American civil war question

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hi all,

My knowledge of the US civil war is not that great. I do know Abraham Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the south even into 1865. I assume the south had some clout for a while even then.

My question is this. Was the south so defeated it could not have stopped from happening what happened to the Nazi leaders after World War Two eighty years later?

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

As you can see, it is still a touchy subject a century and a half later.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

No, that is just turbulence from the fantasy coaster you're on. I was being snippy but to answer your question, there was no, has never been and never will be provisions for seceding. In other words, there is no constitutional procedure for leaving the union and there still isn't one today. South Carolina broke every section of the Constitution in its attempt to secede.

There you have it,

All you can really derive from any political decision was thast the politicians felt it was in their own interests. If i had to guess, i'd suspect the people in charge at the time saw all those military-experienced men and thought, if we label them as traitors now, it'll be damn tricky to draft them if another war breaks out with Mexico...

 

[Jarhyn]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

No, that is just turbulence from the fantasy coaster you're on. I was being snippy but to answer your question, there was no, has never been and never will be provisions for seceding. In other words, there is no constitutional procedure for leaving the union and there still isn't one today. South Carolina broke every section of the Constitution in its attempt to secede.

There you have it,

All you can really derive from any political decision was thast the politicians felt it was in their own interests. If i had to guess, i'd suspect the people in charge at the time saw all those military-experienced men and thought, if we label them as traitors now, it'll be damn tricky to draft them if another war breaks out with Mexico...

Being accepted as not-a-traitor might be some pretty good leverage in a draft, or even a selective service, to erase that in such an event:

"Join the war against mexico or whatever. Get your traitorous past overturned!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

All you can really derive from any political decision was thast the politicians felt it was in their own interests. If i had to guess, i'd suspect the people in charge at the time saw all those military-experienced men and thought, if we label them as traitors now, it'll be damn tricky to draft them if another war breaks out with Mexico...

Being accepted as not-a-traitor might be some pretty good leverage in a draft, or even a selective service, to erase that in such an event:

"Join the war against mexico or whatever. Get your traitorous past overturned!"

Meanwhile, Union soldiers living near the Mason Dixie line swear it was their cousin that served. "No, sergeant, you're thinking of Bobby Joe Jim Bob Cutter, he was a Yankee. I served the South, Bobby Joe Tim Bob Cutter. I'm too traitorous to draft. As Jeffrey Davis, he'll vouch for me."

 

[Gospel]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

No, that is just turbulence from the fantasy coaster you're on. I was being snippy but to answer your question, there was no, has never been and never will be provisions for seceding. In other words, there is no constitutional procedure for leaving the union and there still isn't one today. South Carolina broke every section of the Constitution in its attempt to secede.

There you have it,

All you can really derive from any political decision was thast the politicians felt it was in their own interests. If i had to guess, i'd suspect the people in charge at the time saw all those military-experienced men and thought, if we label them as traitors now, it'll be damn tricky to draft them if another war breaks out with Mexico...

It's simpler than that, the traitors were "one of us".

Edit: How else do you explain Fuckery E Lee running a school afterwards and living out the rest of his days in relative peace. Meanwhile, Black people who didn't require pardons couldn't do that.

Edit: Black people couldn't even vote while Fuckery E Lee had major political influence after the Civil War. Yeah I know, he was helping to calm the south BUT FUCK THAT NIGGA.

 

[TomC]

The American Civil War wasn't really a Civil War at all. It was a War of Secession by a clearly defined subset of a larger nation, which the secessionists lost.

I'm glad someone else pointed this out. I already have enough opinions unpopular on TFT.

Here's something really ironic. The first American War of Succession would undoubtedly have failed if the Founding Fathers hadn't protected slavery.

Slavery was antithetical to Enlightenment values. Abolitionist movements were growing rapidly in the British world. Conservative, aristocratic, slave owners in the southern colonies could see that days were numbered for their "way of life".

The first drafts of the Declaration of Independence included a clause that would have ended slavery. Pragmatists, like Franklin, got rid of that. They knew that protecting slavery was key to keeping the southerners on board. This was crucial. Had the British military had access to a beachhead like Charleston Harbour the Traitors to the Crown, like George Washington, would wind up at the end of a hangmans noose.

So, while Abolitionism was breaking out in the rest of the British Empire, protecting slavery was a key to a successful secession of the USA. In a very real way, The World's Sole Remaining Superpower was Founded on slavery.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

The American Civil War wasn't really a Civil War at all. It was a War of Secession by a clearly defined subset of a larger nation, which the secessionists lost.

