150th Anniversary

[Uncle Joe]

Tomorrow, April 12th, is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War when Confederate soldiers opened fired on Fort Sumter.

It was the first war to involve trench warfare; observation balloons; iron-clad ships; and the use of repeating and breech-loading rifles, mines, and hand grenades.

More Americans were killed in that war than were killed in World Wars One and Two, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

[NorCal]

Tomorrow, April 12th, is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War when Confederate soldiers opened fired on Fort Sumter.

It was the first war to involve trench warfare; observation balloons; iron-clad ships; and the use of repeating and breech-loading rifles, mines, and hand grenades.

More Americans were killed in that war than were killed in World Wars One and Two, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

Why is that even a statistic? If we are talking about "Dogs eat Dogs", why are Cats brought into the statistic? Shouldn't you just use the Union Numbers to compare the other wars so, because technically the Confederate were a different "nation", having succeeded from the United States of America.

Theoretically, most of the Union soldiers were not Native Born Americans; quiet a few of them were foreign immigrants just arriving through Elise Island.

Oh and "God Bless the Republicans who fought for Emancipation".

[pelathais]

Why is that even a statistic? If we are talking about "Dogs eat Dogs", why are Cats brought into the statistic? Shouldn't you just use the Union Numbers to compare the other wars so, because technically the Confederate were a different "nation", having succeeded from the United States of America.

Theoretically, most of the Union soldiers were not Native Born Americans; quiet a few of them were foreign immigrants just arriving through Elise Island.

Oh and "God Bless the Republicans who fought for Emancipation".

A lot of the manpower the North used to over power the South did come from recent immigrants. A common inducement to enlist was the proviso that as soon as they "took up arms" on behalf of the Federal government of the United States they became citizens.

Even today, you can lose your U.S. citizenship if you "take up arms" in a foreign army. Those dead Irish boys laying on the field at Gettysburg were as much Americans as the commanders who ordered them into battle.

Even while the Southerners were "in rebellion" against the U.S., they were still considered American citizens by the Federals. The Federals were fighting in fact, with the aim of imposing U.S. Federal citizenship upon the Southerners. That was the purpose of the North's fight. "Emancipation" was the underlying and unavoidable theme, but the sovereignty of Washington over the South was the direct aim.

... Just the observations of an Ancient & Classical History major. Everything that has happened since about 500 A.D. is "new stuff" to me. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[pelathais]

... another thing to consider is that prior to the 20th Century, almost every army to ever take the field suffered more casualties from disease than they did from actual battle field deaths.

If the armies of WW I and WW II had taken the field during the 19th Century, at the time of the U.S. Civil War, the death totals would have been much, much higher. More Yanks and Rebs died from disease than from bullets or cannon fire.

We have to take disease into account when comparing the casualty totals from war prior to the 20th Century with those during and after that century.

[NorCal]

My point was not to diminish he efforts of recent immigrants. My point was to diminish the "more Americans Died" statistic. That's like saying in WWII, more people died in the world. Duh, because Both Allies and Axis were fighting.

At the time, the Confederates were not considered a Part of the USA, thus saying more Citizens of the USA died in the Civil War then in any other war combined is not a true statistic. In all actuality they were 2 nations at war.

[RamoneWooddell]

A lot of the manpower the North used to over power the South did come from recent immigrants. A common inducement to enlist was the proviso that as soon as they "took up arms" on behalf of the Federal government of the United States they became citizens.

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.


Even today, you can lose your U.S. citizenship if you "take up arms" in a foreign army. Those dead Irish boys laying on the field at Gettysburg were as much Americans as the commanders who ordered them into battle.

Even while the Southerners were "in rebellion" against the U.S., they were still considered American citizens by the Federals. The Federals were fighting in fact, with the aim of imposing U.S. Federal citizenship upon the Southerners. That was the purpose of the North's fight. "Emancipation" was the underlying and unavoidable theme, but the sovereignty of Washington over the South was the direct aim.

