One thing is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. The war wasn't even 'over slavery' until 1863. He wanted to send them all overseas after emancipation
@comradeshow Go read up on the Lincoln and Douglas debates then get back to me if you still think the war was not about slavery. Good Lord what the &%#@. Have none of you read a history book? If slavery is not evil then nothing can be evil.
@bockmaker slavery was evil and perhaps God punished this nation with the war because of it. I fight as a Confederate soldier in reenacting, not a Confederate politician. It is impossible to deny that slavery was the major cause of secession-but it was not the reason the average soldier fought. The poor southern farmer was a stubborn southern man who was fighting to stop an invasion. That is apparent. Very few Confederate soldiers owned slaves
I have no doubt slavery was the main cause of war, but southern soldiers largely were not slave owners and were the victims of slavery as well. They were fighting for their homes even though their politicians were fighting for slavery. Union was largely same way. But Lincoln was ridiculous sorry.
@comradeshow The important thing was that the Richmond regime wanted slavery. They resisted thoughts of emancipation, even to help fill the army, until late 1865. Talk about ridiculous.
JohnnyCBCS replied to me on here but I can't find the comment. He said the confederacy was of by and for the people. Pure revisionism. The confederacy saw itself as the last defense of aristocratic privilege against the "mob" of democracy. That's how all sides saw the war, that's why aristocratic Britain was so sympathetic. The common southern justification for slavery was that civilization required that some men become aristocrats and own others.
@tj2tone I should also add, it's quite likely the majority in the confederate states, I mean the majority of white adult males did not support it. Entire subregions of the south were treated as POWs and the confederacy had to institute a system of internal passports to stop the complete disintegration of their armed forces.
@tj2tone France was more sympathetic than Britain. The British Government was sometimes sympathetic to Confederate aims... but Queen Victoria and the British public would not have stood for the support of Slavery. Napoleon III wanted the Confederacy to win... but mainly because he wanted Mexico
@ajferet And yet...most of the Confederate rifles were made in...ENGLAND. Of course, they also sold arms to the Union army...so, England was really an equal opportunity profiteer.
@TheJDeaux You mistake the position of British arms merchants and shipyards vs. the interest of Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office.The F.O. and the Crown would have preferred a drawn out war (to Protect the interest of the Crown in Canada and to create a British cotton monoply), while Victoria herself would have preferred a short, victorious war by Mr. Lincoln. (The Queen herself was personally opposed to slavery)
@ajferet I apologize if my post was...inaccurate? Perhaps imprecise is the better word. I did not mean to infer that the Queen Herself was interested in a drawn out Civil War in America. I assumed that any reasonable person would know that to think the ruler of any nation ruled absolutely was at best naiive. In fact, I never even mentioned Victioria, and you actually validated my post with the rest of your own post (Ya made my point for me, dude.)
@ajferet much of the british lower class supported the union because of opposition to slavery being mainstream at the time, and it is true that the queen shared this belief, but much of the british aristocracy saw an oppurtunity for profits in a southern victory because of the cotton trade becoming monopolized by the nation that helped the south, as well as a chance for war profiteering by selling arms to a needy buyer like the confederacy
@HGM1138 The South was subjected to a military conquest in which hundreds of thousands of it's citizens were killed, equal to more than 20% of it's population. Those like you who have audacity to say "get over it" to us Southrons would never say the same to Jews regarding the Holocaust, or Russians regarding the Nazi invasion of their country. Yet you single us out because you think that you are in a morally superior position. Those who support invasions, like you, always seek to justify them.
@texconfed A government is not an invader when it seeks to suppress an uprising within it's own territory. There were bad things on each side. As a native of Lawrence, Kansas I get sick and tired of Quantrill glorification. East Tennessee sought to leave the Confederacy and remain in the Union. They got an occupying army.
@texconfed Dude, the South seceded because Lincoln wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery into the territories. Whether or not slavery was constitutional according to the Dred-Scott decision is in my mind irrelevant. Slavery was and is morally wrong and even if the CSA had been recognized by Washington, London and Paris as a sovereign political entity, someone should've invaded your asses to end slavery anyways. You ignorant schmuck.
@texconfed Dude, the south seceded because Lincoln wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery into the territories. Whether or not this was unconstitutional according to the Dred-Scott decision is in my mind, irrelevant. Even if Washington, London and Paris recognized the CSA as a sovereign political entity the fact remains: slavery is morally wrong and someone should've invaded your asses to abolish it anyways. The death of 483, 026 confederate troops is your own damn fault...accept it.
@texconfed They were not a separate country. They had freely consented to the Union and dominated American national politics for decades. When they lost a completely free and fair election to an abolitionist, and couldn't get their way anymore they tried to run away like spoiled children. The settlement after the war that the Union gave the traitors was perhaps the most lenient in history, and yet still you whine.
@tj2tone In truth, Lincoln was planning even more lenient stuff. Until Mr. Booth decided Lincoln was the worst thing for the south and put a bullet in his head.
If Abe had lived, there would not have been a period of military occupation and rule in the South. So... yeah... thats what happens when you let hate blind you - you screw your conquered country even more royally.
@tj2tone these "traitors" were the government for the people and by the people in the South, democratically supported by the populace. Also, they were Americans, and in order for them to be reintegrated into the USA, there had to be no harsh settlement
@JohnnyCBCS "We prefer to remain attached to the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States has passed no law to oppress us. The President of the United States has made no threat against the law-abiding people of Tennessee." The Eastern Tennessee Declaration of Grievances articulated the feelings of that heavily Unionist portion of the state. "The government of the People" occupied them.
@texconfed: People shouldn't start things they can't finish. If the CSA hadn't fired on Sumter, there would have been no war. All the secessionist needed to do was engage ina reasoned negotiation over terms of seperation. Refusing to do this, acting UNILATERALLY & alienating the common property of all the states, the was objectively the aggressor. The goal was to take Western Territory, a war necessary to expand slavery. This the real cause of the war.
@VictorLepanto no, if Lincoln hadn't been such a warmonger, there would've been no war. Better yet, if he hadn't got elected, there would've been no war. You talk about negotiation, read about the Critteden Compromise that Lincoln refuted, it was a compromise for Union, not separation. Lincoln could have NOT called for troops after Sumter, in which case VIRGINIA and TENNESSEE would not have seceded. So don't blame the war on the South, you're making a terrible mistake.
