American civil war question

[untermensche]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

While the war was still being fought the North passed the 13th Amendment. Watch "Lincoln". It was not a given the 13th would pass. Many in the North opposed freeing the slaves.

The war allowed a way to make slavery illegal. By excluding the South from the decision.

What it was fought over was the South trying to maintain slavery in a world that was growing more opposed to it everyday.

They jumped the gun seeing the future.

So slavery was mingled into the whole mess and can't be removed from it.

 

[Bomb#20]

...There are many many differences between the states: abortion rights; drugs; min wage; consent age; drinking age; gay rights; right to die, and etc. And yet only one issue ever caused a civil war, and that was slavery. Why is it so important to emphasize that the side against slavery wasn't fighting to end slavery?

Because we don't want to reduce it to an ahistorical "Northerners good, Southerners evil" morality play?

 

[Jarhyn]

...There are many many differences between the states: abortion rights; drugs; min wage; consent age; drinking age; gay rights; right to die, and etc. And yet only one issue ever caused a civil war, and that was slavery. Why is it so important to emphasize that the side against slavery wasn't fighting to end slavery?

Because we don't want to reduce it to an ahistorical "Northerners good, Southerners evil" morality play?

Honestly? The point of view I take? Northerners kinda shitty, southerners downright fucking evil.

There's still a morality play in there, but it's less "Chronicles of Narnia" and more "The Magicians".

It's the same way I see pretty much every historical conflict, such as WW2: the right thing often gets done for the wrong reasons, and things in general end up better but still wrong because the wrong reasons had their say, and will again.

 

[Toni]

They did break their oaths to uphold the constitution. This is unequivocally the truth.

Where, exactly, in the Constitution is secession mentioned?
Much less prohibited?
I don't see it.

And they did it so that they could hold people as slaves.

Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

War of Northern Aggression? WTF is it with Hoosiers who have Confederate longings? Just be honest and hop over the river and live in Kentucky.

 

[Gospel]

Where, exactly, in the Constitution is secession mentioned?
Much less prohibited?
I don't see it.


Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

War of Northern Aggression? WTF is it with Hoosiers who have Confederate longings? Just be honest and hop over the river and live in Kentucky.

They'd still be traitors. The only way to avoid being a traitor is to denounce your citizenship and take up arms with the Taliban. That doesn't mean you won't be bombed into oblivion but you'd be an enemy combatant, not a traitor.

 

[TomC]

Where, exactly, in the Constitution is secession mentioned?
Much less prohibited?
I don't see it.


Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

War of Northern Aggression? WTF is it with Hoosiers who have Confederate longings? Just be honest and hop over the river and live in Kentucky.

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

Where, exactly, in the Constitution is secession mentioned?
Much less prohibited?
I don't see it.


Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

War of Northern Aggression? WTF is it with Hoosiers who have Confederate longings? Just be honest and hop over the river and live in Kentucky.

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

Accurate history also agrees that there is no path to secession in our constitution before and after the civil war as far as the most recent zeptosecond ago.

 

[Gospel]

Let me clarify something for those clinging to their war flags. What do you think would have happened if there was a secession? You think your northern brothers and sisters who had a history of curb-stomping nations were just going to turn over a new leaf for you? Get real. What you got was what you were going to get anyway. The only difference I suppose is you can feel good that you were wronged? Pffft, get in line nigga.

 

[Toni]

Where, exactly, in the Constitution is secession mentioned?
Much less prohibited?
I don't see it.


Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

War of Northern Aggression? WTF is it with Hoosiers who have Confederate longings? Just be honest and hop over the river and live in Kentucky.

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

Have you tried actually reading original sources, such as the articles of secession written by the southern states? Because those make it perfectly clear that they were leaving because they wanted to keep slaves.

Of course not. Stick to the 1970's Indiana state history curriculum and don't you dare think a thing beyond it. Just call other people names.

Why do you think it's insulting to suggest you simply migrate to a state whose world view of the Civil War coincides with yours? I mean, Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia would be closer. I'm sure you'll take that as an insult but ask yourself why is it an insult to you? And why do your views coincide with pre-1970's history as told by the south?

 

[TomC]

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

Accurate history also agrees that there is no path to secession in our constitution before and after the civil war as far as the most recent zeptosecond ago.

There was no path to Secession in the colonial charters either.
It was Treason, plain and simple.

And if the Founding Fathers hadn't carefully protected slavery, the first war of secession wouldn't have succeeded. People like Ben Franklin would have been hung by the neck until dead.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@TomC

But that's how the world is. Do you have a different world in mind? Is your world the pretend perfect world? For example, we allied with the Soviet Union during WW2 while Stalin was exterminating millions. I take it you think that was also something we should not have done.

