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

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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.

They seceded and the land became theirs, they formed their own government. Lincoln was losing so badly that he put out a letter that said any slave that escapes and makes it into US territory would be set free because he thought it would pull soldiers off their post and shift focus to capturing the slaves. It didn't work because none of the soldiers cared, they didn't own slaves and weren't fighting to retain slavery. They had other plans. The US had endless amounts of steel on their side, the CS had farm boys that had no idea where their next musket ball would come from. When the CS finally ran out of supplies for ammunition, they lost. No amount of strategy from Abe was enough to win outright. So, the CS were able to take it and win an unwinnable war, they just didn't have the supplies to last.

There is an actual legal way to make changes.. by voting and getting agreeing politicians elected.. you know like the constitution says.. you know the one they pooped all over when they trash canned OUR ( you know the same exact one we still use). constitution and wrote their own.

States can't leave with out congress, the senate and a presidential signing...

Not "a bunch of people decided to crap all over American sovereignty.

They did not legally secede any more than I would be suceeding by deciding my house was its own nation and made my kids the covernmemt while writing a brand new constitution in crayon...

The civil war was not some magically unique rebellion...

It was the same type of rebellion as the vast majority of rebellions in history.

If you win you are a revolutionary who's "party" gets to rule..

If you lose your a traitor who commited treason.

Exactly the same as every other civilization in all of human history.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: FauxMulder

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.

If someone could convince the sheep that the entire complex was racist except the one that "seceded" then people like Josh would champion the move.

When did I say anything about race or slavery????

You don't need to go there when the fact they were traitors is readily available....

The slavery argument was propaganda used by both sides to motivate the peasants..

Hell its pretty well historically known that abolition takes decades longer with out the south taking up arms. ..

Very few politicians Lincoln included were willing to go to war over slavery.

The big land owners mad about taxes pretended abolition was comming to motivate its people.

And the north used it as a military tactic to cause disruption behind enemy lines.

The slavery argument is based on emotion and is subjective.

The treason argument is based on facts and historical and legal presidence.


There are many arguments against slavery being the motivation.

There are not good one against treason and it would have been considered treason in any age, by any culture.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: FauxMulder

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.

If someone could convince the sheep that the entire complex was racist except the one that "seceded" then people like Josh would champion the move.

"Nowhere in the Constitution can it be found where states could secede or how they could do so. In situations where the Constitution is silent, we have to look at the creation of the document and its ratification. The ratification process made it clear that once a state ratified the Constitution it could not leave. Even more obvious is the fact that no state has an exit clause in its ratification documents.

The arguments saying that states can secede deliberately overlook the primary sources and ignore the context behind the Constitution. It is rampant presentism."


So where was the promised exit claus in the constitution??

Oh there was not one......

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The south Tried numerous times to negotiate with the north but they would not do so because they controlled the manufacturing base and were essentially holding the south economically hostage by controlling their trade by high tariffs and taxes. Also by not allowwing them to trade with other countries. Dotn you think it was unfair to restrict their ability to make money? its not good capitalism to do so.

At th e time the interpretation of the 10th allowwed a state to determine its own destiny. George washington would had slapped lincolns beard off for his actions if he could had.

WHy are you Ignoring Lincolns own law breaking? Government propaganda brainwashing? remember the Victors are humans and can LIE like a rug too.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Turn this 180 and tell me where constitution says it's a suicide pact that can't be gotten out of.

To answer you direct though refer to enumerated powers.

It's pretty clear language.

Mind you I'm talking of Constitutional language as it existed in 1860 without victors amendments.

I did ask pages ago about what specific modern day situation you are equating civil war Era politics as a cause.

So far were hashing old history and missing the modern.

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

The Southerner's own words and documents prove themselves to be exactly slave defending racists, and that fact was central to the Civil War.

Quoth The Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [than the Constitution of the USA]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

It was repulsive revisionism after the fact to make it about agrarianism vs industrialization or trade policy any such nonsense.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.

You could well be talking the birth of The U.S.

A bunch of traitors who committed treason against The British Crown and annexed British Sovereign Soil ( The 13 Colonies ).

So what is the difference.

The motivations and the result.

The founders of the United States broke away from a tyrannical monarchy and founded a constitutional democratic republic based on the principle that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.

The founders of the Confederacy founded an oligarchical republic based on the principle that blacks are inferior to whites and deserve to be enslaved by them for white's profit.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

The Southerner's own words and documents prove themselves to be exactly slave defending racists, and that fact was central to the Civil War.

Quoth The Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [than the Constitution of the USA]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

It was repulsive revisionism after the fact to make it about agrarianism vs industrialization or trade policy any such nonsense.

