Did the leniency after the Civil War lead to our present North/South dynamic???

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Dude you're seriously thick as a brick. The South wasn't trying to overthrow the Northern Union, Earth to Josh come in Josh!!!!

The south was the "northern union" because the northern union was the US government...

Same president..same constitution same land holdings.


There was no split after the revolutionary war and forming of the USA for the confederacy to be its own independent state that the "union" attacked. The confederacy tried to spilt.. for it to split it had to at first be whole.




It's the equivalent of owning an apartment complex and one of your buildings decide. Screw you. We live here now and don't like your rules and rent. So we are keeping it...

Maybe you could factor in that you've been a crappy land lord, which is debatable..but reguardless. It is still your complex.. if they don't like it they move. They don't get to take your building.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Dude you're seriously thick as a brick. The South wasn't trying to overthrow the Northern Union, Earth to Josh come in Josh!!!!

It's the equivalent of owning an apartment complex and one of your buildings decide. Screw you. We live here now and don't like your rules and rent. So we are keeping it...

Maybe you could factor in that you've been a crappy land lord, which is debatable..but reguardless. It is still your complex.. if they don't like it they move. They don't get to take your building.

That analogy is wrong unless you say that before it was a complex the individual apartments agreed to come together as a complex with the option of leaving. The landlord took away that option.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Do you care to acknowledge how old you are?

It's like playing cards with your brother's kids, p-o-i-n-t-l-e-s-s....

35 Mississippi born and raised... Vicksburg exactly.. you know the "key to the war" with I bet a better grasp of the historical account of the civil war than most in the thread.


Hell I have walked a lot of the battle sites.

37 Louisiana born and raised, direct lineage to soldiers who fought in the Confederacy and the American Revolution. I get revisionist free Confederate history monthly.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

We'll I guess if you ignore the "lease" (constitution) that gave you that right and follow that by rewriting the lease to your whims -then the apt. anology makes some kind of sense.

Summerizing, entice tenents with false promise, renig on written agreement, rewrite agreement ex-post facto and the wonder why tenet is mad at you.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You've been pointed in the right direction but you still keep turning at Albuquerque, as was mentioned to you three times already the "Federal Gov" was laughable at best prior to the 1860's. Pardoned by the Government wouldn't have kept you out of Jail in a state you weren't pardoned and still wanted in, I have no personal investment in anything but a logical discussion which seriously lacks when it comes to American Civil War discussion. Most time is spent trying to point people to the facts but it's getting tougher and tougher every year as the move to change history and hide the relevant parts that point out why it's so flawed in today's America.

I still want anyone to answer my question, especially you Josh since you said you were hung up on the slavery aspect but didn't wanna mention slavery.

Do you feel comfortable believing that the south was fighting to keep slaves?

Do you believe that 99% of southern whites were fighting for the rights of 1% southern whites?

Do you feel that history is right in telling Sherman Burned everything from Tn to Savanna,Ga because he was setting people free?

If you don't wanna answer those question's on here I understand, but hopefully it might lead you down the rabbit hole that made us all good little obeying tax payer's, brought us one money system, and installed a banking system were the majority 160+ years later live on the credit provided by that banking system.

Food for thought?

originally posted by: Floridagoat

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Do you care to acknowledge how old you are?

It's like playing cards with your brother's kids, p-o-i-n-t-l-e-s-s....

35 Mississippi born and raised... Vicksburg exactly.. you know the "key to the war" with I bet a better grasp of the historical account of the civil war than most in the thread.


Hell I have walked a lot of the battle sites.

Good for you, I have 12 Men from one side of my family that fought for the confederacy.

Let me ask you clueless northern aggression sympathizers one question.

1.Do you think that 99% of the south inhabitants were fighting for the rights of the 1% whites in the south that owned slaves?

2.Did you know that in 1858 28% of blacks in all states owned slaves? And the number was even higher for the 13 confederate states.

I mean do seriously delude yourself with school text book propaganda that hides the fact we of all colors were made slaves to the system thanks to northern aggression.