 

[Gospel]

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

Accurate history also agrees that there is no path to secession in our constitution before and after the civil war as far as the most recent zeptosecond ago.

There was no path to Secession in the colonial charters either.
It was Treason, plain and simple.

And if the Founding Fathers hadn't carefully protected slavery, the first war of secession wouldn't have succeeded. People like Ben Franklin would have been hung by the neck until dead.
Tom

Hold on a sec while I retrieve that memo sent out 57,118 days ago. They lost and the America that they fought against remained in power. We can fantasize about the reverse universe all day. I get it. For some, the what if's of the Civil War are wet dreams. For me it's a warranted slap to the back of your head followed by "snap out of it! YOU LOST!. You don't see me dippity doing around about Wakanda and how I wish there was a hidden superpower in Africa that stepped in and mollywhopped every white ass off North & South America. Get real. I tell my fellow black American's every chance I get, stop asking for reparations (hardly comes up now), it's never coming. What you need to do is get with the damn times and work with what you got to make things better (like many of my personal homies have, not to mention there is such thing as wealthy niggas going back decades now). Clinging to the past instead of using it as a learning experience is why America is still fighting over the cold war and other biblically-related bullshit. The confederate lost, my condolences (sort of) but you need to get your head in the game or get the fuck off the field.

 

[Toni]

How Woke of you.

Confuse accurate history with Confederate longings. Then make an insulting suggestion.

You really are Woke. Smugly self righteous and insulting.

Tom

Accurate history also agrees that there is no path to secession in our constitution before and after the civil war as far as the most recent zeptosecond ago.

There was no path to Secession in the colonial charters either.
It was Treason, plain and simple.

And if the Founding Fathers hadn't carefully protected slavery, the first war of secession wouldn't have succeeded. People like Ben Franklin would have been hung by the neck until dead.
Tom

The colonies did not secede from England. They were never part of England. They were a colony, subjugated by the crown.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia were part of those original colonies that became the United States. They did this willingly. Later, when they became angry that non-slaveholding states were unwilling to admit more territories as slave holding states or to allow southerners to retain slaves as property when they vacationed up north or sufficiently support the right of southerners to hold some people as slaves, they decided to attempt to secede from the union they were willingly a part of.

One of these things is not like another. Attempting to reframe the confederate’s attempt to secede as identical in intend and scope as the revolution of the colonies against they tyranny of the crown, being ruled by a government who did not allow any representation by the colonists but instead, held the colonies not as equals but as cash cows is a falsehood so great it is hard to imagine anyone with even a middling understanding of US history would even attempt such an equating.

Your parents did not get their money’s worth with regards to tuition to your nice private Catholic school.

 

[SLD]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

While the war was still being fought the North passed the 13th Amendment. Watch "Lincoln". It was not a given the 13th would pass. Many in the North opposed freeing the slaves.

The war allowed a way to make slavery illegal. By excluding the South from the decision.

What it was fought over was the South trying to maintain slavery in a world that was growing more opposed to it everyday.

They jumped the gun seeing the future.

So slavery was mingled into the whole mess and can't be removed from it.

It’s still the truth. Lincoln called up troops and for volunteers to put down a rebellion, not free slaves. Watch the movie again, Lincoln says it clearly: the emancipation proclamation was a war measure to help win the war. That’s it. Not the other way around. Yes, he did get the 13th amendment passed at the end of the war. It wasn’t ratified until after it was over. But when he started the war he called himself a moderate on the issue of slavery. He was willing to hold a convention of the states to ensure that slavery would never be interfered with in the constitution.

But yes, the differences between the north and south that drove them apart were fundamentally about slavery. Slavery was indeed the cause of the war. It’s ending though was not the purpose of the military action taken against the south.

 

[SLD]

It was a revolt against the constitutionally enacted government of the US. That’s treason.

It was not a revolt against the government of the US. It was a secession from a voluntary union. And it wasn't treason - there was nothing in the constitution at the time that disallowed secession.

Consider a similar situation in the UK. A fair bit of Scotland wants to be independent of England and Wales. Every now and then, the Scottish people and parliament vote on whether or not to secede from the UK. So consider a scenario where that vote passes, and Scotland declares themselves independent of the UK. They don't attack England, but they do demand that England remove their troops from Scottish soil.

At that point, England refuses to remove their troops, and instead sends reinforcements to that fort, with the intention of using such troops to FORCE Scotland to remain a vassal state of the UK.

If Scottish troops respond militarily to prevent that reinforcement, do you consider the Scotts to be the aggressors who started a war?
If the Scotts peacefully withdraw from their union, and England decides to use force in order to prevent them from doing so, who is the aggressor and who the traitor?