The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

[Esaias]

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.



The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

:yourock

[Sam]

Save your Confederate money, boy, the South's gonna rise again.

[RamoneWooddell]

Save your Confederate money, boy, the South's gonna rise again.

The US would have to be in pretty bad shape to withdraw from the CSA. Once a leach this big attaches it takes a lot to pull it off. It has its teeth in the USA as well. There is no Confederate money by this point. Though the exiled the CSA Constitution does give the Nation Government the ability to print its own money. This would in turn need to be backed by precious metals and not thin air. In time this would not be inconceivable but not likely at this point in time.

It is interesting however that the slogan "The South Will Rise Again" is founded in the fact that the Confederate States of America was never actually dissolved but rather exiled.

[Esaias]

Save your Confederate money, boy, the South's gonna rise again.

Those FRNs aren't doing too good these days, I hear...

[Esaias]

Judging from the developing attitudes throughout the nation, I'd say the next evolution of the CSA will not be limited to Dixie.

[RamoneWooddell]

Judging from the developing attitudes throughout the nation, I'd say the next evolution of the CSA will not be limited to Dixie.

It is quite interesting to think of the possibilities. Though probably the New England and Mid-east would become their own with the West becoming their own. But they will have to get around the 16th Amendment to do so. The CSA is not held to this stipulation because she is occupied territory.

[Esaias]

It is quite interesting to think of the possibilities. Though probably the New England and Mid-east would become their own with the West becoming their own. But they will have to get around the 16th Amendment to do so. The CSA is not held to this stipulation because she is occupied territory.

There is a movement afoot to have all 50 states secede from DC, close it down, and start over with the Committee of the States, selecting a new national government, and throwing the existing bums out (and into prison, hopefully).

[MarcBee]

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority... This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government...

...The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government.

When it comes to such matters (at least at this level of governmental sovereinty) the crux of matter becomes not what a law book says, but whether or not you (the rebels) have the power to back up the claim. For example, try saying to your wife, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee." That would have worked 3000 years ago in Jewish culture, but not today in our culture. But if you have the force to back it up, the situation may be different. As it turned out, the CSA could not back up the claim, at the cost of eventually 600,000 very human lives! So, maybe just try again if Y'all disagree. (Speaking rhetorically.)

[Jermyn Davidson]

:yourock

No he doesn't.

He said, "The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land."

The south did not have the right to separate and become their own country in the first place.

This logic is ludicrous and does not have any LEGAL leg to stand on! Did the southern states have Federal representation in Washington BEFORE the Civil War? What were the titles of those elected representatives-- Goodwill Ambassadors to a country that was occupying their land? Give me a break!


So no, he doesn't rock. I am glad we are a UNITED country and that war was a just war and necessary for the survival, peace and prosperity of our great land.

Yes, sometimes war is necessary in order to secure the peace.

[Jermyn Davidson]

In the context of this discussion, some southerners are just plain silly.

The "south" will not rise again except our America, as we know it, collapses tragically and miserably. Let me add that NONE of the silly, romantic ideas of a "strong south" will be a reality for many, many years after the ruin of our great United States of America.

These bozos hope for the destruction of our great country in exchange for a pipe dream.

GET A CLUE!

The grass isn't greener in your make believe world! That's just your own rotting, raw sewage you see and your senses are to dull to smell the difference!

But if you bozos one day get to have it your way, you will definitely taste and eat the straw of your own manure strewn fields.


Why don't the dummies that are so dissatisfied with our great land simply leave!

Chances are, most Americans don't want you and your stupid "little" nightmares around anyway!

LEAVE!

GET OUT!

GO AWAY!

Fight and kill yourselves and other people for their lands! Try to rob it from them and when you are successful, establish your own country there.

Let the south rise again-- in Antarctica where the fighting, suffering, vengeance and bloodshed you thirst for will cost relatively few problems, few lives and you can live there and hopefully die in the misery of your own bliss as you finally have the country where everyone thinks and looks just like you!

