceded from England, didn’t we, “ after a long train of abuses”?

We used to be the United States. Now we’re USA. I don’t know if the Constitution says anything, one way or the other. Certainly the South thought it had the right to secede.


177 posted on 01/11/2014 8:18:57 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

No, we didn’t secede from the crown. We openly rebelled against their authority.


178 posted on 01/11/2014 8:28:45 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Proposition: States (that is, ruling regimes) have powers; private individuals do (or don’t) have rights, according to their ruling legal document(s).

I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.

Is it not true that individuals do (or don't) have rights whether they are private individuals or not?

Is it not true that some rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not dependent on ruling legal documents? Admittedly, there are some rights dependent on ruling legal documents, just not all of them.

If the above is true and you're defining a State as a ruling regime (which I'm not sure I would), and a ruling regime consists of individuals as it must, would not the State have rights because the State is a ruling regime which is individuals who have rights?

179 posted on 01/11/2014 10:09:42 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

Interesting.....

First time I’ve heard about these Maryland issues.


180 posted on 01/11/2014 10:54:39 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Please explain which part of the North the South was trying to control. No Northern aggression toward the South would have resulted in no war. That is the clear history of events.


181 posted on 01/12/2014 2:49:20 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Forget about “shot”, the North was fortifying a Southern position that they had been repeatedly asked to leave. And not a single person was killed when Charleston was liberated. Continuing to occupy strategic positions was clearly a hostile Northern act. What purpose did it serve except to attack the a South?


182 posted on 01/12/2014 2:57:11 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923

See my #182. If someone was fortifying a fighting position in your living room, you would consider that an aggressive act. The North desired war, the South desired to be left alone, i.e. War of Northern Aggression.


183 posted on 01/12/2014 3:01:53 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

What does the term “union” mean to you? What kind of country is it where at any time a section can declare itself a separate country and leave? Doesn’t that sound like chaos to you?


184 posted on 01/12/2014 3:29:04 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

What does the term “union” mean to you? What kind of country is it where at any time a section can declare itself a separate country and leave? Doesn’t that sound like chaos to you?


185 posted on 01/12/2014 3:29:14 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

The War Between Big Government and Small Government


186 posted on 01/12/2014 3:42:57 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
And just imagine trying to live in this new nation. You'd have to have new currency, new passports, new everything. In short, the idea of unilateral secession is lunacy. It was lunacy then, it would be lunacy now.

Just WOW - what thoroughly depressing post. You epitomize the Federal boot licker. May you forever live in tyranny for you cannot even imagine living with hooks to uncle sugar and DC. You are a joke.

187 posted on 01/12/2014 3:58:18 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Nowhere in the constitution does it give them the right.

Show me the article/section prohibiting secession. The USC would not have been ratified if their was a "roach motel" clause - states go in the union but can't get out.

188 posted on 01/12/2014 4:05:40 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Doesn’t that sound like chaos to you?

Sounds like freedom. Why does freedom scare you so?

189 posted on 01/12/2014 4:07:00 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
“The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could thereby induced to stay in the Union. The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals”[5]

-- Abolishionist Lysander Spooner

190 posted on 01/12/2014 4:13:21 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Lawyers make up their own jargon then foist it upon the populace.

I would have much less of a problem with it, if it wasn’t for the slime factor.

Ps. My favorite scene in Jurassic park was when the lawyer gets eaten while he cowers (a good word to describe many liars...err lawyers) on the toilet.


191 posted on 01/12/2014 5:05:21 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

-— What does the term “union” mean to you? -—

A loose federation of states that can secede at will. Remember that states have been joining the federation up to the fifties. Why is it a one-way street?

In principle, escape is important in mitigating an overly powerful central government, like the one we have now.


192 posted on 01/12/2014 5:08:02 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

One thing is certain. The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. What we have now is just that...


193 posted on 01/12/2014 5:09:49 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

And you think you’re not free now?


194 posted on 01/12/2014 5:34:25 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Show me the one allowing it. The constitution also doesn't say anything about private citizens having their own nuclear missiles. It doesn't mention many things. That doesn't give citizens or states the right to anything they want because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Why do you think they call it a union? What kind of nutty country would it be if any state could leave at any time?

But I've had this discussion with you before. And we both know why. If you want to call it a rebellion, fine. But by definition, you can't secede from a union unless all sides agree. As much as I like to see many liberal areas secede from the union, I can't find a constitutional clause allowing it.

195 posted on 01/12/2014 5:41:50 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

You’re talking about rebellion. If you want to call it that, fine. But you can’t legally secede from the union. There’s no provision for it. I don’t like centralized gov. either. But the solution is not to secede, it’s to throw out the commies trying to take over.


196 posted on 01/12/2014 5:43:56 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

It’s Mayland, not Maryland.


197 posted on 01/12/2014 6:06:28 AM PST by gitmo (If your theology doesn't become your biography, what good is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
But the solution is not to secede, it’s to throw out the commies trying to take over.

That is not going to work, you know it and I know it.

I hope one day a group of states secedes, and I hope a bunch of statist like you join the Fed Army to "put down the rebellion".. That way the Feds can be taught a lesson once and for all and make up for past unpleasantness.

198 posted on 01/12/2014 6:51:05 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
And the colonialists never tried to split hairs by calling theirs a secession. They knew it was rebellion plain and simple.

That would require the wannabe Confederates to be intellectually honest about the causes of the Civil War.

Instead I'm sure we'll get nothing but keyboard warrior wannabe and never do anything about it flames and that's about it. Such is life on FR.
199 posted on 01/12/2014 7:04:19 AM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The USC would not have been ratified if their was a "roach motel" clause - states go in the union but can't get out.

Why not? They signed up to the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

That "perpetual Union" part seems like the "roach motel" clause you write about, although it seems to me more like the "till death do us part" clause in the marriage union, which is another union you can't just unilaterally walk out on when you feel like it and expect no repercussions.

200 posted on 01/12/2014 7:26:41 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-333 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson