The CSA (Opinions)

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend toward Lysander Spooner's opinion. States are justified in waging war to gain their freedom, just as slaves are justified in killing their masters if the can be free no other way. In either case however, it ought to be discouraged.


I would not want to invest the power to succeed in a state legislature. A plebiscite should be required.

 

[Dudemeister]

southern accents are hot is all i can say about the south.

 

[Antilogic]

It really is sad how some people have such contempt for anything that honors or recognizes the rebel soldiers. When they raised the C.S.S. Hunley there was a big stink about the memorial service that was done for it's dead crew. Ever since then it's hard for me to take any side on this issue very seriously. Some people are still fighting the civil war and it ain't just the "neo-confederates."

I would argue first this thread is about the CSA government, its policies, and modern opinion of them. It was a nation born of the supposedly god-given right to deprive rights from others. It was a nation that embedded slavery into its constitution. It was a nation with a pretty terrible human rights record for its couple years of existence if you count those prison camps alongside slavery.

People try to divorce themselves from the reality of the situation. People wax nostalgically about how they were "just fighting for their way of life, no matter what it was". It doesn't change what really happened.

Honestly it's really sad to see that you view them in that light but at least you are consistent.

Anyone who served willingly in the Confederate Army joined with the knowledge they were fighting against their countrymen. They joined with the knowledge that no legal action was taken against their rich slave-holding leaders when the secession started because Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated when the South seceded. They joined with the knowledge they were the aggressors, no matter what the modern Confederate apologists say, because the Confederacy seized US bases in the South and bombarded US military installations (see Fort Sumter). They joined knowing they were defending an immoral institution that systemically deprived people of rights.

The people who were gung-ho Confederates were traitors. This is largely contrasted with those who were conscripted and fought and died for the Confederacy. For these, I believe pity is the most appropriate feeling. We can argue about honor, and I retain respect for those who were thrust into extraordinary situations and made the best of it. But my attitude is affected heavily by motive of the individual.

Why this is sad is beyond me.

 

[RebelYeller]

double post

 

[RebelYeller]

Originally Posted by Antilogic: I would argue first this thread is about the CSA government, its policies, and modern opinion of them. It was a nation born of the supposedly god-given right to deprive rights from others. No Florida is the nation. get your facts straight! It was a nation Nope Confederation that embedded slavery into its constitution. It was a nation with a pretty terrible human rights record for its couple years of existence if you count those prison camps alongside slavery. Our POWs didn't feel too happy etheir Your intentionally ignoring that yank, yep you are.

People try to divorce themselves from the reality of the situation. Well reality is a bit harsh. People wax nostalgically about how they were "just fighting for their way of life, no matter what it was". It doesn't change what really happened. Unfortunatly








Anyone who served willingly in the Confederate Army joined with the knowledge they were fighting against their countrymen. You see we weren't sure we were a country They joined with the knowledge that no legal action was taken against their rich slave-holding leaders when the secession started because Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated when the South seceded. Not our fault the north is slow to inaugurate They joined with the knowledge they were the aggressors, not totaly aggressive we only wanted the forts no matter what the modern Confederate apologists say, because the Confederacy seized US bases in the South and bombarded US military installations (see Fort Sumter). Sumpter is not in Florida, yep its not They joined knowing they were defending an immoral institution that systemically deprived people of rights. Not everyone's rights

The people who were gung-ho Confederates were traitors. We didn't feel like traiters This is largely contrasted with those who were conscripted and fought and died for the Confederacy. For these, I believe pity is the most appropriate feeling. Yep now we fully agree. We can argue about honor, yep we can and I retain respect for those who were thrust into extraordinary situations and made the best of it. Yep I do But my attitude is affected heavily by motive of the individual. Me too

Why this is sad is beyond me. We lost

Yep my response

 

[Bugfatty300]

Anyone who served willingly in the Confederate Army joined with the knowledge they were fighting against their countrymen.

So who did Union soldiers believe they were fighting?

The people who were gung-ho Confederates were traitors.

So were gung-ho American revolutionaries in 1776.

 

[Cutlass]

Let's at least keep in mind that 150 years ago patriotism was more to the state than the nation. That's how the Southern leaders were able to get so many recruits.

 

[mangxema]

It was a nation with a pretty terrible human rights record for its couple years of existence if you count those prison camps alongside slavery.

I'm not sure how much to blame on malice and how much to blame on the South just generally sucking. I mean, if you can barely keep your own men from starving, I can see how you'd be reluctant to feed the enemy. Still, Andersonville is pretty tragic. At that point, they'd be better off shooting every third guy that walks though the gate. It would be more humane, at least.

Spoiler :

You can see the pelvis!

 

[danking67]

so disgusting pic

 

[Ajidica]

First off, its generaly considered to do a large rebuttal post with inline arguments.

No Florida is the nation. get your facts straight!

Since when was Florida a soverign state? For an entity to be considered a formal nation it has to have soverignity. For all its independance, Florida still said it was part of the CSA with Jefferson Davis as its president. If you acknowledge someone as having authority over you, or at least being able to speak for you, then you are not a soverign nation.

Our POWs didn't feel too happy etheir Your intentionally ignoring that yank, yep you are.

The North didn't have Andersonville. The North generaly treated the POWs better.

Antilogic-It doesn't change what really happened. RebelYeller-Unfortunatly

So you feel it is right for a nation to exist where its whole reason for independance is so it cany deny fellow humans their God given rights? However you try to frame it as states rights, slavery was still the core issue. States rights would have been far less of an issue if the south had not possesed slaves.

You see we weren't sure we were a country.

How so? The states entered into the Union to become a country. I don't get what you are driving at here.

Not our fault the north is slow to inaugurate

Hey, you guys revolted even when Lincoln had taken no formal actions against you. The south was prompted to revolt by fear of a possibility, not fear of a reality.

not totaly aggressive we only wanted the forts

No matter how you frame it, the person who attacked first is almost always the agressor. The south didn't have to attack the forts. While Lincoln still would have fought the south if they seceeded, he would have been the agressor.

Sumpter is not in Florida, yep its not

Do we care? Even though states were near independant in the CSA they still acknowledged Jefferson Davis as their leader and the CSA as the 'global representative'. The CSA attacked Fort Sumpter, hence Florida did to. It doesn't matter how you try and frame it. Florida was a member of the CSA, and the CSA attacked Fort Sumpter.

Antilogic-Why this is sad is beyond me. RebelYeller-We lost

How so? A nation where one of its core reasons for seceeding was so they could deny humans their God-Given rights is not one I like to see. Especialy when the method of chosing slaves is based solely on their skin color than any intellectual or other characteristics.

The south lost, slavery is gone and the CSA is gone. Accept it.

EDIT: Mangxema, could you spoiler that pic, it is a bit creepy.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Andersonville stockade was horrible and undoubtedly a crime and Henry Wirz deserved to pay for it.

But let's examine it's Northern counterpart Camp Douglas:

It is estimated that from 1862–1865, more than 6,000 Confederate prisoners died from disease, starvation, and the bitter cold winters (although as many as 1,500 were reported as "unaccounted" for). The largest number of prisoners held at any one time was 12,000 in December, 1864. Accounts vary as to precise numbers. According to 80 Acres of Hell, a television documentary produced by the A&E Network and the The History Channel, the reason for the uncertainty is that many records were intentionally destroyed after the war. The documentary also alleges that, for a period of time, the camp contracted with an unscrupulous undertaker who sold some of the bodies of Confederate prisoners to medical schools and had the rest buried in shallow graves without coffins. Some were even dumped in Lake Michigan only to wash up on its shores. Many, however, were initially buried in unmarked pauper's graves in Chicago's City Cemetery (located on the site of today's Lincoln Park), but in 1867 were reinterred at what is now known as Confederate Mound in Oak Woods Cemetery (5 miles south of the former Camp Douglas).

