Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:55:34 AM EST
I know that the South has been very sensitive about this issue. My understanding is that a Civil war is a war between two or more factions within a country for control of the government. The South fought for independence and not for control of the government, therefore in their eyes it was not a Civil war. Am I right about this?

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:57:06 AM EST
Wait a minute, let me suit up for this one...

<­BR>


Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:57:17 AM EST
oh shit. here we go again.

you need a poll.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:58:02 AM EST

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:58:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
I know that the South has been very sensitive about this issue. My understanding is that a Civil war is a war between two or more factions within a country for control of the government. The South fought for independence and not for control of the government, therefore in their eyes it was not a Civil war. Am I right about this?



That's about the size of it.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:58:52 AM EST
What the hell difference does it make..................................................
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:59:00 AM EST
It's a civil war trap!


Brisk I need an Ackbar in civil war garb pic.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:00:15 AM EST
for the love of god people
We won, the south lost.
deal with it

and no, the south will not rise again, ever.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:43:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
for the love of god people
We won, the south lost.
deal with it

and no, the south will not rise again, ever.



I've got something rising from the south.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:47:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 11:47:28 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By wedge1082:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
for the love of god people
We won, the south lost.
deal with it

and no, the south will not rise again, ever.



I've got something rising from the south.



Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:48:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:50:27 AM EST
I call it the War Between the States.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:51:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:
You only get to call it a War of Independence if you win.



I've got something that independently rises from the south.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:52:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 11:54:30 AM EST by vito113]
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:52:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 11:54:57 AM EST by KA3B]

This is the Confederate flag.



This is the Confederate Naval Jack.

I can't stand it when people call the Confederate Naval Jack the "Confederate Flag".
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:54:16 AM EST
vito113.
No, a state may not seceede from the union. I guess the civil war proved that.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:54:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State succeed from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



Before the War Between the States anyone would have answered yes. After the War America changed, now people believe America is one country, before the war we were 30 some odd countries united under a single gov't. So nowadays no one believes that a state has a right to succeed.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:55:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



I have something that seceded from my pants.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:55:43 AM EST
According to Texas they are just letting the rest of the USA think they are with us....


Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Before the War Between the States anyone would have answered yes. After the War America changed, now people believe America is one country, before the war we were 30 some odd countries united under a single gov't. So nowadays no one believes that a state has a right to succeed.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:56:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



Nothing in the constitution prohibits it. Oddly, there was no postwar amendment expressly making admission to the union permanent. However, I'd imagine that the position of the federal government is still "You will remain a part of this family, or we will kill you and burn your house down."
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:57:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
vito113.
No, a state may not seceede from the union. I guess the civil war proved that.



Sounds like a harsh 'club' you have there… you join up, and if decide it's not for you, then the Committee can say 'sorry your a lfe member, no refund'

ANdy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:57:24 AM EST
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:59:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
According to Texas they are just letting the rest of the USA think they are with us....



This would explain why my old boss at IBM would always say if you asked him if he was American, "no, I'm a Texan!"
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:01:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.




I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:02:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:03:08 PM EST
You're a day late and a dollar short....


Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:03:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.




I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.



California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, NY City?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:03:26 PM EST
Puerto Rico will always vote to remain a commonwealth. While enjoying the benfits of the US, with none of the responsibilities. Same for Guam.


Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:05:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.




I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.



California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, NY City?



They still have a majority of English Speakers, Puerto Rico would be the first primarily Spanish Speaking State. One thing I like about you brits is your language.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:06:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.




I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.



California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, NY City?



They still have a majority of English Speakers, Puerto Rico would be the first primarily Spanish Speaking State. One thing I like about you brits is your language.




Bob's your uncle!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:10:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
One thing I like about you brits is your language.



It's our gift to the world! The language of Democracy, Business and the Internet!

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:22:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
It's a civil war trap!


Brisk I need an Ackbar in civil war garb pic.



Can it wait until tomorrow?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:24:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Brisk322:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
It's a civil war trap!


Brisk I need an Ackbar in civil war garb pic.



Can it wait until tomorrow?