The so called President and leadership were legally within the constitution at the time and even though. Before the war it was up to the states to remain states If their people desired it.

Lincoln was fine with slavery as long as he was getting his cut of the cash. His diary reflects that as well. And the only revisionism is the kind the winners use to rub salt in the losers wounds by making them to be the bad guy and th e winner was the actual bad guy.

Come on this is a conspiracy site and you believe the government line about Lincoln?
The man wa son record of breaking the law to get his way. 11 times before after and during the civil war.

ALso THAt man was a MORON who wrote the above about what th esouth was about. HIm and his fellow Slave owners who were stupid id not speak for a majority of the people.
Almost bet you the normal people didnt understand the statement either. Just another example of corrupt leadership taking advantage of the sheeple.

Lincon and the souths leaders are both at fault here. Both of them were too greedy to stop and think about the future.

The war was not over slavery as you have been taught. it was all about the benjamins.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

The Southerner's own words and documents prove themselves to be exactly slave defending racists, and that fact was central to the Civil War.

Quoth The Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [than the Constitution of the USA]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

It was repulsive revisionism after the fact to make it about agrarianism vs industrialization or trade policy any such nonsense.

It was about those things as well if not mostly so.

The north prob wouldn't have started abolishing slavery any time soon if not for the war.

The emancipation proclamation was a military strategy to cause disruption behind enemy lines. Not some benevolent attemp to make people equal. If the south had paid its taxes and agreed for any new states to be free, then slavery prob lasts another 2 generations.



You have to grade racism on a curve. Your most avid abolutionist from then, would make your average kkk member blush today.

Slavery was a propaganda tool used by both sides.

The south used it as your present day "they are comming to get your guns." When they weren't anymore then than now.

The north used it to vilify the rebels, mainly by pointing out that slave labor was killing jobs and lowering pay rates (which slavery always does). Not too different from the present day immigration issue.


The slavery argument is way more murky than the argument for treason. You literally couldn't find an historical account of any rebellion who lost, and weren't considered traitors..the VAST majority executed in some crazy painful way.


The north was better than the south on slavery, but not by much at all by modern standards.

Plus the majority of modern arguments for the confederacy are based only on the murky slavery argument. So when you use treason, a big percentage can't even debate it. All their canned arguments are based on slavery. Not the all to easy to find historical presidence treason.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

The Southerner's own words and documents prove themselves to be exactly slave defending racists, and that fact was central to the Civil War.

Quoth The Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [than the Constitution of the USA]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

It was repulsive revisionism after the fact to make it about agrarianism vs industrialization or trade policy any such nonsense.

The so called President and leadership were legally within the constitution at the time and even though. Before the war it was up to the states to remain states If their people desired it.

Lincoln was fine with slavery as long as he was getting his cut of the cash. His diary reflects that as well. And the only revisionism is the kind the winners use to rub salt in the losers wounds by making them to be the bad guy and th e winner was the actual bad guy.

Come on this is a conspiracy site and you believe the government line about Lincoln?
The man wa son record of breaking the law to get his way. 11 times before after and during the civil war.

ALso THAt man was a MORON who wrote the above about what th esouth was about. HIm and his fellow Slave owners who were stupid id not speak for a majority of the people.
Almost bet you the normal people didnt understand the statement either. Just another example of corrupt leadership taking advantage of the sheeple.

Lincon and the souths leaders are both at fault here. Both of them were too greedy to stop and think about the future.

The war was not over slavery as you have been taught. it was all about the benjamins.

What?!?!

How far before the war was it legal for a state to leave the union?!?!

From the second the states were ratified their was no legal process to leave, without adding an amendment to the constitution..

Which the south neglected to do in lue of trash canning OUR constitution and taking up armed against US service members..

Even firing the first shots in the siege of fort summer....

I'm with you the war was over taxes with slavery being a pawn.

But saying Lincoln wasn't invested in the future, when without a united (lol) United States we lose in WW2..

Hell the south prob sides with Germany! And Hitler prob turns on them right after the war.

originally posted by: Phoenix
I did ask pages ago about what specific modern day situation you are equating civil war Era politics as a cause.

So far were hashing old history and missing the modern.

Sorry a fast moving thread at first.

Maybe the rural, urban and left right dynamic?

As I said in the OP this was just a thought, not a dogma.

After the civil war amnesty the same confederates who lost, retook power.

Couldnt the present political dynamic have festered since then?

a reply to: mbkennel

It does not matter what may be the cause.

