The U.S. civil war

[gegabitelord]

This is a historical discussion about the U.S. Civil War, I wish it to remain civilized and upon minded, the spoiler contains a brief description for those not familiar.

Spoiler :

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern slave states of the newly formed Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis. The Union included all of the free states and the five slave holding border states and was led by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a large volunteer army, then four more Southern states declared their secession. In the war's first year, the Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In 1862, battles such as Shiloh and Antietam caused massive casualties unprecedented in U.S. military history. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, which complicated the Confederacy's manpower shortages.
In the East, Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's reverse at Gettysburg in early July, 1863 proved the turning point. The capture of Vicksburg and Port Hudson by Ulysses S. Grant completed Union control of the Mississippi River. Grant fought bloody battles of attrition with Lee in 1864, forcing Lee to defend the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. Union general William Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia, and began his famous March to the Sea, devastating a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House in April 1865.
The war, the deadliest in American history, caused 620,000 soldier deaths and an undetermined number of civilian casualties, ended slavery in the United States, restored the Union by settling the issues of nullification and secession and strengthened the role of the Federal government. However, issues affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought.

The source of this article is Wikipedia, link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Edit: Could a mod please move this to the history forum?

Edit: Thanks

 

[Traitorfish]

What's the topic of discussion? Just "the Civil War"? Bit broad, isn't it?

 

[Theryman]

The civil war was a conflict between the north and south. The north won, which I think is bad, because if the south won, George Bush would never have taken office up here. The End.

 

[Irish Caesar]

[...] if the south won, George Bush would never have taken office up here. The End.

An interesting analysis... why would a Southern victory have prevented a guy from Connecticut from entering the White House? Or his father from Massachusetts, for that matter?

 

[Theryman]

Because if the south was not part of the union, he would not have won Florida.

Eliminate the south, and Gore wins in a landslide.

 

[Godwynn]

Because if the south was not part of the union, he would not have won Florida.

Eliminate the south, and Gore wins in a landslide.

Gore was from Tennessee, and Clinton from Arkansas.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Gore was actually born in Washington (DC), so he would have been an American by birth rather than a Confederate.

 

[Theryman]

Gore was from Tennessee, and Clinton from Arkansas.

Well hush. I was being sarcastic.

 

[JohnRM]

Gore was actually born in Washington (DC), so he would have been an American by birth rather than a Confederate.

It is highly doubtful that had the South won the war that Maryland and some of the other border states would have remained in the Union.

 

[JohnRM]

The Civil War was an unfortunate event that cost too many lives. If the war was actually about freeing slaves then I might have supported the Union, however we know this not to be the case. This war was a consolidation of power by the federal government and an official end to state sovereignty.

 

[Theryman]

And can we really say that was a bad thing? I mean, state sovereignty is good, but having enough power to leave the union is a bit much. If you recall, the reason the constitution was written was to diminish the power of the states from their previous high-flying confederacy status.

 

[JohnRM]

And can we really say that was a bad thing? I mean, state sovereignty is good, but having enough power to leave the union is a bit much. If you recall, the reason the constitution was written was to diminish the power of the states from their previous high-flying confederacy status.

Why should any people NOT have the right to self-determination? Was it a bit much for Texas to leave Mexico? For the United States to leave the United Kingdom? Every people, when overwhelmingly in favor of it, should have the right to seek their own path.

And I quote...

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security(..)

That was an excerpt from the founding document of this country, which you support, but yet you deny the very essence of what it means.

 

[Theryman]

But nothing the north did was destructive of any of the constitutional rights of the south. The government did not destruct the rights of the south- the reason the first states seceded was because they were all pissy that Abe won the election! Hell, Lincoln taking office was not even a mandate for the destruction of slavery- I am sure he would have been fine to just let it go if there had been no war.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security(..)

Again, there was no design to reduce the south to despotism- therefore, they had no constitutional right to try to reform the government. The decleration has in itself the means for the constitution's destruction, but those levels where not met when the south seceded.

As for Texas, I will admit that that was incredibly illegal, seeing as how most mexicans did not want to secede, only the rich American rancher. But what can we do- give it back? They would just fortify the Alamo again with all those damn minutemen.

EDIT: To clarify, the points that South Carolina seceded for were the following:

# Refusal of Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave code. Northern states used states' rights arguments for passing personal liberty laws.
# Agitation against slavery, which "denied the rights of property" established in the Constitution.
# Assisting "thousands of slaves to leave their homes" through the Underground Railroad.
# The election of Lincoln "because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
# "...elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens."

So first, that northerners were harboring slaves; second ,that people were denying the southerners their right to property (again, slaves); third, that people helped free the slaves; fourth, that Lincoln was obviously anti-slavery; fifth, for giving blacks citizenship. Seem like reasonable gripes?

The simple fact was that public opinion was swinging against their favorite institution, and they would not allow it. They threw a hissy fit and millions of people died for it. They refused to accept the democratic process- tell me, what kind of country is it if a state can simply refuse to recognize the president because they do not like him?

 

[.Shane.]

The Civil War was an unfortunate event that cost too many lives. If the war was actually about freeing slaves then I might have supported the Union, however we know this not to be the case. This war was a consolidation of power by the federal government and an official end to state sovereignty.

You have it kind of backward. The South left the Union (legally or not is another discussion) because of their fear of losing slavery. The North responded and as a consequence of the war we had the "consolidation" of federal power as a side-effect (again, for better or worse can be debated).

 

[Dachs]

The Civil War was an unfortunate event that cost too many lives. If the war was actually about freeing slaves then I might have supported the Union, however we know this not to be the case. This war was a consolidation of power by the federal government and an official end to state sovereignty.

*sigh* - state sovereignty ended the day they ratified the Constitution and allowed the federal government supremacy in Article VI. It was compounded by several Supreme Court decisions in the years after that, including Gibbons v. Ogden. The Civil War didn't really put an end to states believing they had supremacy over the federal government, either, because some states attempted to claim that federal laws didn't have precedence over state laws into at least the 1960s. In short, the rebellious states had no legal right to do what they did, and any moral ascendancy they may have had was taken away by the first shot that was fired at Fort Sumter.

Why should any people NOT have the right to self-determination? Was it a bit much for Texas to leave Mexico? For the United States to leave the United Kingdom? Every people, when overwhelmingly in favor of it, should have the right to seek their own path.

Texas' separation from Mexico was motivated by minor repressatory actions taken by the Mexican government in response to American settlers flooding their land. Pretty much nobody had the moral right there, and the Texans won their independence anyway, as did the American colonists (and their own legal right to leave the Empire was spurious at best, as was their moral one). The South lost, the end - by losing, they forfeited any right they may have had to self-determination. Also, being American citizens, they had to abide by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that the federal government wins.

That was an excerpt from the founding document of this country, which you support, but yet you deny the very essence of what it means.

Since the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in this country, quoting it in a legal context loses. Philosophical documents also have no standing, so Locke doesn't work either.

 

[Archbob]

Why should any people NOT have the right to self-determination? Was it a bit much for Texas to leave Mexico? For the United States to leave the United Kingdom? Every people, when overwhelmingly in favor of it, should have the right to seek their own path.

Well we like won both wars. Mexico got pwned in the US-Mexican war over Texas and the British surrendered at Yorktown remember?

 

[BCLG100]

Well we like won both wars. Mexico got pwned in the US-Mexican war over Texas and the British surrendered at Yorktown remember?

The wars are a bit different, the war against Mexico was on of aggression whilst the war against Britain was Revolutionary/Seceeding/independance however you want to describe it.