@JohnnyCBCS Crittenden was hardly a compromise for Union but an attempt to stave off war by caving in to the Slave Power. If State's Rights" is such a big deal, it would acted AGAINST them by limiting the rights of Northern rights in favor of slave holders. I assume you think that would have been a good thing. The war was driven by slavery, pure and simple.
@rexlibris99 "by limiting the rights of Northern rights", huh? Nothing could have limited Northern rights in 1860, as they had all the industry, twice the population, and yes, were better developed agriculturally (cotton was the only crop where the South was leading). And yes, I think letting slavery die on its own, which would have happened by the early 20th century is by far better than sending 620 thousand people to death, destroying property and leaving a scar on the nation. Shame on Lincoln
@JohnnyCBCS As I noted earlier, Southern states were quick to trample on "states rights when it came to enforcing the Fugitive Slave laws. The North developed rapidly because they industrialized which the South failed to do until after the war. "What if's" are fun but no one knows if slavery would have died out by 1900 or so---I doubt it. Shame on Dixie.
@rexlibris99 what if's are actually critical when you talk about 620,000 young people dying, especially since they were Americans on both sides, and in a lot of cases friends were fighting friends (Armistead vs. Hancock at Gettysburg, for example). The Northern Americans should have thought "WHAT IF we don't elect secession and war" back in 1860, but everyone was too arrogant to realize what war really meant. And once again, that war could have never happened.
@JohnnyCBCS Southern Americans could also have thought "What if we tone down the rhetoric and actually wait to see what Lincoln will do" instead of seceding. Both sides largely failed to see what the war meant. Sherman did and people called him crazy. Every war ever fought could have been avoided.
@JohnnyCBCS "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860. Yeah, sounds like they'd give it up quietly.
@rexlibris99 you know, NOWADAYS African slavery would have been absolutely useless for at least 70 years, since in the 1940s all the cotton was processed by combines, which plow, separate the seeds and organize it in bales while someone simply drives them across the field. Even before that, there had been certain improvements on the cotton processing, making slave labor less and less useful. So if the politicians had been calm enough, there would have been no slavery AT ALL by the 1940s
@JohnnyCBCS What you forget is the amount of money invested in slaves and the perception, warranted, of Northern interference by abolitionists. Slavery was lucrative to powerful interests that didn't necessarily act in the region's best interests. They would not give up slaves peacefully. Also, I read of no attempt at compensated emancipation after Virginia voted it down in the early 1830s.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
Please stop trying to pigeon hole the entire Civil War. It was not fought through sound bites and verbal jabs, nor was it simply over the peculiar institution of slavery. There were several issues that had been building since 1820 and just as today the politics in Washington played a major role in the choices being made
The song was written for the 1860 campaign so yes, it was indeed propaganda of a sort. As for the Declaration of Independence, I seem to recall that it said that all men were created equal. I suppose Ole Massa didn't want to give up being more equal? "A government best suited to protect their liberties" What about East Tennessee?
The Fact of the Matter is that people (including me) must except some people fought in the Civil War due to slavery, and some fought because of State v.s. Federal Rights. I personally believe that it was fought mostly due to State vs Federal rights, and I look up to Southerners who donated to colored schools in the south like Stonewall Jackson. Abe was a good man considering he freed slaves, but what he believed in politically, like more Federal Rights, I disagree with.
@BigSlimJimmy, Well, state's rights, eh? How about you look up the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States? State's rights are in there. The thing you'll notice is that the southern states claim the northern states were exercising "rights" they didn't have--to ignore the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution. That is, the southern states were claiming that the Constitution obliged northern states to return escaping slaves to owners, and northern states weren't doing this.
Ronnie Gilbert is a great singer. Why is everyone trying to tell me the CSA didnt like or did like slavery? I think I will think what I want and I dont give a shit what you are trying to tell me
Grant, Sherman and Thomas in that order. Lewis Douglass, the son of Frederick Douglass, who served in the 54th Massachusetts is there along with two unidentified African-American enlisted men.
Its the same tune as an irish confederate song, i don't hear fight for uncle sam, but i might be wrong. the confederate song is song of kelly's irish brigade.
@SouthCountry10: No, the title doesn't contradict itself since it is an anti-slavery song and Lincoln was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the abolition candidate.
The title wouldn't contradict itself either way because it indicates that the subject is Lincoln and liberty, it doesn't claim Lincoln to be related to liberty in a good or a bad way.
Air is from "Eoghan Coir" written by Riocard Bairéad, a United Irishman who fought in the 1798 rebellion, the tune is still well known in Ireland for being set to "The Men of the West",
Come on now men, our ancestors would be really disappointed that we still bicker and argue for something that probably the average soldier on both sides wanted to be over. I'm sure they wanted peace for us, so let all of us be brothers, American brothers!
What picks me up most about this song is hearing the ideals that were espoused so far back in history, a time when I pretty much thought that just about everyone was a racist a**hole in some form, whether it went as far as enslaving minorities or just treating them as second-class citizens. Guess I was too quick to profile my ancestors. "We'll finish the temple of Freedom, and make it capacious within, that all who seek shelter may find it whatever the hue of their skin." is my favorite part.
Another Lost Cause myth. Funny thing about that, is the fact that the Union army was favored by as much as two to one, among white enlistees, in ALL of the border states. True enough, many of the elite in those states, were slave holding planters, and they did favor the CSA, and tried to push those states into secession.
The CSA tried to use military coercion with EVERY state and territory it bordered, including ones that were sympathetic, at least to a degree.
Jeff Davis personally approved the CSA's invasion of New Mexico, and Colorado territories, for the purpose of expanding the CSA's borders, AND seizing their mineral wealth. An unprovoked invasion of non-Southern territory, which was repulsed by the bravery of New Mexico, and Colorado volunteers.
Based on what? They had territorial governments, and voting citizens that chose NOT to be part of the CSA. They were willing to back that decision up, and resist the invading Confederates. That seems to indicate sovereignty.
New Mexico predates the USA as a territory, with an established government, and culture.
Can't invade your own country, but you can put down an unlawful rebellion. Exactly what Lincoln did...with the overwhelming support of the majority of American citizens.
If the CSA was right, why didn't more people choose to support it?
@UnionStatesHeritage Because the Population of the southern states was significantly lower than the union. (9mill versus 30mill). And if you want to use that logic than was George III right for fighting against the Colonies during the revolutionary war because it was unlawful?
Population distribution should have no bearing whatever on the argument. Supposedly, the CSA was fighting for states rights, to defend the Constitution, and to oppose a "tyrannical government". Lincoln ASKED the individual states and territories for support, and got it. That includes at least 120,000 white Southerners, and 180,000 black Southerners.
Any way you care to slice it, the American people made a clear, and overwhelming choice.
Population distribution has no bearing on the argument. The CSA was supposedly fighting to defend states rights, preserve the Constitution, and oppose a tyrannical government. Well, if that were the case, then it stands to reason that the majority of Americans would support the CSA, and the individual states and territories would refuse to send troops in support of the Lincoln government. That didn't happen. In fact, Lincoln went to the states and ASKED for their support...
...the majority of people throughout the nation, including at least 120,000 white Southerners, and 180,000 black Southerners assessed the situation and made a clear choice. Kind of strange that not one free state or territory chose to fight with the CSA.
You can slice it any way you like, and the fact is that the American people made a clear choice, and that choice was for the Union.
@UnionStatesHeritage Its also strange how not every slave holding state seceded either. And the CSA vice president proclaimed that any free states that wanted to secede could do so
@UnionStatesHeritage The invasion of East Tennessee was to gain lost land in battle, early in the war Tennessee was invaded by the north. And the New Mexico Campaign was to gain land towards California, and was one of the few invasions on Union soil by the CSA compared to the vast numbers of invasions by the Union.
Hmmm...that's funny. The citizens of East Tennessee voted to remain in the Union, before the war started. It was never part of the CSA to be reclaimed.
The CSA had no claim to it, IF you apply their own doctrine of Secession to THEM.
CSA invaded PA, NM, AZ, CO, KS, IN, OH, WV.
Once again...you can't invade your own country. The CSA was not recognized by the USA, the majority of American citizens, or any foreign power, that mattered.
OK, the US invaded VA, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, CSA AZ, CSA NM, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida. And they did so MANY MANY times. They invaded every state the CSA had control over. And when they did so they killed Women, Children, and even African Americans. They committed Genocide.
@BigSlimJimmy Yet again...You can't invade your own territory.
What part of that don't you get. The USA has a right to protect its territorial integrity, and did so with the overwhelming support of the American people.
@UnionStatesHeritage The South Seceded! They were their own country with civilians and a president and a congress and a house and a senate and a supreme court. They WERE THEIR OWN NATION and it doesnt matter who recognizes them or not. It's like Taiwan today they are their own country, just not completely recognized
@BigSlimJimmy Oh and by the way, I never said the CSA was a completely innocent and merciful, but I hate what the Union did, and I beleive in States rights and limited tariffs and taxes (*cough* the CSA)
CSA did NOT believe in those things, unless it applied to them. The South used federal power to crush states rights in the west, and used Federal taxation to fund their war of aggression against Mexico...the first war the South fought to preserve and expand slavery.
What the Union did, was uphold the Constitution, and the wishes of the majority of Americans. Because of it, the USA became the greatest nation in the world.
@BigSlimJimmy And to say the war was completely over slavery is ignorant. KGB says "The Civil War was a conflict over state versus federal rights, slavery was an issue, but secondary"
@UnionStatesHeritage OMG man, why cant you accept the fact that the CSA liked something other than slavery! And the CSA beleived that the Army should be federal funded, and that army would be made of state militias. And they had a WAR against mexico? WTF. And give me a specific example on how the CSA "Crushed" states rights!
@BigSlimJimmy the south believed in states rights only when they pertained to their "peculiar institution". The south nothing of sending slave catchers into northern states and violating their sovereignty. This not only violates the principle of states rights but it increased federal power to meddle in the affairs of states---which, I guess, was perfectly fine when allowing the south to recapture it's "property".
@rexlibris99 Yes, in a sense the Civil War was about states rights- that is the rights of northern states not to be subjected to southern slavery laws.
@rexlibris99 That would be a cogent, thoughtful and decisive analysis...but lacking any good sense, let me say you are full of garbage. How does a private party sending forth a slave catcher to retrieve legal chattle violate state's rights? Can you define what is "states' rights"? What was the legal definition of chattel as a result of the Dred Scott decision which was good law at the onset of the Civil War? You need to examine things in legal, logical and historical context before posting.
@Stallex I refer primarily to the Personal Liberty Laws enacted by several northern states to ensure that those hunted by slave catchers would be granted due process. Though such laws were declared unconstitutional, many believed that they fell within the sovereign right of any state. There is also the question, whether you care or not, of morality. Not every law is a good one. I would suggest that you mind your tongue....or leave. Your choice.
@rexlibris99 Personal liberty laws enacted by Northern states. Last I checked, Federal law preempted State law on the issue, so whatever the Yanks did was merely symbolic. Secondly, most laws involve a moral choice: sometimes intelligence must trump emotion and vice-versa, but that had nothing to do with your original argument which I addressed. The law of the land was the law of the land (which is my point) like it or not.
And give me a specific example on how the CSA "Crushed" states rights!
Huh? The instituted the draft and incorporated the Army of Tennessee into the Confederate Army - under General Bragg, who kept 10% of his Army in the rear to shoot any soldiers in front who might lag. Read the diary of Sam Watkins and how he felt when any soldiers whose family held slaves were released from active duty. The war was about slavery. Southern whites don't want to believe it, or Blacks either.
@BigSlimJimmy Confederate Army - under General Bragg, who kept 10% of his Army in the rear to shoot any soldiers in front who might lag. Read the diary of Sam Watkins and how he felt when any soldiers whose family held slaves were released from active duty. The war was about slavery. Southern whites don't want to believe it, or Blacks either.
@UnionStatesHeritage In fact, prior to the pro-slavery side claiming "states rights'" to SUPPORT slavery they had championed the supremacy of federal power when they demanded (especially south carolina) that the northern states be forced to enforce the fugitive slave act.
@BigSlimJimmy the Davis regime was a failure. European powers didn't recognize them primarily due to slavery and internal opposition. You can't just SAY you're a country and expect people to believe it. Sovereignty is either given or taken. The south wasn't lucky in either regard.
