The CSA (Opinions)

[Ajidica]

Davis didn't have authority over us because we could leave whenever we wanted to. Davis was just a convienent way to organize the states for some common purpose like say keeping northern folk from trespassin.

That seem awfully loose for any sort of government, but I still stand by my original point. As long as you are in the CSA you acknowledged Davis as your president and delegated to him some of the rights of being a leader. The individual states couldn't sign treaties with other nations independantly, so in some way they had to give up some degree of soveirgnty.

The south didn't have Camp Douglas

Yes, we had Camp Douglas, but the south had more Andersonvilles than we had Camp Douglas's.

Yeah well you yanks blocked off our trading so it was hard to get the POWs stuff. Seems you yanks brought this upon yourselves.

Well, you did attack us.
Regardless, the Anaconda plan would not have been nescesary had the south not seceeded. The Anaconda Plan shortened the war but increased its severity.

Well you see we found these Bible verses that seemed to justify the slavery. A mistaken impression yes but at the time it seemed like a right impression so you know.......

So we can do things because the Bible says so? Looks like I can stone my wife now if I think she is an adulterator and I can wish misfortune and plagues upon people.

I do.

I'm glad you know what you are talking about because I sure don't.

Ah but you admit that there was a possiblity!

Its also possible my head will explode into candy as a result of Godzillas ray guns, but its not likely.

If other people believe how we frame it then it doesn't matter who attacks first.

I don't get this. If I shoot someone first I am the agressor regardless of how you try to frame it. Do you include Bleeding Kansas as a norther attack? Or do you say the North was engaging in cultural warfare? You guys still started the physical agression with that one southern senator who beat a norther abolitionist senator with his cane.

If you accepted how I framed it it would have mattered.

And if you accept I am God it isn't true. Common belief does not equal validity.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Actually, there was no "convenient excuse". Secession and Treason are and were illegal, and the Union army marched south to put down a rebellion. Ft. Sumter was just proof positive that the South had no intention of settling the matter peaceably.

Good then we all agree that the seceding states were was going to be aggressively invaded and attacked regardless of who shot first. In that case then maybe the rebs had a good reason to secure an enemy held fort controlling access to a vital seaport knowing that an invasion was coming and all.

 

[Miles Teg]

Good then we all agree that the seceding states were was going to be aggressively invaded and attacked regardless of who shot first. In that case then maybe the rebs had a good reason to secure an enemy held fort controlling access to a vital seaport knowing that an invasion was coming and all.

Nope, not at all. There was an opportunity for a peaceful resolution of the matter. Secession is of course illegal, but Lincoln was, as you have pointed out, more dedicated to the preservation of the Union than the abolition of slavery. A deal could have been struck. Instead, they opted to start a war. Lincoln, not being an idiot, had raised an army for this possibility, and used it.

Let's go over this again. When Abraham Lincoln was elected, the South withdrew from the political process before he even took office. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and there was no reason to believe that his election posed any real threat to the institution of slavery, but the South wouldn't tolerate the slightest hint that they weren't being coddled. Not only did they withdraw from the Union, they made not one token scrap of effort to do so in a legitimate fashion. They didn't argue their case before the Supreme Court, they didn't negotiate any terms with the Federal Government, they simply left. Then, when the Federal Government was understandably frustrated, they made no efforts to be peaceful. They fired on the forts of what they fancied to be a neighboring power who had the gull to not let their men starve.

How in any way is any of this justifiable?

 

[civ_king]

Old Testament slavery≠Southern US slavery, also Jesus ended stoning for adultery

 

[Bugfatty300]

Nope, not at all.

Not at all what? What part of my post was incorrect? By April 1861 secession was well and done in South Carolina and they weren't coming back. Either the Feds were going to let them leave peacefully or they were going to war to bring them back. South Carolina knew what the answer was.

Secession is of course illegal

Please cite the law, statute, supreme court case, etc in 1860 that made secession illegal.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and there was no reason to believe that his election posed any real threat to the institution of slavery, but the South wouldn't tolerate the slightest hint that they weren't being coddled.

True. Before Lincoln took office he never really said he was trying to abolish or limit the spread of slavery. However he did say he was not going to allow secession. And of course the Republicans were the big backers behind the tariffs which was really enraging South Carolina (not a threat to slavery) at that time. And well you're making it out to seem like secession in 1860 just came out of nowhere.

Not only did they withdraw from the Union, they made not one token scrap of effort to do so in a legitimate fashion. They didn't argue their case before the Supreme Court, they didn't negotiate any terms with the Federal Government, they simply left.

