Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9
+1
Of course some did!
In Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, Kentucky, Missiouri, western North Carolina -- just about every Southern state included large numbers who "rebelled" against their native state's secession from the Union.
And how were these Southern "rebels" and "insurgents" treated by the Confederacy?
That's right.
There is no documentation for the claim that "many thousands" of Southern civilians were murdered by Northern troops.
Nothing in the Civil War even remotely compares to, for example, the Second World War, where the numbers of civilians killed exceded the numbers of military deaths, in some countries by millions.
One by one, Northern states legally abolished slavery -- peacefully and often with a long "phase out."
No Southern state did so, nor seriously considered doing it on their own.
But while slavery was legal in many states, the international slave trade was not, and the Federal Government did take actions to enforce the law against slave ships on the high seas.
And the real issue in 1860 was not slave ships owned by some northerners, but rather the refusal of many Northern states to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.
This was a major complaint listed in the Confederate Causes of Secession documents.
You are full of crap. Show me one post I have made on this site over the all the years I have been here where I called someone a Klansman or accused another freeper of being a Nazi. Show it or retract your statement.
Since secession requires "mutual consent," meaning the approval of Congress, the Deep South could legally have sent emissaries to Congress to seek its approval and establish whatever terms appropriate.
But of course, they never wanted to secede legally.
What they wanted was the same as our Founding Fathers -- a Southern Revolution, to win their freedom and independence on the battlefield of honor.
Therefore, the Deep South sent its emissaries to negotiate not with Congress, which could deal with it, but with Lincoln's administration, which had no express Constitutional authority for it.
Or am I mistaken?
Did I miss that part in the Constitution which says the President can negotiate terms with rebels and insurrectionists?
Since the USC is TOTALLY silent on secession, the concept of legally seceding is moot. We've been over this many times here, maybe it one day it will sink in.
Thanks for a great quote.
It bears repeating to people who've lost their sense of perspective.
I'm always glad to see a defender of the Confederacy admit that it was a War of Southern Aggression against the Union -- in this particular case, an invasion of Kentucky.
Because I'm just talking about the United States of America. I agree with your characterization of gubmint though. It is a protection racket.
Identifying your posts for what they are requires no calming down afterwards. Nor does pointing out Southron hypocrisy.
So you claim legal secession is impossible?
Sort of explains why the Deep South expected and started a Second Revolution, doesn't it?
And your point is? Those people you mentioned rebelled against their soverign State. What’s the problem with a State putting down insurgents? There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.
Speaking of Virginia, let’s take it for an example. I’m originally from Western VA (not West VA) and know full well about those who sided with the Union. Problem is, they were out voted by the rest of the State in the desire to secede. Virginia left the Union after a vote of the State delegates to do so. Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so.
If you want to say that the CW was a war to determine the fate of the Union, I have no problem with that, as if seven of the original thirteen signators had seceded, the Union would have been legally dead. But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.
This is a hand-wave based upon subjective criteria. The States that did the seceding obviously thought otherwise after considerable deliberation and argument. Hence, their grounds were every bit the same as those who signed the Declaration. Thus, empty hand-wave.
I don't see anyone here disputing that. It was more than just slavery - it was the leaders of the south thumbing their noses at the rest of the country and proclaiming, "We'll have our slavery if we have to destroy the whole country to keep it!"
Nice guys.
Blah blah blah. Was World War II a war of Anglo-Saxon aggression against Germany? Why not, they invaded Normandy didn’t they?
The invasion of Kentucky was a counter to other events and designed to keep the fighting out of Tennessee. It wasn’t a campaign designed to capture territory so much as a campaign to keep the fighting out of CSA territory.
How about Maryland for one and IIRC, wasn’t Delaware also a Pro-slavery State?
The more I read about this mess, the more I see that the Civil War was destined to occure from the very beginning due to the way the slave trade provision in the USC is worded.
You keep saying that the South was trying to destroy the Union. Why can’t you just admit that they weren’t trying to destroy the Union so much as trying to leave it? Is it really so hard to admit that the Union could have continued on without the South?
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to put down insurrections. Did the Virginia Constitution give that same power to her governor?
There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.
There was no legal right to secede unilaterally.
Yes they did. They formed themselves into the reorganized legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, were recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to partition themselves. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.
For the South, defense of slavery was the reason for their rebellion. You may find that inconvenient but the writings and speeches of the people of the time bear that out.
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.