Nobody was ever held accountable for the conditions and actions at Camp Douglas, in fact the only Union general to gain the rank without seeing combat was an overseer of Camp Douglas. This is also to this date the largest mass grave in the western hemisphere, as documented by the book To Die in Chicago.

 

[Birdjaguar]

the rebel soldiers were misled and died for something sick. no honor in that, and recognition should only come in the form of recognition of their leader's treason.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

****

Is it noble or honorable to die for a cause you believe in or is all honor and nobility rooted in the nobility (or not) of the cause as history determines it to be?

 

[Antilogic]

So who did Union soldiers believe they were fighting?

Traitors. The Constitution is pretty clear-cut on that one (Article 3, Section 3).

So were gung-ho American revolutionaries in 1776.

I have only one addition to Ajidica's excellent rebuttal at this moment (late at night), and it comes in the form of three numbers:

30, 90, and 0.

Can you guess what these numbers are? The first is the number of Senators from states where slavery was legal in 1860. The second is the number of Representatives from states where slavery was legal in 1860. The third is the number of American members of Parliament in 1776.

To put it simply: it's not your government if you didn't have the right to cast a vote for it. It's not your government unless your representatives are part of the government. America had no votes in the Parliament in 1776. The South had representation in both houses of Congress, people on the Supreme Court, and several prior chief executives were from Southern states such as Virginia. You might even remember a few influential names like Washington or Jefferson. You cannot tell me with a straight face these two revolutions are analogous, and until you can explain away this numeric discrepancy [convincingly] I will not tolerate any argument that the South in the Civil War is somehow morally equivalent to the 13 Colonies in the American Revolution.

 

[Ashurdan]

It is really simple, the CSA did not have the right to secede, it was never about states' rights it was about keeping an economic system in place, simply look up Texas V White on Wikipedia or google it, the supreme court ruled that the states did not have the right to secede and all these christian apologists for slavery and the confederacy drive me crazy. Nationalism, regionalism and jingoism are all things to be ashamed of not proud of.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Let's at least keep in mind that 150 years ago patriotism was more to the state than the nation. That's how the Southern leaders were able to get so many recruits.

That's how it should be. Granted, I have no support for slavery, in fact I oppose it with every bone in my body, however, state's rights trump federal ones. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

I would argue first this thread is about the CSA government, its policies, and modern opinion of them. It was a nation born of the supposedly god-given right to deprive rights from others. It was a nation that embedded slavery into its constitution. It was a nation with a pretty terrible human rights record for its couple years of existence if you count those prison camps alongside slavery.

People try to divorce themselves from the reality of the situation. People wax nostalgically about how they were "just fighting for their way of life, no matter what it was". It doesn't change what really happened.



Anyone who served willingly in the Confederate Army joined with the knowledge they were fighting against their countrymen. They joined with the knowledge that no legal action was taken against their rich slave-holding leaders when the secession started because Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated when the South seceded. They joined with the knowledge they were the aggressors, no matter what the modern Confederate apologists say, because the Confederacy seized US bases in the South and bombarded US military installations (see Fort Sumter). They joined knowing they were defending an immoral institution that systemically deprived people of rights.

The people who were gung-ho Confederates were traitors. This is largely contrasted with those who were conscripted and fought and died for the Confederacy. For these, I believe pity is the most appropriate feeling. We can argue about honor, and I retain respect for those who were thrust into extraordinary situations and made the best of it. But my attitude is affected heavily by motive of the individual.

Why this is sad is beyond me.

I bolded the part that I believe to be false.

No matter how you cut it, the Union was the aggressors. The Union held bases in Confederate territory, which was, to them, an occupation. The Union sent troops to invade the Confederates.

Granted, the aggression was justified, if not to bring the states back to the Union (Which I'm kinda on the fence on) then certainly to free the blacks who were slaves to them. However, it was still aggression. Our war on Afghanistan was an invasion of their territory. It was right, it was for defense, and it was to free the people, a good cause, but it was still aggression.

As for the deprivation of rights, the South didn't believe that. They seriously misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. As a whole they believed that was the black man's role. They were so wrong its sick but they didn't know it was wrong.