So in what way could a state have negotiated its secession from the United States? If secession was clearly illegal then what "legitimate" procedure was there to peacefully obtain it?

They fired on the forts of what they fancied to be a neighboring power who had the gull to not let their men starve.

Yeah generally people don't take kindly to perceived foreign powers occupying their territory and waters, enforcing unpopular tariffs, etc.

How in any way is any of this justifiable?

It wasn't. Those instances of secession were a crazy and dumb things driven by hysteria and it led to a tragic war. Doesn't change the fact that the Federal government choose to go to war.

 

[Miles Teg]

Please cite the law, statute, supreme court case, etc in 1860 that made secession illegal.

Articles of Confederation, "perpetual union" and all that. If the rebels didn't think that was good enough, they could argue their case in court like good, law abiding secessionists. At very best, you can argue that the rebels thought they were in the right legally, and Lincoln thought he was in the right legally. Hardly makes his actions illegal, now does it?

Not at all what? What part of my post was incorrect? By April 1861 secession was well and done in South Carolina and they weren't coming back. Either the Feds were going to let them leave peacefully or they were going to war to bring them back. South Carolina knew what the answer was.

As noted, Lincoln had every legal justification to bring the South back into the Union. It wouldn't particularly matter if the South was behaving itself or not. HOWEVER, he didn't do this, and firing on Ft. Sumter wasn't any kind of preemptive attack. It's probable that rebels could have engaged the White House diplomatically, and had their demands satisfied. They made no attempt whatsoever to do this. It was the South that was spoiling for a fight. Lincoln just gave it to them.

True. Before Lincoln took office he never really said he was trying to abolish or limit the spread of slavery. However he did say he was not going to allow secession. And of course the Republicans were the big backers behind the tariffs which was really enraging South Carolina (not a threat to slavery) at that time. And well you're making it out to seem like secession in 1860 just came out of nowhere.

Of course not. The Civil War came from the South's longstanding refusal to allow even a suggestion of a hint inside the federal government that enslaving human beings might be a bad thing. It wasn't unexpected at all.

So in what way could a state have negotiated its secession from the United States? If secession was clearly illegal then what "legitimate" procedure was there to peacefully obtain it?

They could challenge the precedent in the Supreme Court obviously. And while they patiently waited for their court case to go through, they could avoid certain acts that tend to rile the Federal Government, such as destruction of federal property and the murder of U.S. soldiers

Yeah generally people don't take kindly to perceived foreign powers occupying their territory and waters, enforcing unpopular tariffs, etc.

An awfully petty reason for the rebels to start a shooting war, don't you think? Regardless of where they were positioned, the forts were the property of the United States government. There was no reason for the U.S. to abandon them.

It wasn't. Those instances of secession were a crazy and dumb things driven by hysteria and it led to a tragic war. Doesn't change the fact that the Federal government choose to go to war.

Rebels fired first. Rebels were the first to indicate that they wouldn't accept anything short of unconditional bowing to all of their demands. Sounds like the rebels chose to go to war.

 

[civ_king]

They are going to respond that the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation

then someone will claim that the Constitution wants a more perfect union and is expansion of federal power and therefore doesn't supersede,

then someone will say it simply says more perfect union and your reading words into it

 

[Miles Teg]

Very good. But I'm going to be pressing the whole that if the self-styled Confederates were so convinced of the constitutional basis of their arguments, they should have taken it to Court, instead of withdrawing from the political process and firing at the United States Government.

 

[PhroX]

Maybe it's cos I'm not American (well, technically I am, I hold US citizenship due to my mum being American, but I've lived my whole life in the UK and consider myself British), but this whole "is it in the constitution?" thing seems a bit pedantic. IMO, the measure of whether a country should secede should simply be whether or not the majority of it's population want to secede (of course, in the case of the CSA, "population" would include the slaves...). This should be checked in a fair referendum, and if it passes, then the country should be allowed to become independant.

edit: Before someone calls me up on this, I am aware such a situation would not have been practical at the time (what chance of the slaves being able to vote in it?), and that the South had little desire to do it, but what I'm saying is that in principle the peoples' will should override the constitution.