@UnionStatesHeritage winston county alabama and jones county mississippi both seceded from their states after their states seceded from the union and were forced back with military occupation and military impressment. funny how those states think they have the right to secede but their counties do not. the csa also invaded maryland and raided vermont through canada as well as MO, KY, and IL.
The name of the dance is the Confederate Two-Step. It's a hoot, how quickly Johnnies go from chanting the mantra of states rights, individual freedom, "Any people anywhere"...blah blah, to marching in lock step with imperialism, when those same principles are applied to the CSA.
My favorite response is when they hide behind the tenth amendment, then claim that secession is "unConstitutional when applied to groups of counties, and refer to Unionists as..."traitors".
@UnionStatesHeritage Where are the official statistics of how many people supported or opposed the CSA? And most northerners wanted to preserve the union, because a "House divided against itself cannot stand". It mattered on your viewpoint back in those times.
@UnionStatesHeritage ...And Lincoln had run a large campaign based on the idea of abolishing slavery, and when the southern states seceded, the rest of the country likely assumed they did for the reason for supporting slavery. The people back then did not get the facts they needed due to a national inquirer-estque newspaper.
The Cornerstone Speech, secession declarations of the seceded states, and other documents make it very clear why the South seceded.
One of my favorite quotes from a Southerner on why the South fought..."we fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...John Singleton Mosby
@UnionStatesHeritage Only 4 of the 11 official declarations of Secession stated slavery was an issue, among many other things. And my favorite quote from ulysses s grant... "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
@wolfencrow The Arizona territory settlers officially seceded and made their own provisional govt. and made themselves a territory of the CSA that was made a proclamation that was signed by Jeff Davis
Nope... a SEGMENT of the population that were Southern sympathizers took it upon themselves to declare the territory for the CSA. Same thing was tried in CO, NM, and Nevada.
Jeff Davis also signed the orders to send a military invasion to seize those territories by force. Same exact thing they claimed to be the victims OF.
The name of the dance is the Confederate Two-Step.
Once again...if states rights was the issue, why did the South try to force portions of Southern states, and western territories into the CSA at bayonet point?
What implications? The majority of individual states and territories sided with the Union. That means that the US government (the legitimate lawfully elected government) was acting in the interests of the American people, by arresting people who were aiding the enemy during a time of war. That is their job.
@UnionStatesHeritage Because (fact) southern sympathizers were thrown in jail in the North!!!!! And explain this, if the CSA loved slavery so much, why did %5 of southern citizens own slaves? Why was it acceptable to let free states (Like OK) join the CSA?
@BigSlimJimmy and Unionists were thrown in jail in the CSA and impressed into the army. East Tennessee was a Union stronghold and when they asked to be allowed to stay in the Union they received an occupying army. The percentage of southerners owning slaves is meaningless because those who did held political power and stifled reform. Oh, and Oklahoma didn't become a state until 1907.
"The CSA tried to use military coercion with EVERY state and territory it bordered..." -- as a reaction to the threat of force contained in bills like the Wilmot Proviso and the Leavenworth Constitution, and to intentional nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by border states. Slavery is evil, but let's not paint either side as crazed tyrants--doing that is what leads to Taiyama2's assumption that everyone was an "a**hole in some form". They were people like us, all in all no better or worse.
LOL...funny how a special interest group (slavers) who supposedly worshiped at the altar of states' rights use Federal power to advance their interests, then, get their panties in a wad, when states subjected to their tyranny, have the gall to defy Federal authority, and refuse to enforce those laws. Gotta love the Fugitive Slave Laws.
That same special interest used Federal power to nullify the popular vote of the citizens of Kansas.
Slavery was an abomination, as I said. The contentious issue happened to be regarding southern slavery, but it could as well have been over tariffs (which it partially was--e.g., Tariff of 1828) or numerous other causes. Also, the Free Soilers in Kansas were as violent as the Border Ruffians. If the only perspective you can see in the American Civil War is 'crazed tyrants', I dare say you've too invested in the matter to consider it objectively.
Official US revenue records show that Northern ports paid more than 90% of tariff revenue, at the time of the secession crisis. If it was about tariffs, why is that the only thing being discussed by secessionists at the time, was the protection of slave rights.
A Virginia recruitment poster urged men to enlist and 'fight the abolition foe'...not the tariff supporting foe.
I never claimed to be objective. People who create a nation founded on racialism and slavery, ARE crazed tyrants.
Then people who create a nation founded on Native American oppression "ARE crazed tyrants." You want to label slavers are tyrants, but forget the founding fathers were either slavers, or in support of wiping out the "native" resistance to westward expansion. This is not to say that slavers or supporters of Manifest Destiny were morally justified in their beliefs or practices--it is to say that if all you can see is crazed tyrants, you're too invested in the matter to consider it rationally.
@wolfencrow Only 5% of CSA citizens owned slaves. And the North were as racist as the south, Abe lincoln disapproved of interracial marriage laws. And the south paid 80% of the overall tax though they made up 30% of the pop.
@BigSlimJimmy even the confederate army was a sign of the despotism of the south. rich plantation owners like braxton bragg, or members of richmond high society like robert e. lee were commanders of the armies, while the poor backcountrymen did the fighting. the csa also did not recognize the rights of west virginia as a real state, showing hypocrisy.
@gobabygo90809 Lee wasn't picked because he was an aristocrat... Lee was picked because he was the foremost professional soldier in the United States (Lincoln and Davis both wanted his for Supreme Command)... besides the ancient Winifred Scott... and it is difficult to find an American general of the period less Aristocratic than Stonewall Jackson
The Wilmot Proviso proposed banning slavery in territories acquired from Mexico---where it had already been illegal. If slavery was an abomination, as you have said, then Personal Liberty Laws would not be a problem. The Leavenworth Constitution banned slavery, made no distinction to race in its Bill of Rights and had some provisions for the rights of women. It sounds more like they were on the wrong side of history.
"It sounds more like they were on the wrong side of history. " Indeed. I agree with you, both on moral and philosophical grounds. But we still need to understand the socio-economic triggers that lead to the cival war. The slave states felt that the proposed legislation was designed to preclude slavery from newly added territories and states, so they reacted accordingly (slavery being a major component in their generation of revenue).
