In Turtledove's novel "The Guns of the South" all it took was 50,000 AK-47s from the year 2014!
Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The firing on the fort was done on orders from the Confederate cabinet. Which brings up an interesting question - why didn't Davis go to the Confederate Congress for approval before declaring war on the U.S.? Unlike the U.S. Congress, the Confederate Congress was in session.
There were many issues. It was, however, about many Northern States willfully disregarding the Constitutional compact.
[Drennan Whyte]I have. Please quote the part where they talk about the Southern states being readmitted as states to the Union because I'm afraid I can't find it.
Originally posted by 4CJ:
Chief Justice Rehnquist, Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 US 24, 48-49 (1974)
More impressive than the mere existence of the state constitutional provisions disenfranchising felons at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment is the congressional treatment of States readmitted to the Union following the Civil War. For every State thus readmitted, affirmative congressional action in the form of an enabling act was taken, and as a part of the readmission process the State seeking readmission was required to submit for the approval of the Congress its proposed state constitution. In March 1867, before any State was readmitted, Congress passed "An act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States," the so-called Reconstruction Act.
The blockade was not announced until April 19, 1861. After the Confederates fired on Sumter.
It was economics that started the war, slavery being only a part of it...
Then why is slavery the single most given reason for secession?
......and being pushed around by the government was also part of it.
How were the Southern states being pushed around by the government?
Would those ships have been fitted out to begin with if they hadn't been able to sell all those slaves to the Southern States? That's basic capitalism - where there is demand then someone will supply it. No demand, no supply.
Again, your claim was that nobody thought that secession was illegal. You are incorrect in that.
Webster understood this fact when he said...
Webster also said:
"I should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear with distress and anguish the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war..."
As did James Buchanan...
From the same speech:
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain. It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory."
Mr. MADISON observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively, individually. Any union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment; and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
Nothing in that says anything about secession or how is should, or could, be accomplished. Madison is on record as saying that a lawful secession requires the consent of all the states. The Southern states did not try that route when they chose to leave.
I've seen false claims that the Southern states were readmitted as states and equally false claims that the Reconstruction Acts required it. Nobody has provided the relevant quote from those acts or any other act of Congress. Not that I've seen
Comparative advantage would be correct. I'd say first of all were the geographic and climatic factors. New England had many fine natural harbors, and easy access to hardwoods needed for shipbuilding. The second was the relatively poor rocky soil and long winters of New England vs. the rich soil and longer growing season of the south.
In New England, capital tended to flow to shipping and mercantile activities while in the South capital tended to flow to large agricultural ventures.
Those factors did lead to different attitudes with different economic incentives.
Richardson v Ramirez was a voting rights case that had nothing to do with readmission of states. However if you want to discuss Supreme Court cases then I can point you to Texas v White which said that the Southern states were never out of the Union to begin with. But I'm sure I wouldn't be the first to do that.
My question was what clause of the Reconstruction Acts said that states were being readmitted as states to the Union. It should be easy enough for you to quote the relevant act and show me where I'm mistaken. Are you planning on doing that?
The Southern States played a small role in the slave trade..the majority went to the islands and Brazil on Yankee ships. It was a Southern President who banned the trans Atlantic slave trade to the US.
The Black radicals generally push a similar version of the Civil War as the Neo Confederates -- i.e. it wasn't about slavery at all.
I read April 1865 -- I have it right here on my book shelf. Can you please point out the part where it said the South had a right to unilateral secession?
I'm glad you brought up the so-called Louisiana Native Guard because their story is one that gets the most spin from the confederate revisionists. Their websites are chock full of an 'authentic' photograph of black confederate soldiers in uniform holding weapons with an inscription "First Lousiana Native Guard 1861".
Well the famous Louisana Native Guard photograph turned out to be an elaborate hoax as researchers from the Univeristy of Virginia demonstrated HERE . Yet the perveyors of Dixie revisonism persist and the doctored photo enjoys a wide circulation revisionist websites to this day. You can even buy a t-shirt with the photograph and the ironic title "Legends of the Confederacy" on it (lol).
Yes there was a short-lived militia of free mixed race soldiers in New Orleans. They were issued no weapons, they fought no engagements, they surrendered at the first opportunity, joined the Union and spent the rest of the war fighting against the Confederacy. That's the unspun story.
The Official Records compiled by the US Government of both Union and Confederate armies called it the War of the Rebellion. The Civil War is what people chose to call it.
As to the question of what the definition of a Civil War is, the Geneva Convention offers the following criteria.
1. The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
2. The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
3. The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
4. The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
The Confederacy meet those criteria, so calling it a Civil War is not wrong.
Beginning with the term 'civil war'. If we're going to 'unspin' it we need to call it what it was:
War of Northern Aggression
War for Southern Independence, or
War Between the States
So now you're from Louisiana? Let's see, you've posted that you were born and raised in Alabama AND Virginia. So now it's up to three Southern states that you were 'raised' in? You may call me the 'pretend cowboy' but you're just a lying troll. (I've noticed that you're stalking mstar.....again...)
BTW, now that your mentor and fearless leader, non-sequitur, got the zot, and Jim Rob has declared war on you gay agenda supporting liberals, you had better tread carefully. Troll......
Don't forget that most of the liberals down here are from up north.
So, I take it that any people that ever held slaves are to be condemned forever?
In Turtledove's novel "The Guns of the South" all it took was 50,000 AK-47s from the year 2014!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.