Were the Citizens of the Confederacy Traitors...

[fastpat]

One poster, using the forum name gigantic, has posted in this thread that Stand Watie, and by implication everyone else, in the Confederacy were traitors. Naturally, he didn't post any support for his assertion, and just as naturally I've heard this accusation before and have substantial documentation to flatten his assertion, but before I do that I thought I'd give him and others a chance to post their opinions or support in a new thread.

Originally posted by gigantic
Interesting read- Traitors, all of them.
_________________________
"When in doubt - give it the gas! It may not solve the problem, but it will end the suspense!" __________________________________________________

2000 R1100S; Induct, Vanderlinde, Ohlins, Pilot Power

[Seahawk]

While I'd prefer an enlightened discussion, I fear you are simply going to receive a series of doggerels on the ignorance of the South in general and the populace specifically.
Which is a shame.
The range and scope of the Civil War escapes most. This should get interesting.

[gigantic]

dude, that was sarcasm! I heard that you were easy to rile up, but i didn't expect it to be that easy...
Cheers,
Lance

[gigantic]

to make up for it, here's a really funny one, that both Rebs and Yankee scalawags can enjoy: http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php
be forwarned however, this is not even remotely politically correct
cheers,
Lance

[Moses]

Traitors? Of course not. Back then, ones primary allegiance was to ones state, not the federal goverrnment. General Lee was offered the command of the union army, but declined out of loyalty to Virginia.

[Hugh R]

Gigantic

thats pretty funny.

[djmcmath]

Fastpat, reading between the lines: "I already have an argument ready to crush any possible opposition to this absurd idea, but I'm looking for volunteers to step forward and place their nuts on this chopping block."

No, I'd say it'd be safe to say you're not liable to draw much enlightened discussion, not with an opening like that.


BTW, what's with all the Civil War threads lately?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Fastpat, reading between the lines: "I already have an argument ready to crush any possible opposition to this absurd idea, but I'm looking for volunteers to step forward and place their nuts on this chopping block."

No, I'd say it'd be safe to say you're not liable to draw much enlightened discussion, not with an opening like that.


BTW, what's with all the Civil War threads lately?

Sometimes to draw people out of their shells, you must use an attractant of some type.

As far as War Against Southern Freedom threads are concerned, the current US government is using precedent set by the Union Army in 1861-65 in their ruthless pursuit of the war in Iraq, and other less obvious activities, so it's germaine to our lives today.

gigantic wasn't posting in seriousness, which I suspected and why I didn't respond in the thread in which he originally posted since he was completely off topic.

I gave him a chance to put forth serious debate, which he was unable or unwilling to do.

There are several joke threads he could post in, of couse, but he doesn't want to do that either.

But, it was too important for him to post something rather than to just sit by quietly and learn, too bad.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Sometimes to draw people out of their shells, you must use an attractant of some type.

That's exactly my point. Even if I held the opposing view, I'd hardly choose to enter into enlightened discussion with someone who announced it with "I'm right, you're wrong, and I have all the evidence to crush any idiot who disagrees with me."

(shrug) Or perhaps you weren't really looking for enlightened discussion after all, and I've missed the point entirely.

[fastpat]

Perhaps I lied, there's only one way for you to find out.

Be brave!

[nota]

while the idea of countrys breaking into smaller bits
is one I support the CSA was a bad idea
based on the ownership of people
and while some chose to call it the war of northern aggression
the fact is the CSA fired the first shot to start the mess

but traitors no just missguided staterightests

[cashflyer]

Originally posted by Seahawk
The range and scope of the Civil War escapes most.

+1

First of all, there never was a civil war in the USA. By definition, a civil war is where two or more factions are fighting for control of the same country. Technically, once the states succeeded they became entities separate from the united states - indeed, a separate nation. The war was therefore not a civil war but a war for the union to exercise a claim of ownership of the southern states, and to prevent their sovereignty as an independent nation. This is why the war is, perhaps more appropriately, known by many as the War of Northern Aggression.

But some will say I'm just arguing semantics.

It can also be argued that of prime importance to the union was a desire to not lose a very significant geographical part of the USA - a part which contributed a very large percentage of the US GDP in the form of agricultural products.

But isn't every war about money and power?

High school history class doesn't even come close to teaching the depth of the problems that brought on secession, or the reasons for having a war... but unfortunately that is the limit of most peoples knowledge on the subject.

And of course you have the groups who have boiled the whole war down to an issue of slavery....

EDIT:

Originally posted by nota
...the fact is the CSA fired the first shot to start the mess...