Please answer question one because of the 3 times i've asked this question on ATS it's been avoided like the plague.

1) yes..espeacially after the "20 slave law"
Where if you owned 20 slaves you were exemp from fighting. Way more than one percent realized real quick exactly why they were fighting the war. You even had loyalist groups pop up (newt knight for one.)


ALOT of southerners weren't happy about all the free labor stealing jobs anyway. No one North or south thought blacks should be equal.

As usual they were fighting a rich mans war.

On both sides it was really a fight over cotton taxes. The big wigs have never liked taxes and the average joe wasn't seeing crap for inferstructure stuff from the taxes they were paying.

Slavery was a side note.. a propaganda tool for both sides.

The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic to cause disruption behind enemy lines. Not some benevolent act.

And I know all kinda stuff where blacks bought and sold other blacks and argued for slavery because they personally profited from the situation... same with the Greeks..same with the romans..and Persians.. and Vikings.. and every other society not a toddler.

None of that has ANY effect on the reality of rebellions.

If you win your a revolutionary and your faction rules.

If you lose your a traitor. At least to any patriots of the country who won. Otherwise known as the USA.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Yoda would say, short of history is this one!

All southerners were required to repudiate the Confederation and swear oath to Federal Government before being allowed to vote in elections. Federal appointees were forced upon the south for years after the war.

The cause is still debatable, which is states right as a sovereign entity to withdraw from the union.

Civil war victors say no, but that decision is and was under extreme duress.

Disclaimer, I am from deep Yankee country but have read and understood what happened and reject the "new" educational system with its revisionism, distortions and outright lies.

My advice, go read pre 1960's history books that were based on facts not wishful self serving outcomes.

Exactly. I read through the Encyclopedia collection my parents got back in the early 80's and gave to me later, along with an 8 book collection of strictly Civil War history. What's in those books is nothing like what I hear from "history buffs" about the Confederates. These books don't hold anything back either, tons of pictures from the actual battlefields. Bloated bodies, decapitated heads, missing legs and half torsos from cannon balls, etc.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So it's your take that 99% of all men who fought in the civil war confederacy were fighting for the rights of the 1%?

I see no further need to discuss this with you as you're lying to yourself about the facts from the start.

Conveniently while you ignore 28% of Blacks owned slaves in all States in 1858 which is alarming thing to ignore when you're trying to feel for the Slavery thing!

There's a good reason to perpetuate propaganda to hide agenda's, bet they had no idea 160+ years later it would still be this easy to lie!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.

What?!? I'm hung up on the slavery aspect which is why I made absolutely no mention of it....


Yea...

You are definitely not hung up on it as you were the only one who mentioned it..at all..the entire thread..

Clearly you're losing it because of all the posters proving you wrong. Take a break man. I don't believe I've mentioned slavery.

a reply to: LSU0408

Civil war, it's causes and aftermath are a good study of creeping propaganda and revisionism.

I use it as a lesson on many other events.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.

The south was soverign US soil...


If you take over a piece of a country but don't try to take the whole thing over. It is still treason...

Literally by definition..

Literally, by definition, treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

I believe the act of secession was legal back in 1860 and wasn't deemed to be illegal until the north beat the South. The CSA didn't commit treason when they seceded.

treason Translate Button
[tree-zuh n]
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.(means country, not us type state).


The south was not independent. They were ruled by and part of US soverign territory.

Like I said by definition..both of them..

As they overthrew the US government offices and military bases in the south..

If you wanna be technical, the South formed its own government after legally seceding and they were overthrown by Lincoln and the north. So really, going by your logic, you're supporting treason.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We'll I guess if you ignore the "lease" (constitution) that gave you that right and follow that by rewriting the lease to your whims -then the apt. anology makes some kind of sense.

Summerizing, entice tenents with false promise, renig on written agreement, rewrite agreement ex-post facto and the wonder why tenet is mad at you.

Still doesn't make the building yours..


This is what??

150 years later?