[Jermyn Davidson]

csa my right pinky toe!

I got your csa for you right here!
http://www.wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/antarctica/antarctica.jpg

[MarcBee]

In the context of this discussion, some southerners are just plain silly.

The "south" will not rise again except our America,
(big snip)


LEAVE!

GET OUT!

GO AWAY! !


JD, "The South's a-Gwinna Rise Agin" was a song by Bocephus; its primary use being an aid for drinking beer from pickup trucks.

"Sufficient are the troubles" of our own day.
Maybe watch your blood pressure, :rolleyes2

[RamoneWooddell]

When it comes to such matters (at least at this level of governmental sovereinty) the crux of matter becomes not what a law book says, but whether or not you (the rebels) have the power to back up the claim. For example, try saying to your wife, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee." That would have worked 3000 years ago in Jewish culture, but not today in our culture. But if you have the force to back it up, the situation may be different. As it turned out, the CSA could not back up the claim, at the cost of eventually 600,000 very human lives! So, maybe just try again if Y'all disagree. (Speaking rhetorically.)

Ah, but you are viewing the United States of America from this side of the Northern Aggression. It should be remembered that it is the UNITED STATES which should have honored its constitutional limits and been submissive to the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation both allowed the "divorce" from the United States of America. It is the attitude of which you have which you seem to have which caused the war in the first place. Not the Confederate States of America.

[RamoneWooddell]

No he doesn't.

He said, "The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land."

The south did not have the right to separate and become their own country in the first place.

This logic is ludicrous and does not have any LEGAL leg to stand on! Did the southern states have Federal representation in Washington BEFORE the Civil War? What were the titles of those elected representatives-- Goodwill Ambassadors to a country that was occupying their land? Give me a break!

Would you care to show us where in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States that says the Confederate of the United States of America could not?

[MarcBee]

Ah, but you are viewing the United States of America from this side of the Northern Aggression. It should be remembered that it is the UNITED STATES which should have honored its constitutional limits and been submissive to the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation both allowed the "divorce" from the United States of America. It is the attitude of which you have which you seem to have which caused the war in the first place. Not the Confederate States of America.

Yes, if I were "on" or with the losing side, I would probably have your perspective too. My practical (rather than legal) implication was that once enough people pick up arms and organize to fight authority--at that point laws are not so meaningful. So-called "rights" are merely privileges that are enforced with adequate FORCE. This is not to claim that "might makes right" but to claim that "might describes the extant reality." Hopes such as <<Should have honored>> always take a back seat during an armed rebellion.

A southern sympathizer may even today, in a flight of fanciful imagination, claim that since Lee only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, he had no legal standing to speak for the other 10 rebel states, and therefore the Confederacy still exists. A representative republic sometimes fills the legal holes only after the problems arise. In Texas v. White, 1869, Chief Justice Chase considered the Constitutional argument about secession, and wrote for the majority ruling:

<< When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. >>

But if someone(s) think they can rebel, no one can stop them from trying. And as it happened--to lose. :reaper

[RamoneWooddell]

Yes, if I were "on" or with the losing side, I would probably have your perspective too. My practical (rather than legal) implication was that once enough people pick up arms and organize to fight authority--at that point laws are not so meaningful. So-called "rights" are merely privileges that are enforced with adequate FORCE. This is not to claim that "might makes right" but to claim that "might describes the extant reality." Hopes such as <<Should have honored>> always take a back seat during an armed rebellion.