Which "first shot"? Some consider the first shot to be the firing upon Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, while others know that the first shot was fired at a supply ship off Morris Island on January 10, 1861. We were justified, in as much as any country would be justified in firing upon an enemy position which threatens her borders. Further, major Anderson had been given terms and opportunity for surrender and abandonment of Fort Sumter. He failed to comply.

[bigchillcar]

yes..and i'm personally for rounding up every single last one of them and having them shot!
ryan

[Taz's Master]

This argument is only valid if you endeavor to apply the Constitution as our founding fathers intended. If that is not your position then the argument may not have much footing. But when the Constitution was being considered for ratification by the states, Governor Clinton of New York was against ratification. Clinton was willing to ratify the constitution conditionally, reserving the right to withdraw from the union later. Madison and Himilton argued against this. Madison argued that the Constitution could not contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such thing as the Constitutional right of secession. Hamilton sided with Madison and argued against Clinton's position. It is difficult to discount the positions of Hamilton and Madison when trying to apply the Constitution as its authors intended.

[Rick V]

Ok What about this
The Southern states left the union. No argument, fact
The union (Northern states) said no No argument fact
My question is for the suporters of the Unions side.
Isn't the union govt. the same one that told the Native Americans (the only true Americans in my opinion) To leave and just simply took thier land and crushed thier way of life? Systematically destroying anything that was a benifit to the Native Americans (the buffalo comes to mind here)
The Union Govt. at that time cared for nothing but thier own gain and would stand for nothing but thier way. Hence the term "The war of northern aggression"

I think I'm gonna get hammered here............. oh well
The southerners were labeled as traitors but only by the people who superted the union

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Taz's Master
This argument is only valid if you endeavor to apply the Constitution as our founding fathers intended. If that is not your position then the argument may not have much footing. But when the Constitution was being considered for ratification by the states, Governor Clinton of New York was against ratification. Clinton was willing to ratify the constitution conditionally, reserving the right to withdraw from the union later. Madison and Himilton argued against this. Madison argued that the Constitution could not contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such thing as the Constitutional right of secession. Hamilton sided with Madison and argued against Clinton's position. It is difficult to discount the positions of Hamilton and Madison when trying to apply the Constitution as its authors intended.

That Hamilton wanted a strong, centralizing government is a given; he wanted much more than that, he wanted the creation of a peerage and a King as head of state.

Madison is a bit more difficult. While it's true he affiliated himself with the Federalists; Hamilton, Washington, Jay and others; he dissociated himself from them when it became obvious what they really intended and then backed the Bill of Rights as a method to limit the federal government's powers. It's no surprise that Hamilton vehemently opposed the Bill of Rights.

The lawfullness of the southern states secessions comes from two sources. First, is that although the Articles of Confederation contained a binding clause, Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. which the states seceded from when they withdrew from the Articles and went into the Constitutional compact. Each state knew that the Constitution was much more centralizing and therefore most of them put language in either their debates at the state constitutional conventions or in the actual language of their ratification documents themselves that they retained the right of secession if the federal government was not to their benefit. Second, the Tenth Amendment reserves the powers not granted to the federal government to the states respectively or to the people of those states as long as there was no language forbidding a power to either the states or to the people. That means that since there is no language in the Constitution forbidding secession of a state, then the states retain that power. To this day, there is no language restricting the secession of a state from the Constitutional compact.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
yes..and i'm personally for rounding up every single last one of them and having them shot!
ryan

Lincoln friend and psychopathic killer General William T. Sherman actually proposed to do just that. He wanted to kill every man, woman, and child that supported the secession of the southern states, the Confederate Army, and anyone else he might want to kill. Sherman's letters home from the time he was stationed in South Carolina as a young lieutenant are most illuminating. He absolutely detested the South long before the war came.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by fastpat
Lincoln friend and psychopathic killer General William T. Sherman actually proposed to do just that. He wanted to kill every man, woman, and child that supported the secession of the southern states, the Confederate Army, and anyone else he might want to kill.

That's just a little biased.

I actually read some of Sherman's writings, primary source, for a paper I wrote on his march to Atlanta. From what I read, he did not like the total war strategy, but felt it was necessary to end the war. He advocated destruction of property to demoralize the enemy and their supporters. That's a far cry from what you wrote.

[island911]

Gee Pat, are ya really prepared to equivocate on the word "Traitor" ?

[Tobra]

Originally posted by djmcmath
That's exactly my point. Even if I held the opposing view, I'd hardly choose to enter into enlightened discussion with someone who announced it with "I'm right, you're wrong, and I have all the evidence to crush any idiot who disagrees with me."

(shrug) Or perhaps you weren't really looking for enlightened discussion after all, and I've missed the point entirely.

sounds to me like you have a pretty good understanding

BTW, in my limited experience, all your threads are joke threads Mr. Fastpat, you are truly quite hilarious