 

[duckstab]

It's worth noting why Civil War POW camps became so overcrowded in the first place. Lincoln ended the existing policy of POW exchanges in response to atrocities such as Nathan Bedford Forrest's summary execution of Union POW's - mostly blacks but also white southerners who chose to fight on the Union side.

 

[madviking]

It is really simple, the CSA did not have the right to secede, it was never about states' rights it was about keeping an economic system in place, simply look up Texas V White on Wikipedia or google it, the supreme court ruled that the states did not have the right to secede and all these christian apologists for slavery and the confederacy drive me crazy. Nationalism, regionalism and jingoism are all things to be ashamed of not proud of.

Saying "the CSA did not have the right to secede", after the fact, is pointless. Many people at the time, even in the North thought "legal secession" was possible, after all, the states approved the Constitution, not the other way around.

Texas v. White ruled that the CSA never seceded for the purposes of treasury bonds issued during the war. It said "all those bonds issued during the Civil War are junk and are worth nothing".

And additionally...

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.

...sound familiar?

What made the Southern secession illegal whereas the 'secession' of the colonies from Great Britain was all fine and dandy?

 

[Antilogic]

I bolded the part that I believe to be false.

No matter how you cut it, the Union was the aggressors. The Union held bases in Confederate territory, which was, to them, an occupation. The Union sent troops to invade the Confederates.

Granted, the aggression was justified, if not to bring the states back to the Union (Which I'm kinda on the fence on) then certainly to free the blacks who were slaves to them. However, it was still aggression. Our war on Afghanistan was an invasion of their territory. It was right, it was for defense, and it was to free the people, a good cause, but it was still aggression.

Bull.

So let me get this straight: if I declare myself my own country inside the borders of another country with no formal recognition whatsoever by the mother country, and then seize the military equipment paid for and belonging to the mother country, and even open fire and shoot at the mother country's ships and bases, then the mother country is the aggressor?

You have to be kidding me. Really, you can't be serious.

If some treaty was signed that said "we will let you have these bases" and they didn't leave or "we will evacuate on this date" and that date passed, then you could make an argument for the Union being the aggressor. But no agreement was made.

As for the deprivation of rights, the South didn't believe that. They seriously misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. As a whole they believed that was the black man's role. They were so wrong its sick but they didn't know it was wrong.

It doesn't matter what their justification for the deprivation of rights was, whether it was based in scripture or goat entrails or the pot-addled minds of tweens. They believed in the deprivation of rights for some people, based on the color of their skin. Period. Go back and read the quote from their constitution Mangxema posted earlier. It quite explicitly states that negros [sic] are property, and no law can be made to change that.

...sound familiar?

What made the Southern secession illegal whereas the 'secession' of the colonies from Great Britain was all fine and dandy?

The irony in quoting a document that says "all men are created equal", direct quotes, to back a state that fully endorses slavery in their constitution is hilarious. Also, please read my 30-90-0 post.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

No matter how you cut it, the Union was the aggressors. The Union held bases in Confederate territory, which was, to them, an occupation. The Union sent troops to invade the Confederates.

Legitimate governments tend to put military bases in their territory

 

[madviking]

It doesn't matter what their justification for the deprivation of rights was, whether it was based in scripture or goat entrails or the pot-addled minds of tweens. They believed in the deprivation of rights for some people, based on the color of their skin. Period. Go back and read the quote from their constitution Mangxema posted earlier. It quite explicitly states that negros [sic] are property, and no law can be made to change that.

If you need more proof, the Cornerstone Speech by Confederate veep Alexander Stephens:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

...

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone 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 normal condition.

The irony in quoting a document that says "all men are created equal", direct quotes, to back a state that fully endorses slavery in their constitution is hilarious. Also, please read my 30-90-0 post.

I'm just raising the point what makes one example of breaking away different from another. Had the UK succeeded in putting the colonists, Americans would probably would have a complete 180 view on breaking away and the American Revolution. I guess it really is the victors who write history. (and I'm doing a bit of devil advocating...)