A southern sympathizer may even today, in a flight of fanciful imagination, claim that since Lee only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, he had no legal standing to speak for the other 10 rebel states, and therefore the Confederacy still exists. A representative republic sometimes fills the legal holes only after the problems arise. In Texas v. White, 1869, Chief Justice Chase considered the Constitutional argument about secession, and wrote for the majority ruling:

<< When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. >>

But if someone(s) think they can rebel, no one can stop them from trying. And as it happened--to lose. :reaper

Again this was after the United States invaded, burned, exiled, and began forcing new government upon Confederate States who were already a part of another Union. This is invasion and occupation. There was no rebellion because any relation had been dissolved. Your argument is not logical or legal and therefore not practical. It is emotional and might I add arrogant and aggressive. I see things have changed little in 150 years. What was done against the Confederacy was illegal and therefore not practical. Your appeal to the practical is a lost cause.

Might I remind you that the United States took it upon themselves to kick several states back out of the Union after the War so your indissoluble idea doesn't hold water. Prove the States could not dissolve their union.

[MarcBee]

Prove the States could not dissolve their union.

11 states tried to, but ultimately could not, according to present day maps as published in all countries (except the CSA, I suppose.) Or is that arguing with unfair emotion, aggression, and not practical enough for you, etc? (which things often make some arguments interesting, IMO. )

When I quoted the 1869 SCOTUS, it was not to claim what ought to be, but what is--the results.

[RamoneWooddell]

11 states tried to, but ultimately could not, according to present day maps as published in all countries (except the CSA, I suppose.) Or is that arguing with unfair emotion, aggression, and not practical enough for you, etc? (which things often make some arguments interesting, IMO. )

When I quoted the 1869 SCOTUS, it was not to claim what ought to be, but what is--the results.

My point was that your argument was mostly slurs and borderline insults flavored with arrogance. Remember that I was speaking to what really happened in regards to history and that the CSA is actually a separate occupied nation. The whole point is that the CSA didn't try to, they did separate. There invaded and occupied. And are still occupied today.

[MarcBee]

My point was that your argument was mostly slurs and borderline insults flavored with arrogance. Remember that I was speaking to what really happened in regards to history and that the CSA is actually a separate occupied nation. The whole point is that the CSA didn't try to, they did separate. There invaded and occupied. And are still occupied today.

Allow me to collate all your claims about how I am arguing. My reasoning--or to you, not even qualifying as reasoning--is, so far:

--not logical
--not practical.
-- emotional
--aggressive.
--arrogant
--a lost cause
--mostly slurs
--borderline insults

Please add a few more if you like. Let's throw in "uses sarcasm and ridicule." IMO, the one making the outlying and extraordinary claims is the one who should make the more formal, better arguments. The one not making the extraordinary claim has the convenience of other casual cover--such as to be able appeal to peoples' common experiences and common knowledge--for example, the knowledge that the Confederate States of America today as "actually a separate occupied nation" does not exist today upon anyone else's (except maybe your) published maps. Nor is CSA recognized by any other country. (Too simplistic, there?)

Fine, don't buy my earlier theory that "Laws may or may not mean much when it comes to all-out war." But if you only have legal documents to countervail what 600,000 lives already died to "settle," then maybe you ought to also argue that your CSA give back all their territories to the Native Americans, (and so on.) Or rather, that the Natives never were legally deposed by Spain, France, Britain, and therefore are still the legitimate government, merely "occupied" today.


might I add arrogant and aggressive. I see things have changed little in 150 years.

A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

[RamoneWooddell]

Allow me to collate all your claims about how I am arguing. My reasoning--or to you, not even qualifying as reasoning--is, so far:

--not logical
--not practical.
-- emotional
--aggressive.
--arrogant
--a lost cause
--mostly slurs
--borderline insults

Please add a few more if you like. Let's throw in "uses sarcasm and ridicule." IMO, the one making the outlying and extraordinary claims is the one who should make the more formal, better arguments. The one not making the extraordinary claim has the convenience of other casual cover--such as to be able appeal to peoples' common experiences and common knowledge--for example, the knowledge that the Confederate States of America today as "actually a separate occupied nation" does not exist today upon anyone else's (except maybe your) published maps. Nor is CSA recognized by any other country. (Too simplistic, there?)