Many people, everywhere (and in most ever instance, if we're honest), try to simplify major events in word history, by attributing them to a single cause or set of causes. In this particular instance, people want to attribute the entire cause of the Civil War to either states rights or to slavery. The reality is a bit more complicated. It was about *both*, as well as other issues. I agree with you on both moral and philosophical grounds, I just dislike what I see as over-simplifications.
If secession is a god given right why did the Davis regime forcibly retain Eastern Tennessee and send an army to keep it against the will of the citizens?
The Confederacy directly defied the limitations on the states in Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court later cited this section as why the Confederacy had no legal existence. It is really a very simple concept.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is of great consequence that no confederate was ever tried as a traitor regarding secession. They wanted to go after Jeff Davis but knew they would loose.
It is also of great consequence that Davis was bailed out of prison by prominent citizens of both the North and the South. The list included Horace Greeley and Gerrit Smith one of the "Secret Six".
Did the CSA constitution say that slavery was to be a permanent and perpetual entity or that it could not be ratified? No it did not. Was Lincoln an abolitionist? No he was not.
What part of ex post facto" did you not understand XD!!!! ugh...it was in plain writing right in front of you and you still argue against it...amazing. Yes, yes he was actually
Do you think that if the overwhelming majority of southerners wanted it changed that it would not happen? Nothing is written in stone. Without change all things die.
....uhhhh what part of "ex post facto law" did you not understand? It's SAYING that they can never say "We dont want it anymore" they can never AMEND to get rid of it, duh? Its in writing right infront of you and you still argue against it...for crying out loud. Why do I bother...plain english isn't good enough for us southern stubborn people it seems.
....uhhhh what part of "ex post facto law" did you not understand? It's SAYING that they can never say "We dont want it anymore" they can never AMEND to get rid of it, duh? Its in writing right infront of you and you still argue against it...for crying out loud. Why do I bother...plain english isn't good enough for us southern stubborn people it seems.
Actually, writing it on a document is the same thing as "Written in stone" and if the people you wanted call for change it would have led to a similar scandal as the civil rights movement and so on. To change what is written law and basically call the CSA constitution antiquated and old and to change itw ould require a massive movement cause thats basically like overthrowing ones government...so yeah it WAS written in stone. We've just evolved from picks and chizels to paper and pen
Actually you're young and have alot to learn about life. I remember when I was twenty years old and thought I knew it all. In a democracy the people are to rule. If the people decide that they want it changed either it would or they still had a right to seceed from that union to evoke this change. In this country if everyone had enough solidarity we could change anything about our constitution/gov't that we wish. The power lies with the people not their government. The 2nd amendment backs this.
I'm young? I'm 23 years old. I'm not spouting lies nor am I pretending to be 39 year old man named Thomas Jonathan Jackson...you're not "him". The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms and to form a well regulated militia. I agree a government is to the people and so did Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. Unilaterally, they cannot secede without permission and through proper channels...the same way a state is admitted to the union is the way the must leave it.
I've learned enough. I've learned enough to catch you wrong on multiple things so far..so that just goes to show that if "I have much to learn" that you need to learn that much more. If they wanted to change the CSA constitution they'd have to secede from that Confederacy...which is not a Union.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You just think your right. There has been debate over the civil war since it ended by notable scholars that have more education than you could possibly have at this time. Your inexperience is showing each time you say stupid shit like that.
Stupid shit? You're the one being tossed around being caught wrong time and again not just by me now it seems. As he said, watch who you call Yankee. I was born and raised in Texas and named after Robert E. Lee so watch yourself chum. Seccession is legal when its approved(Thats what most scholars agree), furtheremore, Lincoln is always at the top 3 of most loved US presidents as of right now he's number 2 behind George Washington. Even enemies can respect each other you inconsiderate jerk.
Incorrect, Secession seeks seperation from the current government a Revolution seeks to REPLACE an existing one. That is what we did in the Revo war not in the Civil one
Yes,yes!And our putin-little despot!Pozor!
Bruno47602 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
This version is good, but it left out a few verses of the song that I really like:
"They'll find what by felling and mauling, our railmaker statesman can do.
For people everywhere are calling, for Lincoln and Liberty too
and
"Our David's good sling is unerring. The slavocrat's giant he slew.
Then shout for the freedom preferring. For Lincoln and Liberty too.
TheStapleGunKid 1 month ago
Lincoln is a my personal Hero!!!
Filohippo2 4 months ago
Down with the power of despots wherewere their stronghold may be!!!!
Filohippo2 4 months ago in playlist Preferiti di Filohippo2
One thing is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. The war wasn't even 'over slavery' until 1863. He wanted to send them all overseas after emancipation
comradeshow 6 months ago
@comradeshow you actually researched it? At least some one thinks for themselves, good job.
REALbigWHITEdog 6 months ago
@comradeshow Go read up on the Lincoln and Douglas debates then get back to me if you still think the war was not about slavery. Good Lord what the &%#@. Have none of you read a history book? If slavery is not evil then nothing can be evil.
bockmaker 6 months ago
@bockmaker slavery was evil and perhaps God punished this nation with the war because of it. I fight as a Confederate soldier in reenacting, not a Confederate politician. It is impossible to deny that slavery was the major cause of secession-but it was not the reason the average soldier fought. The poor southern farmer was a stubborn southern man who was fighting to stop an invasion. That is apparent. Very few Confederate soldiers owned slaves
comradeshow 6 months ago 2
@comradeshow
This is not true.
South only wants its slaves.
Not freedom.
Filohippo2 4 months ago
I have no doubt slavery was the main cause of war, but southern soldiers largely were not slave owners and were the victims of slavery as well. They were fighting for their homes even though their politicians were fighting for slavery. Union was largely same way. But Lincoln was ridiculous sorry.
comradeshow 4 months ago
@comradeshow The important thing was that the Richmond regime wanted slavery. They resisted thoughts of emancipation, even to help fill the army, until late 1865. Talk about ridiculous.
rexlibris99 4 months ago
i'm a Confederate reenactor, but this song is still cool.
comradeshow 6 months ago
Well!!!Lincoln Grand!!!
Bruno47602 7 months ago
Interesting look to the American flag at 1:03. 31 stars: ten stars rotating around 21 stars clustered into a pentagon shape.