You take all the time you need.

I am sure this is not the last civil war thread.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:25:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:

Originally Posted By Brisk322:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
It's a civil war trap!


Brisk I need an Ackbar in civil war garb pic.



Can it wait until tomorrow?



You take all the time you need.

I am sure this is not the last civil war thread.



It's not my best work, but what do you want for (checking watch) five minutes...

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:32:09 PM EST
Would the Southern States been granted the right of secession if they hadn't fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:33:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Brisk322:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:

Originally Posted By Brisk322:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
It's a civil war trap!


Brisk I need an Ackbar in civil war garb pic.



Can it wait until tomorrow?



You take all the time you need.

I am sure this is not the last civil war thread.



It's not my best work, but what do you want for (checking watch) five minutes...

img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/brisk322/rebackbar.jpg



Ackbar would have fought for the confederacy that proves it was the right side.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:33:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Fred-in-PA:
Would the Southern States been granted the right of secession if they hadn't fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston?



No, Lincoln wasnt going to let the states leave.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:35:41 PM EST
I prefer to call it by it's correct name. The War of Northern Agression.

It wast't about slavery either... the south was a cash cow for the north.

Rip
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:38:25 PM EST
Civil War, War Between the States, and War of Northern Agression... Any other names for this conflict?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:44:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 12:46:32 PM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



No, a state can not secede from the Union.

The US Constitution forbids any state from entering into any treaties, accords or confederations with each other.

"Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"

"Article. VI

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "

Furthermore, the Supreme Court laid this to rest in "Texas vs. White" when they found that secession was indeed unconstitutional.

The ruling was big, but the most relevant part is this
"5. But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

The whole thing can be read here
Legal Information Institute
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:49:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By rippler:
I prefer to call it by it's correct name. The War of Northern Agression.

It wast't about slavery either... the south was a cash cow for the north.

Rip



It was about slavery, but that's for the other thread.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=276481&page=25
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:53:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



No, a state can not secede from the Union.



I see now… so it's like the Lyrics in 'Hotel California"…

You can check in any time you like…
…but you can never leave




Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:54:24 PM EST
When we came back from Canada, the U.S. guy asked us what country we were citizens of. We told him Alabama. He said fine and in we came. The reason Jefferson Davis and other victims of Mr. Lincoln's War were not tried for treason is the govt. checked with the Supreme Court and was told all convictions would be overturned upon appeal to SCOTUS since succession was legal.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:59:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 1:03:04 PM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By alaman:
When we came back from Canada, the U.S. guy asked us what country we were citizens of. We told him Alabama. He said fine and in we came. The reason Jefferson Davis and other victims of Mr. Lincoln's War were not tried for treason is the govt. checked with the Supreme Court and was told all convictions would be overturned upon appeal to SCOTUS since succession was legal.



Not according to the Supreme Court in Texas vs. White and that ruling was in 1868.
Show me where it says the Supreme Court would have ruled it was legal, especially since they did rule on it, and it is illegal.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:02:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Serious question here from an outsider…

Can a State secede from the Union? Could Texas become an independent country again for instance?

ANdy



No, a state can not secede from the Union.



I see now… so it's like the Lyrics in 'Hotel California"…

You can check in any time you like…
…but you can never leave


Andy



True. The main reason being is that the US Constitution is our second try at a scheme for our government. The first one being The Article of Confederation, which failed because people could back out of it when they wanted to and did. "Oh, you're banning freon huh? Well, fine! I am taking my state and leaving!"
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:20:34 PM EST
Against better instinct, I'm going to try to post a reasonable, non-flamy, non-smartass reply to this question. I am from Georgia, there are battlefield memorials all over the place here. As a native Georgian, you might imagine that this conversation comes up once in a while. This is the best I can answer with my honest knowledge of history. So there.

There's a lot of contention about the causes and origins of the US Civil War (as it's called). If you want to call it a Civil War, that's fine, though I would suggest that the original poster has a point, that the CS did not intend to wrest control of the whole Union. The Union won it, fair and square by force of arms, and if they want to call the affair Civil, then so be it.