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe it's cos I'm not American (well, technically I am, I hold US citizenship due to my mum being American, but I've lived my whole life in the UK and consider myself British), but this whole "is it in the constitution?" thing seems a bit pedantic. IMO, the measure of whether a country should secede should simply be whether or not the majority of it's population want to secede (of course, in the case of the CSA, "population" would include the slaves...). This should be checked in a fair referendum, and if it passes, then the country should be allowed to become independant.

edit: Before someone calls me up on this, I am aware such a situation would not have been practical at the time (what chance of the slaves being able to vote in it?), and that the South had little desire to do it, but what I'm saying is that in principle the peoples' will should override the constitution.

You can make that argument. However if you do, then you circle back to the point that I and Miles have been making. Which is that if you feel it is legal, then you are obligated to use legal processes recognized by all parties as being valid. The South never made any attempt to do so before starting a shooting war. Once they started a shooting war, all legality is moot.

 

[amadeus]

My opinion? More interesting in alternate history scenarios than it actually was.

 

[PhroX]

You can make that argument. However if you do, then you circle back to the point that I and Miles have been making. Which is that if you feel it is legal, then you are obligated to use legal processes recognized by all parties as being valid. The South never made any attempt to do so before starting a shooting war. Once they started a shooting war, all legality is moot.

Oh yeah, I fully accept that, I'm not defending how the South went about it at all, I'm just remarking in a more general sense that my opinion regarding any secession is that if the majority of the people want to be independent, then they should be allowed to be independent, regardless of what the constitution says.

 

[Communisto]

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.

How can an American argue semantics about sovereignty? Florida had more right to secede than the 13 colonies did. All this talk about legality is hilarious. This is legality.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm with the group that the CSA seceded for more than just keeping black people in chains, think about it. The North continually disregarded their interests - look at the tariffs, which benefited northern industrialists but would destroy the Southern lifestyle. The South's economy was also dependent on slave labor, and as such, they found their entire lifestyle threatened yet again by Northern policies.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have worked to transition out of a slave labor economy... after all, more paid labor = more consumers = more business and prosperity! But to pretend the North was a patron saint is just insane. Both sides were greedy and it was only natural the great equaliser of violence and war would settle which greedy side stayed on top. And it was the north.

All that said, I do not support secession, and believe it should be put down. Furthermore, I of course champion the smashing of the South in freeing the slaves.

 

[Ajidica]

Its commonly accepted the south didn't secede for just slavery, but it and its immediate derivates was probably 75% of the reason for secession.
About the tarriffs and such, the south had a bad history of simply throwing a hissy fit. Im 1832 under Jackson the government passed a tarrif that was slightly detrimental to the souths economy, but would have been better in the long run as it would have forced them to industrialize. Now, what did South Carolina do? They threw a hissy fit creating the nullification crisis rather than appealing it in the Supreme Court.

 

[RebelYeller]

That seem awfully loose for any sort of government, but I still stand by my original point. As long as you are in the CSA you acknowledged Davis as your president and delegated to him some of the rights of being a leader. The individual states couldn't sign treaties with other nations independantly, so in some way they had to give up some degree of soveirgnty.

Yeah but we could leave on a whim

Yes, we had Camp Douglas, but the south had more Andersonvilles than we had Camp Douglas's.

Yeah but when you didn't have a camp Douglas you had a Elmira Prison and when you didn't have a Elmira Prison you had a Fort Delaware.



The patten doesn't seem to end.

Well, you did attack us.
Regardless, the Anaconda plan would not have been nescesary had the south not seceeded. The Anaconda Plan shortened the war but increased its severity.

Keeping your troops and ships north of the Potomoc would have shortened it even more and without a increase in severity. I recall us suggesting that idea to you yanks back in the 1860s.

So we can do things because the Bible says so? Looks like I can stone my wife now if I think she is an adulterator and I can wish misfortune and plagues upon people.

As I said earlier it was a mistaken impression. Us southerners admit when we make a mistake, yes we do.

I'm glad you know what you are talking about because I sure don't.

Well the country and all, we didn't know we were joining one. Simple mistake thats all. We just got annoyed when you northern folk wouldn't let us correct this minor error.

Its also possible my head will explode into candy as a result of Godzillas ray guns, but its not likely.

Agreed

I don't get this. If I shoot someone first I am the agressor regardless of how you try to frame it. Do you include Bleeding Kansas as a norther attack? Or do you say the North was engaging in cultural warfare? You guys still started the physical agression with that one southern senator who beat a norther abolitionist senator with his cane.

But If I believe its northern agression and you believe its northern agression then we would all agree that the south is right.

And if you accept I am God it isn't true. Common belief does not equal validity.