TheDapperdan75 7 months ago
nice - the greatest president had the greatest campaign tune!
philipheubeck 9 months ago
Ah yes. That was back in the day when the Republican party actually made sense. Of course now it doesn't.
richd506 9 months ago 2
JohnnyCBCS replied to me on here but I can't find the comment. He said the confederacy was of by and for the people. Pure revisionism. The confederacy saw itself as the last defense of aristocratic privilege against the "mob" of democracy. That's how all sides saw the war, that's why aristocratic Britain was so sympathetic. The common southern justification for slavery was that civilization required that some men become aristocrats and own others.
tj2tone 1 year ago 4
@tj2tone I should also add, it's quite likely the majority in the confederate states, I mean the majority of white adult males did not support it. Entire subregions of the south were treated as POWs and the confederacy had to institute a system of internal passports to stop the complete disintegration of their armed forces.
tj2tone 1 year ago
The CSa stopped several sections from staying withtin the union. Only W Va suceeeded.
Thx1138d 10 months ago
@tj2tone France was more sympathetic than Britain. The British Government was sometimes sympathetic to Confederate aims... but Queen Victoria and the British public would not have stood for the support of Slavery. Napoleon III wanted the Confederacy to win... but mainly because he wanted Mexico
ajferet 7 months ago
@ajferet And yet...most of the Confederate rifles were made in...ENGLAND. Of course, they also sold arms to the Union army...so, England was really an equal opportunity profiteer.
TheJDeaux 6 months ago
@TheJDeaux You mistake the position of British arms merchants and shipyards vs. the interest of Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office.The F.O. and the Crown would have preferred a drawn out war (to Protect the interest of the Crown in Canada and to create a British cotton monoply), while Victoria herself would have preferred a short, victorious war by Mr. Lincoln. (The Queen herself was personally opposed to slavery)
ajferet 6 months ago
@ajferet I apologize if my post was...inaccurate? Perhaps imprecise is the better word. I did not mean to infer that the Queen Herself was interested in a drawn out Civil War in America. I assumed that any reasonable person would know that to think the ruler of any nation ruled absolutely was at best naiive. In fact, I never even mentioned Victioria, and you actually validated my post with the rest of your own post (Ya made my point for me, dude.)
TheJDeaux 5 months ago
@ajferet much of the british lower class supported the union because of opposition to slavery being mainstream at the time, and it is true that the queen shared this belief, but much of the british aristocracy saw an oppurtunity for profits in a southern victory because of the cotton trade becoming monopolized by the nation that helped the south, as well as a chance for war profiteering by selling arms to a needy buyer like the confederacy
mackshayster 4 months ago in playlist Union Civil War Songs
15 wanna be slave rapers watched this video
tj2tone 1 year ago
UP WITH THE BANNER SO GLORIOUS!!
tj2tone 1 year ago 3
Is there a lyric?
I'm unable to found it!
Filohippo2 1 year ago
Hey, everyone who prattles on about "Deo Vindice" and whatever else it is.....
YOU LOST! Get over it!
HGM1138 1 year ago 3
@HGM1138 The South was subjected to a military conquest in which hundreds of thousands of it's citizens were killed, equal to more than 20% of it's population. Those like you who have audacity to say "get over it" to us Southrons would never say the same to Jews regarding the Holocaust, or Russians regarding the Nazi invasion of their country. Yet you single us out because you think that you are in a morally superior position. Those who support invasions, like you, always seek to justify them.
texconfed 1 year ago
@texconfed A government is not an invader when it seeks to suppress an uprising within it's own territory. There were bad things on each side. As a native of Lawrence, Kansas I get sick and tired of Quantrill glorification. East Tennessee sought to leave the Confederacy and remain in the Union. They got an occupying army.
rexlibris99 1 year ago 4
@texconfed Dude, the South seceded because Lincoln wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery into the territories. Whether or not slavery was constitutional according to the Dred-Scott decision is in my mind irrelevant. Slavery was and is morally wrong and even if the CSA had been recognized by Washington, London and Paris as a sovereign political entity, someone should've invaded your asses to end slavery anyways. You ignorant schmuck.
With love,
From Canada.
RealMarcusAurelius 1 year ago
@texconfed Dude, the south seceded because Lincoln wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery into the territories. Whether or not this was unconstitutional according to the Dred-Scott decision is in my mind, irrelevant. Even if Washington, London and Paris recognized the CSA as a sovereign political entity the fact remains: slavery is morally wrong and someone should've invaded your asses to abolish it anyways. The death of 483, 026 confederate troops is your own damn fault...accept it.
RealMarcusAurelius 1 year ago 3
@texconfed They were not a separate country. They had freely consented to the Union and dominated American national politics for decades. When they lost a completely free and fair election to an abolitionist, and couldn't get their way anymore they tried to run away like spoiled children. The settlement after the war that the Union gave the traitors was perhaps the most lenient in history, and yet still you whine.
tj2tone 1 year ago 2
@tj2tone In truth, Lincoln was planning even more lenient stuff. Until Mr. Booth decided Lincoln was the worst thing for the south and put a bullet in his head.
If Abe had lived, there would not have been a period of military occupation and rule in the South. So... yeah... thats what happens when you let hate blind you - you screw your conquered country even more royally.
FieryCheeze 1 year ago 2
@tj2tone these "traitors" were the government for the people and by the people in the South, democratically supported by the populace. Also, they were Americans, and in order for them to be reintegrated into the USA, there had to be no harsh settlement
JohnnyCBCS 1 year ago
@JohnnyCBCS "We prefer to remain attached to the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States has passed no law to oppress us. The President of the United States has made no threat against the law-abiding people of Tennessee." The Eastern Tennessee Declaration of Grievances articulated the feelings of that heavily Unionist portion of the state. "The government of the People" occupied them.
rexlibris99 1 year ago
@texconfed: People shouldn't start things they can't finish. If the CSA hadn't fired on Sumter, there would have been no war. All the secessionist needed to do was engage ina reasoned negotiation over terms of seperation. Refusing to do this, acting UNILATERALLY & alienating the common property of all the states, the was objectively the aggressor. The goal was to take Western Territory, a war necessary to expand slavery. This the real cause of the war.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto no, if Lincoln hadn't been such a warmonger, there would've been no war. Better yet, if he hadn't got elected, there would've been no war. You talk about negotiation, read about the Critteden Compromise that Lincoln refuted, it was a compromise for Union, not separation. Lincoln could have NOT called for troops after Sumter, in which case VIRGINIA and TENNESSEE would not have seceded. So don't blame the war on the South, you're making a terrible mistake.
