150th Anniversary

[Uncle Joe]

Tomorrow, April 12th, is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War when Confederate soldiers opened fired on Fort Sumter.

It was the first war to involve trench warfare; observation balloons; iron-clad ships; and the use of repeating and breech-loading rifles, mines, and hand grenades.

More Americans were killed in that war than were killed in World Wars One and Two, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by Uncle Joe

Tomorrow, April 12th, is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War when Confederate soldiers opened fired on Fort Sumter.

It was the first war to involve trench warfare; observation balloons; iron-clad ships; and the use of repeating and breech-loading rifles, mines, and hand grenades.

More Americans were killed in that war than were killed in World Wars One and Two, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

Why is that even a statistic? If we are talking about "Dogs eat Dogs", why are Cats brought into the statistic? Shouldn't you just use the Union Numbers to compare the other wars so, because technically the Confederate were a different "nation", having succeeded from the United States of America.

Theoretically, most of the Union soldiers were not Native Born Americans; quiet a few of them were foreign immigrants just arriving through Elise Island.

Oh and "God Bless the Republicans who fought for Emancipation".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NorCal

Why is that even a statistic? If we are talking about "Dogs eat Dogs", why are Cats brought into the statistic? Shouldn't you just use the Union Numbers to compare the other wars so, because technically the Confederate were a different "nation", having succeeded from the United States of America.

Theoretically, most of the Union soldiers were not Native Born Americans; quiet a few of them were foreign immigrants just arriving through Elise Island.

Oh and "God Bless the Republicans who fought for Emancipation".

A lot of the manpower the North used to over power the South did come from recent immigrants. A common inducement to enlist was the proviso that as soon as they "took up arms" on behalf of the Federal government of the United States they became citizens.

Even today, you can lose your U.S. citizenship if you "take up arms" in a foreign army. Those dead Irish boys laying on the field at Gettysburg were as much Americans as the commanders who ordered them into battle.

Even while the Southerners were "in rebellion" against the U.S., they were still considered American citizens by the Federals. The Federals were fighting in fact, with the aim of imposing U.S. Federal citizenship upon the Southerners. That was the purpose of the North's fight. "Emancipation" was the underlying and unavoidable theme, but the sovereignty of Washington over the South was the direct aim.

... Just the observations of an Ancient & Classical History major. Everything that has happened since about 500 A.D. is "new stuff" to me.

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by pelathais

A lot of the manpower the North used to over power the South did come from recent immigrants. A common inducement to enlist was the proviso that as soon as they "took up arms" on behalf of the Federal government of the United States they became citizens.

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.

Even today, you can lose your U.S. citizenship if you "take up arms" in a foreign army. Those dead Irish boys laying on the field at Gettysburg were as much Americans as the commanders who ordered them into battle.

Even while the Southerners were "in rebellion" against the U.S., they were still considered American citizens by the Federals. The Federals were fighting in fact, with the aim of imposing U.S. Federal citizenship upon the Southerners. That was the purpose of the North's fight. "Emancipation" was the underlying and unavoidable theme, but the sovereignty of Washington over the South was the direct aim.

The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.



The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

[Sam]

Save your Confederate money, boy, the South's gonna rise again.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No he doesn't.

He said, "The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land."

The south did not have the right to separate and become their own country in the first place.

This logic is ludicrous and does not have any LEGAL leg to stand on! Did the southern states have Federal representation in Washington BEFORE the Civil War? What were the titles of those elected representatives-- Goodwill Ambassadors to a country that was occupying their land? Give me a break!


So no, he doesn't rock. I am glad we are a UNITED country and that war was a just war and necessary for the survival, peace and prosperity of our great land.

Yes, sometimes war is necessary in order to secure the peace.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority... This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government...

...The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government.

When it comes to such matters (at least at this level of governmental sovereinty) the crux of matter becomes not what a law book says, but whether or not you (the rebels) have the power to back up the claim. For example, try saying to your wife, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee." That would have worked 3000 years ago in Jewish culture, but not today in our culture. But if you have the force to back it up, the situation may be different. As it turned out, the CSA could not back up the claim, at the cost of eventually 600,000 very human lives! So, maybe just try again if Y'all disagree. (Speaking rhetorically.)

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

When it comes to such matters (at least at this level of governmental sovereinty) the crux of matter becomes not what a law book says, but whether or not you (the rebels) have the power to back up the claim. For example, try saying to your wife, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee." That would have worked 3000 years ago in Jewish culture, but not today in our culture. But if you have the force to back it up, the situation may be different. As it turned out, the CSA could not back up the claim, at the cost of eventually 600,000 very human lives! So, maybe just try again if Y'all disagree. (Speaking rhetorically.)

Ah, but you are viewing the United States of America from this side of the Northern Aggression. It should be remembered that it is the UNITED STATES which should have honored its constitutional limits and been submissive to the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation both allowed the "divorce" from the United States of America. It is the attitude of which you have which you seem to have which caused the war in the first place. Not the Confederate States of America.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

You are correct in that the UNITED STATES INC did impose an illegal authority not granted to it within the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, or the Constitution for the united States much less the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. This was in fact the invasion of a tyrant rogue government. Per the above documents by virtue of the declaration of the fact that each State was a State or Nation, and that they each were sovereign they could dissolve the union between themselves and any other State. It was only in the minds of Radical Republicans and a President who would not be restrained by the very document he says he sought to protect and defend.



The CSA was not in rebellion to the US, she was a separate and distinct Government. There would have been peace between the two countries if only the US had removed their Federal troops from CSA land. They were asked to leave and refused thereby being invaders. There was no rebellion on the part of the CSA. What was done to the CSA is what is repeatedly done today... the colonization of independent states and governments to make them servants to themselves.

As a side note. The Confederate States of America has been under occupation by the UNITED STATES Inc for the past 150 years. There was never a surrender of the Governments nor a peace treaty signed.

Go ahead on... Great post.

Also... in reference to the first post... the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter but the conflict didn't start there. But that isn't taught in history because it doesn't serve the narrative.