I'm glad someone else pointed this out. I already have enough opinions unpopular on TFT.

Here's something really ironic. The first American War of Succession would undoubtedly have failed if the Founding Fathers hadn't protected slavery.

Slavery was antithetical to Enlightenment values. Abolitionist movements were growing rapidly in the British world. Conservative, aristocratic, slave owners in the southern colonies could see that days were numbered for their "way of life".

The first drafts of the Declaration of Independence included a clause that would have ended slavery. Pragmatists, like Franklin, got rid of that. They knew that protecting slavery was key to keeping the southerners on board. This was crucial. Had the British military had access to a beachhead like Charleston Harbour the Traitors to the Crown, like George Washington, would wind up at the end of a hangmans noose.

So, while Abolitionism was breaking out in the rest of the British Empire, protecting slavery was a key to a successful secession of the USA. In a very real way, The World's Sole Remaining Superpower was Founded on slavery.
Tom

It was a war of secession to the delusional confederate lovers of the past and today (who didn't want their freedom to enslave black people taken away) because there is/was no such thing as Secession in the constitution (you won't find it). They are traitors, period. Don't like America? Like they love telling black people to go back to Africa yall can all go pissoff to the European country of your choice.

 

[SLD]

What section of the Constitution did South Carolina break when it seceded? The South Carolina legislature voted to seceded. Where was the Constitutional provision that said they could not do that?

Where is the constitutional provision that said South Carolina couldn't be re-colonized?

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

They violated Article III section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

They undeniably did precisely that.

 

[TomC]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

They violated Article III section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

They undeniably did precisely that.

The Confederate leadership did no such thing. Northerners invaded them, they didn't attack anyone.

I'm not a "delusional Confederate lover". I think that the War of Northern Aggression rescued southern culture from winding up like Mexico or Brazil, second world countries dominated by a wealthy elite and masses of the poor.

But the fact remains. There was no Civil War. There wasn't really even a War between the States. The northern industrialists weren't any more willing to accept the succession of southerners than the British were willing to accept the succession of the Colonies. But the slavers won the first war of Succession and not the second one.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

You might not be a Confederate lover but you sure are delusional if you think there were any concerns about any European Country ending up like Mexico or Brazil.

 

[TomC]

You might not be a Confederate lover but you sure are delusional if you think there were any concerns about any European Country ending up like Mexico or Brazil.

Why do you think that?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

You might not be a Confederate lover but you sure are delusional if you think there were any concerns about any European Country ending up like Mexico or Brazil.

Why do you think that?
Tom

I don't know, maybe it's that Brazil at the time was being colonized by the Portuguese that was yet to be determined throughout the duration of the Civil War. How the finicky fuck are they to be concerned about America turning out like a Brazil when the end result was unknown? They didn't even have Wikipedia to check for how Brazil turned out. If they were worried about anything it was sucking up to the French (again) & landlocked Mexico picking sides (which Mexico didn't most likely because the south was too racist to help and the North was not easily accessable). I'm shooting from the hip here. I'm also basing this opinion on video games with History-based lore I played between the early 90's and now so I know I might be wrong so whatever. You can thank Microsoft.

 

[TomC]

landlocked Mexico picking sides (which Mexico didn't most likely because the south was too racist to help and the North was not easily accessable).

Seriously?
"Landlocked Mexico"?

Yeah, your video games history and geography aren't too impressive.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

landlocked Mexico picking sides (which Mexico didn't most likely because the south was too racist to help and the North was not easily accessable).

Seriously?
"Landlocked Mexico"?

Yeah, your video games history and geography aren't too impressive.

Tom

Ok poor choice of words. I didn't mean landlocked as in no access to the sea I mean easy land access to America.

 

[TomC]

landlocked Mexico picking sides (which Mexico didn't most likely because the south was too racist to help and the North was not easily accessable).

Seriously?
"Landlocked Mexico"?

Yeah, your video games history and geography aren't too impressive.

Tom

Ok poor choice of words. I didn't mean landlocked as in no access to the sea I mean easy land access to America.

What makes you think Mexico was less racist than the Confederacy?
Are you aware that we stole Texas, and fought a war with Mexico to keep it?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Ok poor choice of words. I didn't mean landlocked as in no access to the sea I mean easy land access to America.