Fine, don't buy my earlier theory that "Laws may or may not mean much when it comes to all-out war." But if you only have legal documents to countervail what 600,000 lives already died to "settle," then maybe you ought to also argue that your CSA give back all their territories to the Native Americans, (and so on.) Or rather, that the Natives never were legally deposed by Spain, France, Britain, and therefore are still the legitimate government, merely "occupied" today.



A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

Very well, I will present my argument.

[Esaias]

A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

And here is Lincoln on the same basic issue:

Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, “Lincoln Uncensored.” Fallon’s book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln’s, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don’t have to rely upon anyone’s interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.

In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” from http://frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-slavery/

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[RamoneWooddell]

It is my argument that the Confederate States of America was correct in their claim that secession was a right of a State. Per the Founding Documents this was the right of the State or Nation.

The Declaration of Independence states: (Bold by me)

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

In the 1st Foundation Document of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America we see that secession was not only allowed but warranted and emphatically acknowledged as a naturally entitled right under the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Therefore it is a God given right to secede from the United States.

Again in the same document:

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This document removed them from the British Government. The same was done individually by each State which seceded from the United States of America and therefore from the Government which derived its limited powers from that Compact.

Next the same 13 Colonies became States or better put Sovereign States came into a Confederacy with each other. This was done in the Articles of Confederation.

"II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Then in the Constitution of the United States which did not replace the Articles of Confederation due to the fact that written law unless repealed is still in force even if in contradiction to other written law. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Articles of Confederation were repealed and replaced by the Constitution of the United States; in fact this is what the

Constitution of the United States says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The same words are used in the Articles of Confederation and the addition of the phrase “in order to form a more perfect Union is used further solidifying the fact that the previous document was not replaced or repealed but was and is in force. It is upon these very documents which the Confederate States found the foundation for seceding from the Union which did continue without them and in forming for themselves a new Government to secure their liberty. As free States they should have been left to their own destiny, but even in that time the Government of the United States was being used as a tool of the United States of America specifically those in the Northern section of the United States of America to limit the freedoms of the Southern section and in some cases to try to remove their sovereignty not only in the owning of slaves (as wrong in my opinion as any other thing could be that is wrong) but in other ways as well.

This is but a small amount of proof for which the CSA was right in their creation of a new Government. This Government did not need the approval of an old. Relations with other Governments of the time were already underway. It was a runaway democratic Government which knew no limits even though they were there within its founding documents who usurped authority upon a separate and complete confederacy of Nation States. After the war between the two countries, Military occupation known as the Reconstruction Acts exiled the Confederate States Government but did not end it because it was never surrendered and a Treaty never signed to the effect. No allegiance to the United States was ever made. What happened was that a new puppet government for each State was created in a de facto state but the de jure never being dissolved. This is the defining of occupation.

The original Confederate States of America are still a country unto them and is in a state of occupation.

[MarcBee]

It is my argument that the Confederate States of America was correct in their claim that secession was a right of a State. ....The original Confederate States of America are still a country unto them and is in a state of occupation.


I never doubted that the former CSA had a reasonable case. That is a far cry from claiming that said "country" still exists today 152 years and 620K dead souls later. The classic film "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) comes to mind (themes: the glory of delusion and delusion of glory.)

[RamoneWooddell]

I never doubted that the former CSA had a reasonable case. That is a far cry from claiming that said "country" still exists today 152 years and 620K dead souls later. The classic film "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) comes to mind (themes: the glory of delusion and delusion of glory.)

No there is no far cry. Occupation of a Sovereign Nation by another Nation does not negate the classification of the occupied nation at all. It is clear the Military of the United States removed the officers of the Confederate States of America from office. Then instead of placing new officers into those positions, they forced a new government upon the People of the Confederate States and the several States respectively. If the "South" were not a separate country then this would not have been done. The same State Constitutions would have been sufficient and new officers would have been placed in those positions. The very acts that were done against the People of the Confederate States prove that the Country did exist separate from the United States or the United States of America. There was never a Treaty. There was never surrender neither by the Confederate States of America nor the Confederate States' Federal Government therefore the Country still exists in exile by forced vacation.

