Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
If the democrats had stood behind Douglas - they could have won.
You can play the math any way you want but the Democrats were divided into North and South factions. All of the states you claim would have gone to Douglas were Northern states and that was the flaw in your analysis. Not defending demoncraps, but it was the Northern demoncraps that helped put Lincoln into power. The demoncraps were divided in 1852 and 1856 and that carried over into 1860. Remember the Regan demoncraps, these were the Lincoln demoncraps.
Nope. Not going to. I tried to read your initial post on my phone. Hence why I posted. I have no idea why you’re panties are in a wad. Grow up and shut up.
Initially only one state seceded- South Carolina. But that’s nitpicking. They all bugged out to preserve slavery because Johnny Reb couldn’t handle Lincoln’s election.
Lincoln didn’t call for volunteers until April 15, 1861. AFTER the attack on Fort Sumpter. What’s your point? That a few stragglers of the Confederacy didn’t have the balls to get froggy before big bad Abe hurt their tender little feelings?
“Does not the US Declaration of Independence declare it is a God given right for states to have independence if they want it?”
Did the Southern States not have representation in government as did the colonies? Did they try to bring suit in federal court to dissolve the Union? In any case, the topic is irrelevant in regards to the motivation for secession. Which of course was to preserve slavery.
“The US was going to preserve slavery indefinitely,”
Really? Ever heard of the 13th Amendment? In 1861 there were more free states than slave. Fail!
The Corwin Amendment. That’s rich. A desperate attempt to prevent the Civil War when it was obvious that war was coming. I suppose Great Britain never opposed Hitler because Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement. Absurd.
And all the South Carolina militia that were mobilized and the artillery positioned to threaten Fort Moultrie wasn’t hostile? I know, heads Jeff Davis wins, tails Lincoln loses.
“ The ultimate goal of the war was to force subjugation on states that had dared defy the corruptocracy running Washington DC for the betterment of the Northeastern elites who are still running it today.”
You’re nuts, plain and simple.
Initially the North fought to preserve the Union. The Confederacy fought to preserve the institution of slavery because they irrationally feared the election of a Republican. Anything else is nonsense.
Jeff Davis ordered the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. So yeah, he got the party started.
According to DimLamp, the U.S. started the war with Japan by initiating the oil embargo. It doesn’t matter who fired first.
They understood that slaves had been freed in rebel territory in 1863, right?
But the institution of slavery had to be abolished at a Federal level to make it applicable to all of the states. That takes time…like anything else.
But the people writing these stories are morons.
Nice snapshot reply DL
I’m bookmarking....socalpubbie needs to mask up
Well, only in rebel territories where there were Republican bayonets.
The democrats were not about to let their slaves go…. Voluntarily.
That was why Galveston was one of the last places freed - it took time to get federal troops there - after they had been evicted by the democrats on the day the emancipation went into effect.
Or perhaps dimbulb thinks an American soldier shot at the Japanese planes passing overhead - so the Japanese then had to attack to defend themselves.
I would suggest reading James Buchanan’s 1859 State of the Union message. This came after John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry which Brown hoped would end up starting a murderous slave revolt along the lines of Haiti. The seven wealthy New Englanders who financed Brown’s terrorism were hoping for it too.
In this SOTU letter Buchanan comments on the “incurable disease in the public mind”, predicting that the North was on the verge of launching an open war to abolish slavery in the South.
So a year or two prior to Fort Sumter the Northern drive towards civil war is already so apparent it makes it into a presidential message.
Keep this in mind the next time you see the claim that the North had nothing to do with starting the war. They were just innocently minding their own business and blithely loving peace and stuff, when war was started out of the blue by Southerners firing on Fort Sumter, inflicting the death of one US Army horse.
Your panties were in wad long before you even read the post. Eagleone more like eagle Zero. As in you are a Zero. Zilch. Nada. Crapola suits you.
Actually you are very wrong on the fact that had Lincoln not been elected the Southern Demoncraps would have set into motion a pla to overturn many laws that had been passed.
The concept of states’ rights is closely related to that of state rights, which was invoked from the 18th century in Europe to legitimate the powers vested in sovereign national governments. Doctrines asserting states’ rights were developed in contexts in which states functioned as distinct units in a federal system of government. In the United States, for example, Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries often referred to the rights of states, implying that each state had inherent rights and sovereignty. Before and following the American Civil War (1861–65), the U.S. states—particularly the Southern states—shared the belief that each of them was sovereign and should have jurisdiction over its most important affairs.
Southern states believing that they were sovereign took offense to the interference by the Federal Government in their jurisprudence on the institution of slavery. Although comprises were made, these compromises eventually failed. They failed because any corporation is in a state of growth or contraction. The institution of slavery was trying to grow and that is when the compromises were made. One of those was the Sovereign States Act also known as the Compromise of 1850.
While the Institution of Slavery was deeply intertwined with this inherent right by the states, it is the reason why people claim the Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slave.
The core to the argument that the Civil War was about State’s Rights is that States may generally legislate on all matters within their territorial jurisdiction. This “police power” does not arise from the Constitution, but is an inherent attribute of the states’ territorial sovereignty. The Constitution does, however, provide certain specific limitations on that power. For instance, a state is relatively limited in its authority regarding the regulation of foreign imports and exports or the conduct of foreign affairs. Further, states must respect the decisions of courts of other states, and are limited in their ability to vary their territory without congressional permission. In addition, the Supreme Court has found that states are limited in their ability to burden interstate commerce.