JohnnyCBCS 1 year ago
@JohnnyCBCS Crittenden was hardly a compromise for Union but an attempt to stave off war by caving in to the Slave Power. If State's Rights" is such a big deal, it would acted AGAINST them by limiting the rights of Northern rights in favor of slave holders. I assume you think that would have been a good thing. The war was driven by slavery, pure and simple.
rexlibris99 1 year ago
@rexlibris99 "by limiting the rights of Northern rights", huh? Nothing could have limited Northern rights in 1860, as they had all the industry, twice the population, and yes, were better developed agriculturally (cotton was the only crop where the South was leading). And yes, I think letting slavery die on its own, which would have happened by the early 20th century is by far better than sending 620 thousand people to death, destroying property and leaving a scar on the nation. Shame on Lincoln
JohnnyCBCS 1 year ago
@JohnnyCBCS As I noted earlier, Southern states were quick to trample on "states rights when it came to enforcing the Fugitive Slave laws. The North developed rapidly because they industrialized which the South failed to do until after the war. "What if's" are fun but no one knows if slavery would have died out by 1900 or so---I doubt it. Shame on Dixie.
rexlibris99 1 year ago 2
@rexlibris99 what if's are actually critical when you talk about 620,000 young people dying, especially since they were Americans on both sides, and in a lot of cases friends were fighting friends (Armistead vs. Hancock at Gettysburg, for example). The Northern Americans should have thought "WHAT IF we don't elect secession and war" back in 1860, but everyone was too arrogant to realize what war really meant. And once again, that war could have never happened.
JohnnyCBCS 1 year ago
@JohnnyCBCS Southern Americans could also have thought "What if we tone down the rhetoric and actually wait to see what Lincoln will do" instead of seceding. Both sides largely failed to see what the war meant. Sherman did and people called him crazy. Every war ever fought could have been avoided.
rexlibris99 1 year ago 2
@JohnnyCBCS "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860. Yeah, sounds like they'd give it up quietly.
rexlibris99 1 year ago 2
@rexlibris99 you know, NOWADAYS African slavery would have been absolutely useless for at least 70 years, since in the 1940s all the cotton was processed by combines, which plow, separate the seeds and organize it in bales while someone simply drives them across the field. Even before that, there had been certain improvements on the cotton processing, making slave labor less and less useful. So if the politicians had been calm enough, there would have been no slavery AT ALL by the 1940s
JohnnyCBCS 1 year ago
@JohnnyCBCS What you forget is the amount of money invested in slaves and the perception, warranted, of Northern interference by abolitionists. Slavery was lucrative to powerful interests that didn't necessarily act in the region's best interests. They would not give up slaves peacefully. Also, I read of no attempt at compensated emancipation after Virginia voted it down in the early 1830s.
rexlibris99 1 year ago 2
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
-Abraham Lincoln
March 4, 1865
senialgoat6789 1 year ago 2
Please stop trying to pigeon hole the entire Civil War. It was not fought through sound bites and verbal jabs, nor was it simply over the peculiar institution of slavery. There were several issues that had been building since 1820 and just as today the politics in Washington played a major role in the choices being made
escoffier12 1 year ago
The song was written for the 1860 campaign so yes, it was indeed propaganda of a sort. As for the Declaration of Independence, I seem to recall that it said that all men were created equal. I suppose Ole Massa didn't want to give up being more equal? "A government best suited to protect their liberties" What about East Tennessee?
rexlibris99 1 year ago 15
@rexlibris99 And West Virginia:)
biancademonet 1 year ago
What a great song! About a great man!
Lincoln fought for liberty, for ALL against the British covert attempt to split America.
unserdeutschland 1 year ago
Great vid again, you never cease to amaze me. DOWN WITH THE SOUTH. UP WITH FREEDOM!
Mr19thIndiana 1 year ago 3
The Fact of the Matter is that people (including me) must except some people fought in the Civil War due to slavery, and some fought because of State v.s. Federal Rights. I personally believe that it was fought mostly due to State vs Federal rights, and I look up to Southerners who donated to colored schools in the south like Stonewall Jackson. Abe was a good man considering he freed slaves, but what he believed in politically, like more Federal Rights, I disagree with.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigSlimJimmy, Well, state's rights, eh? How about you look up the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States? State's rights are in there. The thing you'll notice is that the southern states claim the northern states were exercising "rights" they didn't have--to ignore the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution. That is, the southern states were claiming that the Constitution obliged northern states to return escaping slaves to owners, and northern states weren't doing this.
HadleyIves 1 year ago
Ronnie Gilbert is a great singer. Why is everyone trying to tell me the CSA didnt like or did like slavery? I think I will think what I want and I dont give a shit what you are trying to tell me
washingtonboy09 1 year ago
I first heard this on WEOS FM's "The Nobody Show", forerunner of something called "The Homelessness Marathon".
mowgli2071 1 year ago
good job! I wish I knew who some of the officers were, though.
hellojanelle 2 years ago
Grant, Sherman and Thomas in that order. Lewis Douglass, the son of Frederick Douglass, who served in the 54th Massachusetts is there along with two unidentified African-American enlisted men.
rexlibris99 2 years ago
Its the same tune as an irish confederate song, i don't hear fight for uncle sam, but i might be wrong. the confederate song is song of kelly's irish brigade.
FeSo4man 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lincoln and Liberty. Doesn't that title contradict itself? Regardless, I still like the tune!
SouthCountry10 2 years ago
@SouthCountry10: No, the title doesn't contradict itself since it is an anti-slavery song and Lincoln was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the abolition candidate.
rexlibris99 2 years ago
@rexlibris99
The title wouldn't contradict itself either way because it indicates that the subject is Lincoln and liberty, it doesn't claim Lincoln to be related to liberty in a good or a bad way.
Mirkwoodelves 1 year ago
Air is from "Eoghan Coir" written by Riocard Bairéad, a United Irishman who fought in the 1798 rebellion, the tune is still well known in Ireland for being set to "The Men of the West",
Uptoyourfacelads 2 years ago
Come on now men, our ancestors would be really disappointed that we still bicker and argue for something that probably the average soldier on both sides wanted to be over. I'm sure they wanted peace for us, so let all of us be brothers, American brothers!
