Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,113 Year: 5,370/9,624 Month: 395/323 Week: 35/204 Day: 11/24 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4813 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 20 of 193 (584126)
09-30-2010 2:17 PM


It's all relative
The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery.
For example:
First of all, I feel the need to point out that there never was a civil war in the USA. By definition, a civil war is where 2 or more factions are fighting for control of the same government. The War For States' Rights was not about control of the US government, but about our desire to govern ourselves as an independent nation. That desire still remains strong with us.
That having been said, I have put down as much information about the War For State's Rights as I have on hand, and will continually add to it as I get more. Information about Battles and Campaigns, Distinguished Military Units, Statesmen, Soldier's Lives during "the conflict", Officers, Weapons, Prison Camps, Blockade Runners, Spies, Slavery Issues, and many other categories. I am a Confederate all the way to the bone and would love nothing better than to list only triumphs by our Glorious Nation, but this would not be fair to history. All of my information can be easily verified by anyone who disputes any of it. Those who have actually studied history (or at least paid attention in history class, assuming they had a good teacher like I did - thank you Mr. Simms) know that the War For State's Rights was not about slavery (as the occupational government would like you to believe), but about where (at its most basic level) governing laws, and regulations should come from. This site will, undoubtedly, go through many updates and revisions as time goes on, though I will ONLY post truthful and accurate information. I am not a racist, skinhead, hate-monger, or any of the other labels usually associated with those who dispute the distorted Yankee version of this period in the history of our two countries usually are.
Now, without further ado, on with the information (which will be continually added to as my limited free time allows):
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/
Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 2:48 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-30-2010 3:01 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 09-30-2010 3:14 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4813 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 59 of 193 (584342)
10-01-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
09-30-2010 3:01 PM


Re: It's all relative
Well, according to the Wiki:
Everyone agreed that states had certain rightsbut did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken awayspecifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders. Republicans committed to ending the expansion of slavery were among those opposed to any such right to bring slaves and slavery into the free states and territories. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 bolstered the Southern case within territories, and angered the North.[59]
Secondly the South argued that each state had the right to secedeleave the Unionat any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a "perpetual union".[59] Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:
While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[60]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-30-2010 3:01 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:24 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4813 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 71 of 193 (584378)
10-01-2010 2:41 PM


Only The Slaves In The Southern States Were Freed
Question.
How was Lincoln able to free the slaves only in the Southern slave holdings states? Did he actually have the authority to? If he did, what was the actual legislation that gave him the authorization to do so?

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2010 4:12 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024