So for 5 generations that's been the Unided States apartment complex, and sure building C has been living there for most of that, but it still don't make it their building.

To own that building they have to take it.


I think the fact they crowned their own president and wrote their own constitution settles it. "Legally " I don't think there is a way back from that point. Espeacially considering life lost.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.

The south was soverign US soil...


If you take over a piece of a country but don't try to take the whole thing over. It is still treason...

Literally by definition..

Literally, by definition, treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

I believe the act of secession was legal back in 1860 and wasn't deemed to be illegal until the north beat the South. The CSA didn't commit treason when they seceded.

treason Translate Button
[tree-zuh n]
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.(means country, not us type state).


The south was not independent. They were ruled by and part of US soverign territory.

Like I said by definition..both of them..

As they overthrew the US government offices and military bases in the south..

If you wanna be technical, the South formed its own government after legally seceding and they were overthrown by Lincoln and the north. So really, going by your logic, you're supporting treason.

They had to take it first and they were unable to hold it. They never had a government. They were usurpers who failed.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

In that era, you could secede if you felt the government was tyrannical. Your entire opening post was in reference to treason committed by the Confederacy and how it possibly effects the U.S. today. The fact that it was done legally voids your entire thread because it wasn't treason to begin with.

a reply to: Tempter

The OP is judging a nation in the 19th Century by today's standards. He doesn't realize you simply can't do that.

Texas was recently threatening to secede because they disagree with Obamacare and other policies implemented by the Obama administration. Even more recently, California was/is threatening to secede because they don't want Trump as president. Both propositions are ludicrous. And thank goodness neither state will actually follow through with their threats. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The idea was just as ridiculous in the 1860's as it is now.

"War of Northern Aggression." Yeah, the Yankees are the ones trying to spin the facts and manipulate people's emotions.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We'll I guess if you ignore the "lease" (constitution) that gave you that right and follow that by rewriting the lease to your whims -then the apt. anology makes some kind of sense.

Summerizing, entice tenents with false promise, renig on written agreement, rewrite agreement ex-post facto and the wonder why tenet is mad at you.

Still doesn't make the building yours..


This is what??

150 years later?

So for 5 generations that's been the Unided States apartment complex, and sure building C has been living there for most of that, but it still don't make it their building.

To own that building they have to take it.


I think the fact they crowned their own president and wrote their own constitution settles it. "Legally " I don't think there is a way back from that point. Espeacially considering life lost.

Your analogy is wrong.

Instead think of a group of houses (states) who decided to fence in a border for protection. The Fence Committee is born (Federal Government) and a fence is erected. One day, a group of houses notices they aren't allowed to live by their own rules and act to remove the fence. Then the fence committee decides you CAN'T live outside the fence and in fact the committee is in control, not the individual houses, of their own destiny.

The Fence committee destroys the small group of families and burns their houses to the ground. The Fence committee now assumes control over everything.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Floridagoat

its funny..the south was going to leave peacefully and continue to share common defense but lincoln refused to remove his troops and instigated the war.

This is how we should do it today as well, and let the democrats have their government, the Republicans have theirs, and keep the military together on both sides. It's far too clear that they can't compromise. Now it's beginning to get dangerous, i.e. violence and protests by the left simply because Trump was holding a rally, and now because he won.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Dude you're seriously thick as a brick. The South wasn't trying to overthrow the Northern Union, Earth to Josh come in Josh!!!!

The south was the "northern union" because the northern union was the US government...

Same president..same constitution same land holdings.


There was no split after the revolutionary war and forming of the USA for the confederacy to be its own independent state that the "union" attacked. The confederacy tried to spilt.. for it to split it had to at first be whole.




It's the equivalent of owning an apartment complex and one of your buildings decide. Screw you. We live here now and don't like your rules and rent. So we are keeping it...

Maybe you could factor in that you've been a crappy land lord, which is debatable..but reguardless. It is still your complex.. if they don't like it they move. They don't get to take your building.

The CSA was whole, and had their own government, ran by Confederate States President Jefferson Davis.