Most all of the films classic or modern are written and portrayed with the ideas of the Union and therefore are slanted to make the Confederacy look bad.

[Esaias]

http://csa.systekproof.com/?p=2682

[RamoneWooddell]

http://csa.systekproof.com/?p=2682

Amazing isn't it.

I know of book also named "The South Was Right” by the Kennedy Brothers. I haven’t read it but I plan to get it also.

I have found that people, due to the Northern force history lessons, have the idea that if the South would have won then slavery would still be happening today. This is not logical. Yes it would have probably lasted longer than it actually did...maybe. But not forever. The fact is that most of the South freed their slaves during the war without and Executive Order from a tyrant in another country. As modern advances were created, slavery would have been done away with because the economy would not have allowed for it. What made the Confederates speak so much about Slavery and in favor of it was that other States in the Union was trying to tell them what to do in their State. They were using the Federal US Government to extend their will upon another Sovereign State. This was the problem and slavery was the breaking point. Yet this is not what is told by the US Department of Education. Why? Because they want to continue the occupation of another Country.

Don't get me wrong. I love the United States of America, something the even the Confederate States of America did, but I also love the Confederate States of America. Both have things that I do not like. Should I throw the baby out with the bath water? No. But it is not right for one government to continue to occupy another. If Canada or Mexico or China or Russia was doing the same thing as the US has done, would the same attitude be here? I am American. I am both and US Citizen and a Georgian. We should have the truth taught in our schools! Instead of a slanted idea which favors a tyrant government.

[MarcBee]

Amazing isn't it.

.... Why? Because they want to continue the occupation of another Country....Both have things that I do not like. Should I throw the baby out with the bath water? No. But it is not right for one government to continue to occupy another. If Canada or Mexico or China or Russia was doing the same thing as the US has done, would the same attitude be here?....

Okay, then, does your CSA apply the above sentiment to the claims of Native Americans? Some of them are still labeled for example, "The NATION of the Seminoles." When is the CSA going to return Florida (and Oklahoma) to them?

Get over it. :dogpat

[RamoneWooddell]

Okay, then, does your CSA apply the above sentiment to the claims of Native Americans? Some of them are still labeled for example, "The NATION of the Seminoles." When is the CSA going to return Florida (and Oklahoma) to them?

Get over it. :dogpat

Actually the Confederate Territory of Oklahoma actually was to be an Indian State with representation in the Confederate Congress. Perhaps you should study history instead of propraganda!

[Luke]

Marcbee if you want to use the argument that because maps do not ago the CSS in existence today it doesn't exist then by that same argument one could say that the nation of Israel doesn't exist because in most middle eastern Curries today those maps still do not show Israel.

[Luke]

I am a proud American but still must point out the fallacy of your argument.

[Digging4Truth]

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.



The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

Go ahead on... :) Great post.

Also... in reference to the first post... the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter but the conflict didn't start there. But that isn't taught in history because it doesn't serve the narrative.

[houston]

Too long ago. No one cares. NEXT>>>

[Digging4Truth]

Too long ago. No one cares. NEXT>>>

That statement is so incorrect it boggles the mind.

[RamoneWooddell]

Too long ago. No one cares. NEXT>>>

I'm sorry? 150 years of occupation, reconstruction, and cultural genocide is not "too long ago. No one cares. NEXT". What happened was unconstitutional. That is my point. By all means support your position that no one cares. And I will do the opposite.

Or will you resort to drive-by comments that seek only to degrade others?

[MarcBee]

Actually the Confederate Territory of Oklahoma actually was to be an Indian State with representation in the Confederate Congress.

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" makes for an interesting discussion, but CSA didn't win, so it's all a dream. (And dreams are interesting at times, I agree. ) Besides, what about all the other--probably dozens--of claims by other Native Americans tribes? CSA would have honored all those having any plausible legal basis? Compare Indian State claim with African slavery--interesting that a political claim was to be recognized, but a human rights claim,,,not so much!

