Posted: 3/12/2010 2:19:45 PM EDT
|
what was the civil war about?
ive heard just slavery, and also it was for states rights lincolin started it to "preserve the union", but northerners did care about the union so he changed it to "free the slaves" to gain support I was watching gettysburg, at the begining it stated that the south sent lincolin a peace treaty but arived the day after the battle ended/started, and later on in the movie general longstreet said "they should have freed the slaves then attacted ft.sumter" and if the south and got a truce with the north do you think they would have freed the slaves than started the war back up? so how would the united states be diffrent/better/worse? |
|
Well in a real UNION you have the right to leave if you want, so thats a big strike againt the north Quoted:
Quoted:
The US Civil War was about some combination of land/money/power, just like every war before it in the history of the world and just like every war since. 
very true so who was right as far as the U.S. constitution is concerned? |
|
take a look at Lincoln's own words during his First Inaugural Address:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. That "will" is important as it is can be taken by the South as a direct threat of force. His view of contract law is a bit skewed in my opinion. If you contract to have a guy build you a house and he reneges on the terms, may you legally use force against him. You may sue and be entitled to damages, but can you go to his house and steal his property as payment? At best by the legal view presented by Lincoln he would have had to settle this contract dispute in court. Not by marching troops South. He said this at the very beginning of the speech " Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." I do not see a line that said: "Unless i feel there are folks who are in insurrection in which case i will burn, pillage, and rape the entire south." Lincoln goes on to say this: Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. How is this view correct in light of the fact that the Union itself was formed through secession from the British? Then in this same speech he says: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. (so much for his previous statement of "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination") Talk about a good word-smith lawyer politician....He ignores our history to suite his view of secession then plainly claims the people have the right to go into revolution and overthrow the Government!!! So if they south wanted to overthrow the Union and create the Confederacy then Lincoln would be OK with that. if they wanted to create a separate nation then in Lincoln's view he had the duty to "put down the insurrection". But who would decide what acts were those of revolution which is a right Lincoln acknowledges, and those of insurrection? Would not a revolution by necessity, start as insurrection? Lincoln's own Constitutional theories were contradictory. The south saw him (rightfully IMO) as just a lawyer who worked for the Rail Roads, that would continue the rape of the South by Northern industrialist. Here was a guy who was employed by the largest industry in the Country at that time. It would be similar if we had the leaders of the largest financial institutions elected to high positions of power and then they told us how they only needed to hurt us for the "good of the country" (wait a min, i think that is exactly what is happening!!! DOH!!). So the South had already started seceding at the time of this speech. Jefferson Davis had already been elected the President of the Confederacy. It is also interesting that Lincoln used the analogy of a husband and wife when referring to the Union. he said: "A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this." Well lets for a second take a look at the analogy in reverse. A union by definition is voluntary. If a women decided to get a divorce and the husband refused to allow that, would they still be in a Union? Can a union exist when held together by force? Lincoln changed this nation in one HUGE way, and it was not the "freeing" of the slaves. He established a precedent that no State could exercise independence without the Federal Governments approval. You may have heard the expression "the states rights issue was settled at Appomattox." Where before the "War of Norther Aggression" (AKA Civil War) States often nullified what they felt were unconstitutional Laws, now we have system that all Federal power is considered "above" state authority. The founders feared centralized power above all else. The idea that the States would be independent was put in place to prevent the centralizing of power. The Civil War combined with the direct election of State Senators firmly established the States as nothing more the satellites of the Federal Government. |
What he had said! 
The war was fought over states' rights. Progressives write all of the history books, so they want to paint the South as fighting to keep slavery. It wasnt over the issue of slavery per se, but the fact that the Feds were trying to force the South to pay more taxes on cotton, taking away their labor force, and using their higher population/more congressmen, to "oppress" the South. Pretty much the same thing they are doing to all of us today.  Just think about the majority of soldiers fighting for the South. True, they had no love for blacks, but they didnt care one way or the other, because they didnt own slaves. They fought because the President was raising an Army to invade them. Wouldnt you fight if Obama sent an army to invade your state? Claiming that you were a racist Tea Partier? Just saying. The winners write the history books.
|
|
Quoted:
What he had said!
The war was fought over states' rights. Progressives write all of the history books, so they want to paint the South as fighting to keep slavery. It wasnt over the issue of slavery per se, but the fact that the Feds were trying to force the South to pay more taxes on cotton, taking away their labor force, and using their higher population/more congressmen, to "oppress" the South. Pretty much the same thing they are doing to all of us today. Just think about the majority of soldiers fighting for the South. True, they had no love for blacks, but they didnt care one way or the other, because they didnt own slaves. They fought because the President was raising an Army to invade them. Wouldnt you fight if Obama sent an army to invade your state? Claiming that you were a racist Tea Partier? Just saying. The winners right the history books.I agree 100%! May I also add, just replace the word "slaves" with the term "illegal immigrants". |