A traitor, is a traitor is a traitor.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The south Tried numerous times to negotiate with the north but they would not do so because they controlled the manufacturing base and were essentially holding the south economically hostage by controlling their trade by high tariffs and taxes. Also by not allowwing them to trade with other countries. Dotn you think it was unfair to restrict their ability to make money? its not good capitalism to do so.

At th e time the interpretation of the 10th allowwed a state to determine its own destiny. George washington would had slapped lincolns beard off for his actions if he could had.

WHy are you Ignoring Lincolns own law breaking? Government propaganda brainwashing? remember the Victors are humans and can LIE like a rug too.

You don't negotiate with traitors.

Espeacially not ones who take over military bases and fire the first shots.

If you mean pre civil war, the norths only real sticking point was taxes and that any new states be free states.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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.

They seceded and the land became theirs, they formed their own government. Lincoln was losing so badly that he put out a letter that said any slave that escapes and makes it into US territory would be set free because he thought it would pull soldiers off their post and shift focus to capturing the slaves. It didn't work because none of the soldiers cared, they didn't own slaves and weren't fighting to retain slavery. They had other plans. The US had endless amounts of steel on their side, the CS had farm boys that had no idea where their next musket ball would come from. When the CS finally ran out of supplies for ammunition, they lost. No amount of strategy from Abe was enough to win outright. So, the CS were able to take it and win an unwinnable war, they just didn't have the supplies to last.

They had no legal right to sucede.

There was no path to leave when the states were ratified.

The nazis lost for exactly the same reason.

Bodies, bullets, beans and bandages decide wars. Whoever can produce the most, wins.

The south lost....

Can you please name one historical account of when a rebellion was put down and the group in power remained in power, yet the rebels were not considered treasonous traitors?


For my presidence I will use EVERY SINGLE REBELLION IN HISTORY.

Lol

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.

You could well be talking the birth of The U.S.

A bunch of traitors who committed treason against The British Crown and annexed British Sovereign Soil ( The 13 Colonies ).

So what is the difference.

The motivations and the result.

The founders of the United States broke away from a tyrannical monarchy and founded a constitutional democratic republic based on the principle that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.

The founders of the Confederacy founded an oligarchical republic based on the principle that blacks are inferior to whites and deserve to be enslaved by them for white's profit.

The founders won...and formed the United States of America. They were able to hold their gains and make the opposition recognize their sovereignty.

If the founders lost, they would have been hung for treason like common criminals.

By your logic, why only states??

Why couldn't a city secede?

Why not a neighborhood or hell even one family??

Because we don't own land, we lease it from whatever country we live in. If they want they could confiscate it and if the government wasn't here, we still wouldn't own it. Whatever warlord had the most men and guns would.

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
a reply to: JoshuaCox


I rather tend to think that "If the government were to execute/imprison "those who committed treason" (you seem to be referring to the confederate post war)", that this would only worsen matters like throwing fuel on a fire. But maybe the south would not be what it is today, who knows.

Maybe so, but without leadership and people glorifying them, maybe not as well...

I think if you only targeted leadership, but all leadership and pardoned all those conscripted and below the rank of officer. You might not have the backlash of executing the rank and file.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So that leads me to wonder if allowing those in power who chose to rebel to remain in power. Might not be the cause of the north /south , urban rural dynamic. If the US had instead chosen to execute and imprison those who commited treason, hypothetically only giving amnesty to those who were conscripted, would we have the same dynamic today??

They didn't stay in power. Look up the term 'carpet-baggers'. It refers to the northerners who came down to 'govern' the south. Without getting into a loooong history lecture . . . The Civil War/War of Northern Aggression was fought over this disparage and states rights (not over slavery) . . . I'll wait while you do some Real research. . . . . . . . . Ok, you back? Good, so now you probably understand that the Northern states would not allow the southern states access to manufacturing capabilities and even embargoed goods that would allow the South to compete with them economically (without slaves by the way), and did all of this in order to stay rich through the slave trade. You see, the people who made the most off the slave trade were Northern shipowners and slave traders (some from Britain as well) and Ayrabs over in Africa who were buying slaves from other tribes that had captured them.

Ok, I'm done.

Oh look no one has even mentioned slavery except you and one other person defending the south...

I have no mentioned slavery, nor anyone else who agrees the south were traitors..

See even if you remove slavery completely, they still took US soverign territory and trash canned the US constitution....



You obviously couldn't be bothered to actually read the OP or you would know that...

Unless you just have no counterpoint if it is not based around slavery...


Like maybe name one failed rebellion where they were not considered (and usually executed) as traitors???

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yes, I read the OP. Did you read my full response? The slavery part is at the end in anticipation of the next traditional argument to what I said previously.