Perhaps you should study history instead of propraganda!

I'm happy to study both. Propaganda is merely the way one side of an issue wishes to rhetorically represent itself. Therefore, I have indeed been taught "propaganda." And haven't you?

[MarcBee]

Marcbee if you want to use the argument that because maps do not ago the CSS in existence today it doesn't exist then by that same argument one could say that the nation of Israel doesn't exist because in most middle eastern Curries today those maps still do not show Israel.

No, maps are merely one point of evidence, not the whole story regarding "national sovereignty," but a generally valid one. If a country merely "doesn't exist" on the maps of a few enemies, then it's obvious what is happening in those cases. That is the case with Israel--recognized by all other countries except a few enemies. This is not to be compared with the Confederate States of America, which is recognized by ZERO other modern countries, and appears on NO modern maps, except, I imagine, those printed in a few basements by delusional sympathizers. Just try to buy one--CSA is probably difficult to find printed in a 20th or 21st Century atlas--except as a point referring to 1861-65 history. But they probably have one at the Gettysburg National Park gift shop!

middle eastern Curries

Sorry I don't know what "middle eastern Curries" are. Is it a local :icecreamdish?


PS. Luke, please start rereading what you expect other people to read, instead of assuming autofill knows what you intend.

[Luke]

No, maps are merely one point of evidence, not the whole story regarding "national sovereignty," but a generally valid one. If a country merely "doesn't exist" on the maps of a few enemies, then it's obvious what is happening in those cases. That is the case with Israel--recognized by all other countries except a few enemies. This is not to be compared with the Confederate States of America, which is recognized by ZERO other modern countries, and appears on NO modern maps, except, I imagine, those printed in a few basements by delusional sympathizers. Just try to buy one--CSA is probably difficult to find printed in a 20th or 21st Century atlas--except as a point referring to 1861-65 history. But they probably have one at the Gettysburg National Park gift shop!



Sorry I don't know what "middle eastern Curries" are. Is it a local :icecreamdish?


PS. Luke, please start rereading what you expect other people to read, instead of assuming autofill knows what you intend. lol my bad countries not Curries hahahahahaha

[Nitehawk013]

This thread reminds me of an episode of Family Guy (I know...not a good cartoon at all). Anyway, they end up in the south and they go to a civil war re-enactment, but at the end of it...the south doesn't lose. Instead Lee knocks the other general out and declares the south the victors and then all the southerners start cheering. Brian and Stewie point out that isn't what happened, the south lost and the southerners get violent and the family has to run for their lives.

The south lost. The CSA doesn't exist. We have a better chance of finding Bigfoot living in a suburban home with the Loch Ness monster swimming in his pool than the south has of ever "rising again".

[RamoneWooddell]

This thread reminds me of an episode of Family Guy (I know...not a good cartoon at all). Anyway, they end up in the south and they go to a civil war re-enactment, but at the end of it...the south doesn't lose. Instead Lee knocks the other general out and declares the south the victors and then all the southerners start cheering. Brian and Stewie point out that isn't what happened, the south lost and the southerners get violent and the family has to run for their lives.

The south lost. The CSA doesn't exist. We have a better chance of finding Bigfoot living in a suburban home with the Loch Ness monster swimming in his pool than the south has of ever "rising again".

Show me where I can find a surrender of the CSA government not the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia or where I can see a Peace Treaty signed by both the US Inc on behalf of the United States of America and the Confederates State? Without either of these two things the nation of the Confederate States of America still exits. The whole reason for Reconstruction is due to the continual existence of that great nation.

Feel free to prove:

The States which are the CSA never seceded from the Union?

The States which are the CSA never formed their own Government?

The States which are the CSA never were under Reconstruction thereby under forced Military Rule and aggressive Government treatment?