The United Kingdom and the United States are wholly incomparable. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution explicitly states that it it is the supreme law of the land. State laws must be passed only under its authority. They cannot contradict the US constitution by definition. The acts of secession were passed by state legislatures. By definition they are unconstitutional. Secession is unconstitutional. Read Article VI. Every state legislator is required to take an oath to preserve protect and support the US Constitution, and so is every soldier and commissioned officer. So every legislature and every soldier who took up arms against the Constitution were, by definition, traitors. Robert E. Lee left his post without permission and took up arms against the duly constitutionally established government of the United States. How the fuck is that not treason?

The United Kingdom is a kingdom. You take an oath to the sovereign. If she lets you off of it, we’ll, that’s her prerogative. But they have no written constitution which requires any oath of loyalty. There is no Article VI.

 

[bilby]

It was a revolt against the constitutionally enacted government of the US. That’s treason.

It was not a revolt against the government of the US. It was a secession from a voluntary union. And it wasn't treason - there was nothing in the constitution at the time that disallowed secession.

Consider a similar situation in the UK. A fair bit of Scotland wants to be independent of England and Wales. Every now and then, the Scottish people and parliament vote on whether or not to secede from the UK. So consider a scenario where that vote passes, and Scotland declares themselves independent of the UK. They don't attack England, but they do demand that England remove their troops from Scottish soil.

At that point, England refuses to remove their troops, and instead sends reinforcements to that fort, with the intention of using such troops to FORCE Scotland to remain a vassal state of the UK.

If Scottish troops respond militarily to prevent that reinforcement, do you consider the Scotts to be the aggressors who started a war?
If the Scotts peacefully withdraw from their union, and England decides to use force in order to prevent them from doing so, who is the aggressor and who the traitor?

The United Kingdom and the United States are wholly incomparable. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution explicitly states that it it is the supreme law of the land. State laws must be passed only under its authority. They cannot contradict the US constitution by definition. The acts of secession were passed by state legislatures. By definition they are unconstitutional. Secession is unconstitutional. Read Article VI. Every state legislator is required to take an oath to preserve protect and support the US Constitution, and so is every soldier and commissioned officer. So every legislature and every soldier who took up arms against the Constitution were, by definition, traitors. Robert E. Lee left his post without permission and took up arms against the duly constitutionally established government of the United States. How the fuck is that not treason?

The United Kingdom is a kingdom. You take an oath to the sovereign. If she lets you off of it, we’ll, that’s her prerogative.

That was true prior to the 30th of January, 1649, but hasn't been since that date, when Parliament demonstrated that sovereignty lies with them, and not with the King, by the irrefutable means of chopping the tyrant's head off.

But they have no written constitution

They do; It's not consolidated in one single document, but it's written, and it's real.

which requires any oath of loyalty.

Constitutions, countries, tyrants and kings are all quite capable of existence without oaths of loyalty; Typically soldiers, judges, elected officials, and even jurors, are asked to swear oaths, or affirm their commitment, to the supervising authorities, but such things are neither necessary or sufficient to ensure obedience. They're an outdated hangover of near universal belief in an interventionist God who will punish oath breakers.

There is no Article VI.

There are lots of Articles numbered VI

The establishment of Parliamentary Supremacy (equivalent to your Article VI) is not codified in a single document, but it's very real, and not seriously disputed. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

 

[fromderinside]

Nice discussion. Apparently one party doesn't recognize it's government evolved as the result of those being newly governed having come from the other.

Good fix bilby.

hey, I'm 80. I've take this sort of thing as my domain.

 

[Swammerdami]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

While the war was still being fought the North passed the 13th Amendment. Watch "Lincoln". It was not a given the 13th would pass. Many in the North opposed freeing the slaves....

The North's initial motive was preserving the Union, but when they saw the huge suffering caused by the war they might have decided preserving the Union was not so important after all. Instead the North rallied against slavery ("John Brown's Body" was the most popular Northern song during the War). It was the idea that the War was a righteous mission (and John Brown's martyrdom more specifically) which motivated them to persist.

John Brown — my collateral ancestor — is a great American hero and an inspirational martyr. He is often unfairly accused of being murderous and/or crazed.


Nitpick: The 13th Amendment passed Congress in early 1865 but was not ratified until December, long after the South's surrenders. It was ratified in 1865 by almost all the Southern states (though under "Reconstruction" governments).

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no Article VI.

There are lots of Articles numbered VI

And lots of planets have a north. But though there are lots of articles vi, this one is the article vi.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's still a morality play in there, but it's less "Chronicles of Narnia" and more "The Magicians".