Each State that seceded from the Union believed it to be sovereign. As such they took grave offense when the Federal Government tried to usurp their sovereign rights in the institution of slavery. Which is why people think the war was solely about slavery. It was an actually about a Constitutional issue between the Federal Government and the States. The secondary issue was the fact that it was the institution of slavery. This is important distinction because we are seeing this play out today but about another issue, the issue of election integrity.
The Constitution makes it clear that the states have the inherent sovereign authority to run elections within their territory how they see fit. However, Congress is currently trying to usurp that state right by trying to pass a law to wrestle how states run their elections and vet their voters. This is clearly a violation of State’s Rights that most people on this forum agree with - States have the authority to vet those participating in the election and how the election is run (think mail in ballot versus in person polling).
The ramifications from the Civil War beyond the freeing of the slaves had many consequences. For one, after the assassination of Lincoln, the Green Backs were de-commissioned. If you want to know the origins of the Green Back and why Lincoln commissioned them, that is a Constitutional discussion for another time. Another ramification from the Civil War was from the courts in limiting State Sovereignty and thus, States Rights.
A federal power that limits States Rights would be the Commerce Clause found within the Constitution. For instance, Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1824 that “the power over commerce ... is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government ...” and that “the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are ... the sole restraints” on this power. However, the issue in most of the early Supreme Court Commerce Clause cases dealt not with the limits of congressional authority, but on the implied limitation of the Commerce Clause on a state’s ability to regulate commerce.
Like I said before, Southern States took grave offense to encroachment of the Federal Government on the sovereignty of each state.
While most cannot separate the freeing of the slaves from the Civil War, the states seceded because the believed the Federal Government was usurping the sovereignty as a state.
State’s Rights was an issue that held up the ratification of the Constitution. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Five states almost immediately ratified the Constitution. Other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. Virginia being the tenth to ratify the Constitution but only by a very thin margin. The Virginia Ratification (Federal) Convention made a final vote on George Wythe’s motion to ratify, passing it 89 to 79. Virginians reserved the right to withdraw from the new government. The remedy for federal “injury or oppression” included amending the Constitution.
Another modern day example, whether you agree with the practice or not, is the legalization of marijuana by the states. The Federal Government still has marijuana as an illegal substance but states using their Sovereign authority within their borders have made it legal. This is not about whether marijauna should be legalized or not. It is about the states exerting their sovereign authority to legalize it. If, hypothetically, the states were to go to war over the states to regulate the marijuana industry within their sovereign borders, citing State’s rights to do so, there would be people 150 years from that war saying it was all about marijuana not about the industry and the State’s Rights to regulate it.
State’s Rights goes back to the founding of this country and was not just about the institution of slavery. State’s Rights was the core issue of why the South chose to secede from the union. They did so over the usurpation of their sovereign rights when it came to the regulation of the institution of slavery. Freeing the slave was not a part of this argument, initially, as Lincoln himself said many times over. Each state used the institution of slavery as their excuse but in the end, as it was in the ratification of the Constitution, it was about the powers each state had as a sovereign power to regulate commerce and other industries within their borders, this included slavery at that time.
If you're going to continue with the idiotic analogies then at least try and be accurate. A more realistic analogy would be the woman walking out of a marriage without discussion or negotiation, after running up the joint credit cards and taking every piece of community property she could get her hands on, and then when the husband tried to keep one last piece of property she grabs a shot gun and shoots at him.
Not hardly.
You know they paid 73% of the taxes, and therefore most military bases were paid for by them...
I don't know that at all. I know you've made that stupid claim time after time but nothing but your own opinion backs that up.
Secondly, you just gloss right over that many billions of dollars of property destroyed.
Having started the war the South alone was responsible for keeping the war from coming home to haunt them. If they were incapable of doing that then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Thirdly, you analogy would only make sense if Pearl Harbor was outside of Tokyo or something.
Why?
Worthless speck of nothing that had no real value other than to intimidate the people of South Carolina.
And Davis used it to start his war. Pretty dumb, huh?
Why to you look at only one side of the issue? The North fought to preserve the Union, I will agree with that. But the South had their motivations for rebelling too, and that motivation was to protect their institution of slavery. You can call it "state's rights" if you want, but the right they were solely interested in was protecting their slaves.
The South seceded from the Union because of laws being enacted that encroached on State’s Rights to make their own judgement on how the state were to conduct business and trade.
For example?
So please before you begin to put words in my mouth again, you need the entire post.
Like it or not you were quoted accurately.
Even if your speculation is true, and I have my doubts, the Democrats didn't.
Well, I’ve violated a long standing rule of debate. Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.
But the secessionists feared that Lincoln and the Republicans would weaken slavery and that would mean its eventual abolition. Also, notice the word "primary." It means that Lincoln wasn't opposed to doing things that would weaken "the slave power" if those things didn't threaten the union.
Well, I’ve violated a long standing rule of debate. Never argue with an idiot.
Why do you keep arguing with yourself?
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.