Also I noticed that you and others who have posted here seem to think that because the Union won the war suddenly the Confederacy was wrong or didn't exist or doesn't still exist. So then following your logic if Hitler had defeated the Allies in World War II, Hitler would have been right and the rest of Europe should just suck it and move on?

Amazing that might makes right in the eyes of so many!

[RamoneWooddell]

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" makes for an interesting discussion, but CSA didn't win, so it's all a dream. (And dreams are interesting at times, I agree. ) Besides, what about all the other--probably dozens--of claims by other Native Americans tribes? CSA would have honored all those having any plausible legal basis? Compare Indian State claim with African slavery--interesting that a political claim was to be recognized, but a human rights claim,,,not so much!



I'm happy to study both. Propaganda is merely the way one side of an issue wishes to rhetorically represent itself. Therefore, I have indeed been taught "propaganda." And haven't you?

I just stated they were to be a state and have representation I did not state that they did not have representation already as a territory.

The problem is that you are arguing from a moral stand point instead of a constitutional one. Morals are relative to the person holding them. But since you are on a moral rant because you cannot form a constitutional one then what will you do with the fact that Lincoln on stated slaves in the CSA were free. He had no power to do so because he was not the CSA President was. Second is the fact that before the War of Northern Aggression there were about 250,000 free blacks in the South and about 10% of them owned slaves. One of the largest plantations in Charleston SC was owned by a free black man who owned about 200 slaves. Then what about the slave holding states which were forced to stay in the Union like Maryland and Kentucky etc. Their slaves were not included in the Emancipation.

So much for a moral coming from forked tongued Lincoln.

[MarcBee]

The problem is that you are arguing from a moral stand point instead of a constitutional one.

Neither moral nor constitutional--my points hinge around intitial comment in thread--to assert that laws, constitutions, and so-called rights are just words until someone is able to back up the intention of law with force. For big issues, big forces often used, such as a military. For other rules, mere shame can be an effective enforcer. US Constitution? It has probably always been only selectively applied.

Yes, I also went for low-hanging fruit just for fun, such as the wrongness of slavery, or other pop-morality slam dunks, etc. Not exactly the issue with CSA. I'm guilty as charged there. But....

But since you are on a moral rant

If my defining an invisible CSA to be one and the same with a non-existing CSA is "moral rant," then okay. IMO, this whole silly debate is revolving around what the word "REALLY" means. As in, "The CSA doesn't really exist today."

Morals are relative to the person holding them.

Saints be praised, we do agree about something. :happydance

THE END
:blah.

[RamoneWooddell]

Neither moral nor constitutional--my points hinge around intitial comment in thread--to assert that laws, constitutions, and so-called rights are just words until someone is able to back up the intention of law with force. For big issues, big forces often used, such as a military. For other rules, mere shame can be an effective enforcer. US Constitution? It has probably always been only selectively applied.

Yes, I also went for low-hanging fruit just for fun, such as the wrongness of slavery, or other pop-morality slam dunks, etc. Not exactly the issue with CSA. I'm guilty as charged there. But....



If my defining an invisible CSA to be one and the same with a non-existing CSA is "moral rant," then okay. IMO, this whole silly debate is revolving around what the word "REALLY" means. As in, "The CSA doesn't really exist today."



Saints be praised, we do agree about something. :happydance

THE END
:blah.

Yeah it is the end if you ignore the Constitution of the United States as Lincoln and the Radical Republicans did.

We agree also in that any further conversation with you about this is pointless. Forced exile does not mean invisibility or non-existence.

[Esaias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jSqt39vFM

[RamoneWooddell]

Here are some maps.

https://www.google.com/search?q=confederate+state+maps&biw=1607&bih=792&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fZMfVMbLEePlsATjtYK4Dw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=0.85

http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/map.html

http://etc.usf.edu/maps/galleries/us/civilwar/index.php

There are maps of the Confederate States of America. Of course modern maps will not show her because she is occupied.