What makes you think Mexico was less racist than the Confederacy?
Are you aware that we stole Texas, and fought a war with Mexico to keep it?
Tom

Most likely they were not less racist but they damn sure had no reason to help the Confederacy being that they want the land for themselves. That also complicated things if they wanted to assist the Union. To my knowledge, they played both sides in hopes to gain from the weakness. That obviously didn't work out for them. America was just too shitty to Mexico for it to be useful or for Mexico to exploit anything. It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway. to keep Mexico at bay (this is video game knowledge so a whole 50-pound bag of salt is required).

Edit: btw we stole more than Texas from Mexico

 

[steve_bank]

Hi all,

My knowledge of the US civil war is not that great. I do know Abraham Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the south even into 1865. I assume the south had some clout for a while even then.

My question is this. Was the south so defeated it could not have stopped from happening what happened to the Nazi leaders after World War Two eighty years later?

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

That is not our cultural DNA despite our hstircakl moral failures.

Lincoln wanted healing and unity. Lincoln's geat skil was walking a fine political line balancing multiple factions. The fact that the North held together and we quickly reunited was an historical miracle.

For a wore case scenario look a the factional conflict in the mid east. We today were lucky a Trump like figure did not emerge and take power.

I visited the Missori wit a friend. I commented that the film of the ceremony that neded WWII had no crimony. There was no whole sale retribution of Japanese people.

I though tit was remarkable considering the senior Allied staff all lost friends and family. My friend replied, it was not the way they wanted to be remembered. Not as vengeful conquerors.

 

[SLD]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

They violated Article III section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

They undeniably did precisely that.

The Confederate leadership did no such thing. Northerners invaded them, they didn't attack anyone.

I'm not a "delusional Confederate lover". I think that the War of Northern Aggression rescued southern culture from winding up like Mexico or Brazil, second world countries dominated by a wealthy elite and masses of the poor.

But the fact remains. There was no Civil War. There wasn't really even a War between the States. The northern industrialists weren't any more willing to accept the succession of southerners than the British were willing to accept the succession of the Colonies. But the slavers won the first war of Succession and not the second one.
Tom

On the contrary, the South did attack the North. That’s exactly what they did at Fort Sumter. Lincoln waited for them to strike the first blow and by doing so he was able to raise the ire of Northern Americans to put down a deliberate military attack on the federal government. That is treason.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ok poor choice of words. I didn't mean landlocked as in no access to the sea I mean easy land access to America.

What makes you think Mexico was less racist than the Confederacy?
Are you aware that we stole Texas, and fought a war with Mexico to keep it?
Tom

Most likely they were not less racist but they damn sure had no reason to help the Confederacy being that they want the land for themselves. That also complicated things if they wanted to assist the Union. To my knowledge, they played both sides in hopes to gain from the weakness. That obviously didn't work out for them. America was just too shitty to Mexico for it to be useful or for Mexico to exploit anything. It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway. to keep Mexico at bay (this is video game knowledge so a whole 50-pound bag of salt is required).

Edit: btw we stole more than Texas from Mexico

Yes. And Mexico stole the land from the Natives.

 

[TomC]

The Confederate leadership did no such thing. Northerners invaded them, they didn't attack anyone.

I'm not a "delusional Confederate lover". I think that the War of Northern Aggression rescued southern culture from winding up like Mexico or Brazil, second world countries dominated by a wealthy elite and masses of the poor.

But the fact remains. There was no Civil War. There wasn't really even a War between the States. The northern industrialists weren't any more willing to accept the succession of southerners than the British were willing to accept the succession of the Colonies. But the slavers won the first war of Succession and not the second one.
Tom

On the contrary, the South did attack the North. That’s exactly what they did at Fort Sumter. Lincoln waited for them to strike the first blow and by doing so he was able to raise the ire of Northern Americans to put down a deliberate military attack on the federal government. That is treason.

If you go by the history as written by the victors you'd believe that. But it isn't really true.

Fort Sumter was built to dominate the harbor thereby protecting the harbor from the British. The British remained a big threat to the nascent USA for many years after The First War of Succession. Sumter had largely been forgotten because the British threat had faded over the years. The Confederacy seceding resulted in the Union military sending an invasionary force to take over the fort. Then they could control the most crucial seaport in the Confederacy. Either destroy it or use it as a beachhead for more invasion.

For the Unionists, it was a can't lose. Either they succeeded in putting a choke hold on the enemy or they could claim that the Confederate government was the aggressor. The second option is what happened.

In bar brawl terms, this is called a "sucker punch". Try to punch someone and when they defend themselves pretend you were attacked.

You won't find this history in your public school textbooks, but it's easily available. Add a bit of critical thinking and most of it's obvious. It's sometimes referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression", because that's exactly what it was.
Tom