No argument here.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Its commonly accepted the south didn't secede for just slavery, but it and its immediate derivates was probably 75% of the reason for secession.

Rightly so! Racism aside, it was the backbone of their economy. I think China'd be pretty angered if they found out we were taking all our manufacturing to say, Mexico.

About the tarriffs and such, the south had a bad history of simply throwing a hissy fit. Im 1832 under Jackson the government passed a tarrif that was slightly detrimental to the souths economy, but would have been better in the long run as it would have forced them to industrialize. Now, what did South Carolina do? They threw a hissy fit creating the nullification crisis rather than appealing it in the Supreme Court.

Sure, abolishing slavery also would have been better in the long-term. But humans are naturally short-sighted and prefer what benefits them now rather than what benefits them later: see Americans having a poor savings record.

So naturally, since their economy - read: their lifestyle - would be hit by abolition of slavery and tariffs for some time, of course they're going to throw a "hissy fit." Wouldn't you be angered if you had to give up 50% of your income to a savings account, since that'd impede your current lifestyle, even if it'd be better for you in the long-term?

Point is, people are often more focused on the short-term than long-term, and so they naturally fight hiccups in their current lifestyle, even if it will help them further down the line. So of course the South threw a "hissy fit" over everything; sure they can adapt, but it doesn't make it any less painful. They might have a better future, but it also means a crappy present.

 

[Ajidica]

TFox: Well, there were other options available to them. I'm not well aqauainted with how the tarriff was passed, but I'm pretty sure they could have asked for a stay while the case was argued in the Supreme Court.

Yeah but we could leave on a whim

So then the confederacy had no staying power and it would have collapsed in a few years. I'll have to read over the confederate constitution, but I'm pretty sure there were some requirement that had to be met or a process to go through.

Yeah but when you didn't have a camp Douglas you had a Elmira Prison and when you didn't have a Elmira Prison you had a Fort Delaware.

Both sides had prison camp atrocities, its just the south had more of them due to their disadvantaged status resulting from the Anaconda plan.

Keeping your troops and ships north of the Potomoc would have shortened it even more and without a increase in severity. I recall us suggesting that idea to you yanks back in the 1860s.

Yet that would have be a de facto acknowledgement that states can withdraw from the union whenever they feel like it without even having to go through a formal process. Plus, need I re-iterate: The Confederacy attacked the Union at Ft. Sumpter first. No question about it. You fired the first formal shots here and instigated Bleeding Kansas.

As I said earlier it was a mistaken impression. Us southerners admit when we make a mistake, yes we do.

Good.

Well the country and all, we didn't know we were joining one. Simple mistake thats all. We just got annoyed when you northern folk wouldn't let us correct this minor error.

Going back through the quote trail, your response doesn't seem to make any sense. How did you not know we were a country when you join the union of states? If you could walk me through your reasoning I'd appreciate that as I have never heard that argument before.
I would also like to point out I was born in Georgia and lived there for seven years in a suburb of Atlanta so I'm not a complete northerner. Of course I moved from the economic center of the Confederacy and the Jewel of the South to the first state that volunteered troops to help the Union, so its a bit strange.

But If I believe its northern agression and you believe its northern agression then we would all agree that the south is right.

But the thing is I don't believe it was Northern Agression. The definition of agression sides with me.

 

[Communisto]

Yet that would have be a de facto acknowledgement that states can withdraw from the union whenever they feel like it without even having to go through a formal process. Plus, need I re-iterate: The Confederacy attacked the Union at Ft. Sumpter first. No question about it. You fired the first formal shots here and instigated Bleeding Kansas

They would never have had to fire at anything if the North had just let them go instead of arbitrarily preserving some "perpetual union"

 

[civ_king]

Yeah but we could leave on a whim

Yeah but when you didn't have a camp Douglas you had a Elmira Prison and when you didn't have a Elmira Prison you had a Fort Delaware.

The patten doesn't seem to end.


Keeping your troops and ships north of the Potomoc would have shortened it even more and without a increase in severity. I recall us suggesting that idea to you yanks back in the 1860s.

As I said earlier it was a mistaken impression. Us southerners admit when we make a mistake, yes we do.

Well the country and all, we didn't know we were joining one. Simple mistake thats all. We just got annoyed when you northern folk wouldn't let us correct this minor error.

Agreed

But If I believe its northern agression and you believe its northern agression then we would all agree that the south is right.

No argument here.

The CSA started shooting at USA first, after the second time all hell broke loose