Replies

What I think gets overlooked on these threads is the simple fact that once the South decided to leave the Union, the South was "invaded."

It doesn't get overlooked, it must be outright dismissed as illegal by the Unionists. Otherwise the war was one of invasion.

The unionists attempt to make it into a secession over slavery - which was already legal, thus there was no need for the Confederacy to secede to continue slavery if that were the cause. Next, they attempt to paint their cause to be for union (denying the reserved powers of the states) or to free the slaves. Others nations freed their slaves without war, what made us so different? The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves, ignoring all their trips to Africa and the thousands flung overboard in the Middle Passage. The North didn't want blacks in their states, nor did they want blacks, free or otherwise, in the territories. How ludicrous - deny them entrance to the northern states & territories, yet thump their chests & bleat how they fought to free what they didn't want? ROTFLMAO!!!

Lastly, Lincoln must become a saint to them, the fourth member of the Holy Trinity, anything to cover his unconstitutional actions with the guise of legitimacy. After all, if they were legal, wouldn't 9 million people have abided by them?

If I lived in Virginia at the time, and even if I did not agree with the politics of secession, I would have fought to protect my home.

The same for me, and my ancestors/relatives that did fight for their homeland.

My ancestors/relatives fought on both sides.

I like what Benjamin Netanyahu said, "when attacked, win the war, and let historians fight over who was right and wrong."

If the Union had invaded my state, my county, my town, and my land... I would have fought. I would have joined the Stonewall Brigade... because Jackson understood war. "Raise the Black Flag." There is no other way to fight and no other way to win.

Lastly, Lincoln must become a saint to them, the fourth member of the Holy Trinity, anything to cover his unconstitutional actions with the guise of legitimacy. After all, if they were legal, wouldn't 9 million people have abided by them?

In the Broadway Musical, The Assassins, (talking about presidential assassination of all things - but very clever and very well done)... the main character, who interacts with all the assassins tells John Wilkes Booth, after he had assassinated Lincoln... "Thanks to you, Lincoln who only got mixed reviews now gets only raves."

"What I think gets overlooked on these threads is the simple fact that once the South decided to leave the Union, the South was "invaded."
It doesn't get overlooked, it must be outright dismissed as illegal by the Unionists. Otherwise the war was one of invasion."

A - You might want to look at a chronology of historic events before you make such an unfounded statement. South Carolina seceded from the Union on DECEMBER 20, 1860. There was no invasion then, nor a call up of Federal Troops. South Carolina forces fired on the US Steamer Star of the West....still no invasion nor call up of Federal forces. Finally Fort Sumter (US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY) was fired on by Seccessionists in April 1861. Now you get a call up of Federal Troops. Perhaps if calmer heads had prevailed in Charleston in 1861, the South wouldn't have had to go through the misery that it did for four years. It's nobody's fault but your own.

"The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves,"

A - Delaware, Maryland and Missouri still had slavery in 1861 and those states remained in the Union. New Jersey, New York and Pennsyvania had fairly strong pro-South sentiments in early 1861 (A former NJ Governor even advocated his state joining the Southern Confederacy) but the firing on Fort Sumter quickly changed much sympathy in the mid-Atlantic into a desire to crush a violent rebellion. Perhaps you need to be reminded that Virginia only seceded following a torturous and divisive debate after Sumter. I say it again, if Southernors had followed their heads, they might have actually gotten much of what they wanted politically but instead, they allowed themselves to be swayed by hotheads with incredibly poor judgement. You might also want to consider that many in the south did not favor seccession and several Southern States fielded white troops in the Union Army or in pro-Union militias during the war (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia). Pro Union sentiment was very present in sections of Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee & Virginia. Eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina were exceptionally troublesome areas for Confederate authorities who frequently complained that the populations of those areas were not friendly to the cause and interfered with Army recruiting efforts.

There is a very good article that was written about the battles between pro-Seccession and pro-Union militias in Texas during the Civil War. If I can find it, I will post the reference.

The unionists attempt to make it into a secession over slavery - which was already legal, thus there was no need for the Confederacy to secede to continue slavery if that were the cause.

That's the most simplistic (and wrong) analysis of the situation that I've ever heard. If slavery wasn't the issue, then why did the election of an anti-Slavery Republican president cause such alarm? And why did so many states mention the institution of slavery when they seceded?

Please note that the battle over slavery had been fought for years through the admission of territories into the union either as Free or Slave states. Does the name "Missouri Compromise" ring a bell? The South knew that if new states were admitted as Free states that the balance of power would shift and that the power shift had already started with the election of an anti-slavery Republican president. The writing was on the wall and they knew it. If they weren't concerned about a loss of slavery, then what were they so concerned about that made them flee the Union?

Next, they attempt to paint their cause to be for union (denying the reserved powers of the states) or to free the slaves. Others nations freed their slaves without war, what made us so different?

A lot of those nations had freed their slaves already by then. Why hadn't the South? And why did the South keep insisting that a balanced number of new states be admitted as Slave states? Let me turn your point around. If slavery wasn't important for the South, why didn't they just free their slaves or simply let every new state be brought into the Union without slavery?

The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves, ignoring all their trips to Africa and the thousands flung overboard in the Middle Passage.

The moral outrage over slavery goes back to the very founding of the country. Apparently you missed that part. You also seem to be playing a game of moral equivalency like a pro.

The North didn't want blacks in their states, nor did they want blacks, free or otherwise, in the territories.

Do you mean to tell me that everyone in the North had exactly one opinion about slavery and everyone in the South had exactly one opinion about slavery? Is it fair to judge the entire South based on the very worst and immoral opinions expressed by Southerners during that period? If not, then why do you think it is fair to judge the entire North based on the very worst and immoral opinions expressed by Southerners during that period?

How ludicrous - deny them entrance to the northern states & territories, yet thump their chests & bleat how they fought to free what they didn't want?

Are you suggesting that the Northern states had a uniform policy towards blacks and that all Notherners had exactly the same opinion towards them? For someone offended by simplisticly judging all Southerners as racists, you seem to have no problem doing the same to Northerners.