To call it a War Between the States, would imply the Southern, states'-rights point of view. That being, that the Union was not an insoluble whole, but a confederation of individual, sovereign states. The federal government, in this view, was intended to present a united front to the rest of the world, and ensure that no nation-state would take up arms against it's neighbors.

Calling it a War of Northern Aggression is probably as fair as anything else. My own favorite term, The Late Unpleasantness, is probably a bit anachronistic, but pretty well sums it up.


The important thing to realize, is that at the time of the attempted dissolution of the Union, the US was operating as, fundamentally, two (or more) nations. I'm going to attempt to point out some of the ways this was, as honestly as I can.

First, let's get the slavery issue out of the way, and let me repeat that I'm attempting as much honesty and delicacy as I can here. Yes, slavery was most definitely an issue, despite what some apologists of the fair Southlands may assert. In fact, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession calls it out very specifically. I quote: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.". (see www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm) We were wrong about this one. Sorry about that. The old institution was one of the ways that the Union and the South were operating as different nations.

The economics of the time were very different, as well. The Northern areas of the US were beginning to industrialize. The shift from a hard-labor economy to a manufacturing economy brought rise to a new middle class. The North had better roads, canals, and railroads, and could ship things all over the place. (Good for y'all!) The South relied on the production of goods that could be shipped, unchilled, over long stretches of bad road without spoiling. That means that we had a lot of cotton and tobacco, both of which are back-breaking to cultivate, and for which there was no mechanical salvation at the time. Food farms at the time, generally, were dedicated to supplying the immediate areas.

The South had very good overseas relations with England, and to a degree, France and the rest of Europe. They loved us for our cotton and tobacco, and gave us a good price for it. They ship well and don't spoil, and grow well in our fair climate, so that worked out well for us, too. It turns out England was way ahead of the industrialization curve too, and was making machines that were better than even the US North had. So, there was a good bit of mutual advantage, with the US South trading with England, swapping cotton and tobacco for machinery. This, unfortunately, cut the US North out of the machinery sales, and put some competition on their buying power for cotton and tobacco. Double-unfortunately, the well-populated Northern states had a preponderance of representatives, so this led to some duties and tariffs being laid upon cotton, tobacco, and machinery sales. This hit the South square in the pocketbook, which I can't say we took kindly to. So, we have economic disparity, and some rising monetary and political tensions because of it -- not the sort of thing you see in one nation that's a unified whole.


There were growing social differences as well. I've already mentioned the growing middle class in the North, and the change toward trade and manufacturing. That contrasted with the South, where society was still built around land ownership.


So, basically, from the Northern or Unionist point of view, the Late Unpleasantness *was* a civil war... they saw it as an internal struggle, between the different parts of a unified whole nation. The Southern, or Confederate point of view, held that the struggle was an external one, between equal and sovereign nations, some of whom wanted to leave their confederation.



I would be remiss in my duties, if I didn't point out that the issue of national sovereignty is one that has not gone away. Certainly, the United Nations, and the European Union both beg the question of which country belongs with (or to?) which group, and what happens when or if they want to leave.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:21:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably come and go without a war.




I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union.



Why ?

Do you have something against spanish speaking people ?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:37:00 PM EST
Guardian, secession was ruled unconstitutional in 1868...3 years after the war was fought for the Union. Any guess where the Taney court would have come down on the issue in 1861, had Lincoln not put the Cheif Justice under arrest?

Retorical question at this point, but your "proof" begs the question, being that the ruling was ex-post-facto and all.


Originally Posted By Horseman:


Damn, where were you on the last thread?
Horseman, Thank you for the well put, and reasoned post.

FMD, over and out.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:47:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 1:47:22 PM EST by Freakzilla]
WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:03:00 PM EST
What Horseman said.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:03:34 PM EST


Originally Posted By Horseman:


Damn, where were you on the last thread?
Horseman, Thank you for the well put, and reasoned post.




Didn't see it. I tend to avoid them. (somebody wanna toss me an Ackbar here?) I figured I'd give this one a shot, and see what happened with it. :)


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top