Ineededanaccount0 2 years ago 4
hear hear!!
bullyboy1863 2 years ago
What picks me up most about this song is hearing the ideals that were espoused so far back in history, a time when I pretty much thought that just about everyone was a racist a**hole in some form, whether it went as far as enslaving minorities or just treating them as second-class citizens. Guess I was too quick to profile my ancestors. "We'll finish the temple of Freedom, and make it capacious within, that all who seek shelter may find it whatever the hue of their skin." is my favorite part.
Taiyama2 2 years ago 3
The melody is from ye'ole Irish song - Róisin The Bow
LordCornwallis1776 2 years ago
Just enjoy the music yeeeehaaaa!
2big4TX 3 years ago
Another Lost Cause myth. Funny thing about that, is the fact that the Union army was favored by as much as two to one, among white enlistees, in ALL of the border states. True enough, many of the elite in those states, were slave holding planters, and they did favor the CSA, and tried to push those states into secession.
The CSA tried to use military coercion with EVERY state and territory it bordered, including ones that were sympathetic, at least to a degree.
wolfencrow 3 years ago 18
Jeff Davis personally approved the CSA's invasion of New Mexico, and Colorado territories, for the purpose of expanding the CSA's borders, AND seizing their mineral wealth. An unprovoked invasion of non-Southern territory, which was repulsed by the bravery of New Mexico, and Colorado volunteers.
wolfencrow 3 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, yes and no...
---
Unlike Maryland and PA, those territories were not sovereign in any case...
ajferet 3 years ago
Sovereign territories in this war consisted solely of the United States. Thats it.
rexlibris99 3 years ago
Based on what? They had territorial governments, and voting citizens that chose NOT to be part of the CSA. They were willing to back that decision up, and resist the invading Confederates. That seems to indicate sovereignty.
New Mexico predates the USA as a territory, with an established government, and culture.
wolfencrow 3 years ago 13
@wolfencrow Just like the Louisiana Purchase and Jefferson? And lincoln's invasion of the CSA
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Can't invade your own country, but you can put down an unlawful rebellion. Exactly what Lincoln did...with the overwhelming support of the majority of American citizens.
If the CSA was right, why didn't more people choose to support it?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Because the Population of the southern states was significantly lower than the union. (9mill versus 30mill). And if you want to use that logic than was George III right for fighting against the Colonies during the revolutionary war because it was unlawful?
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Population distribution should have no bearing whatever on the argument. Supposedly, the CSA was fighting for states rights, to defend the Constitution, and to oppose a "tyrannical government". Lincoln ASKED the individual states and territories for support, and got it. That includes at least 120,000 white Southerners, and 180,000 black Southerners.
Any way you care to slice it, the American people made a clear, and overwhelming choice.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Population distribution has no bearing on the argument. The CSA was supposedly fighting to defend states rights, preserve the Constitution, and oppose a tyrannical government. Well, if that were the case, then it stands to reason that the majority of Americans would support the CSA, and the individual states and territories would refuse to send troops in support of the Lincoln government. That didn't happen. In fact, Lincoln went to the states and ASKED for their support...
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage
...the majority of people throughout the nation, including at least 120,000 white Southerners, and 180,000 black Southerners assessed the situation and made a clear choice. Kind of strange that not one free state or territory chose to fight with the CSA.
You can slice it any way you like, and the fact is that the American people made a clear choice, and that choice was for the Union.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Its also strange how not every slave holding state seceded either. And the CSA vice president proclaimed that any free states that wanted to secede could do so
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
The slave holding states that remained in the Union, were states where the institution was already in the process of dying out.
Really? then explain the New Mexico Campaign, and the deliberate invasion of East Tennesee.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage The invasion of East Tennessee was to gain lost land in battle, early in the war Tennessee was invaded by the north. And the New Mexico Campaign was to gain land towards California, and was one of the few invasions on Union soil by the CSA compared to the vast numbers of invasions by the Union.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Hmmm...that's funny. The citizens of East Tennessee voted to remain in the Union, before the war started. It was never part of the CSA to be reclaimed.
The CSA had no claim to it, IF you apply their own doctrine of Secession to THEM.
CSA invaded PA, NM, AZ, CO, KS, IN, OH, WV.
Once again...you can't invade your own country. The CSA was not recognized by the USA, the majority of American citizens, or any foreign power, that mattered.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
OK, the US invaded VA, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, CSA AZ, CSA NM, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida. And they did so MANY MANY times. They invaded every state the CSA had control over. And when they did so they killed Women, Children, and even African Americans. They committed Genocide.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy Yet again...You can't invade your own territory.
What part of that don't you get. The USA has a right to protect its territorial integrity, and did so with the overwhelming support of the American people.
Where is the proof of genocide against the South?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage The South Seceded! They were their own country with civilians and a president and a congress and a house and a senate and a supreme court. They WERE THEIR OWN NATION and it doesnt matter who recognizes them or not. It's like Taiwan today they are their own country, just not completely recognized
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy Oh and by the way, I never said the CSA was a completely innocent and merciful, but I hate what the Union did, and I beleive in States rights and limited tariffs and taxes (*cough* the CSA)
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
CSA did NOT believe in those things, unless it applied to them. The South used federal power to crush states rights in the west, and used Federal taxation to fund their war of aggression against Mexico...the first war the South fought to preserve and expand slavery.
What the Union did, was uphold the Constitution, and the wishes of the majority of Americans. Because of it, the USA became the greatest nation in the world.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy And to say the war was completely over slavery is ignorant. KGB says "The Civil War was a conflict over state versus federal rights, slavery was an issue, but secondary"
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
LOL...Slavery WAS the states rights issue.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage OMG man, why cant you accept the fact that the CSA liked something other than slavery! And the CSA beleived that the Army should be federal funded, and that army would be made of state militias. And they had a WAR against mexico? WTF. And give me a specific example on how the CSA "Crushed" states rights!
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy the south believed in states rights only when they pertained to their "peculiar institution". The south nothing of sending slave catchers into northern states and violating their sovereignty. This not only violates the principle of states rights but it increased federal power to meddle in the affairs of states---which, I guess, was perfectly fine when allowing the south to recapture it's "property".
rexlibris99 1 year ago 26
@rexlibris99 Yes, in a sense the Civil War was about states rights- that is the rights of northern states not to be subjected to southern slavery laws.
tj2tone 1 year ago 3
@rexlibris99 That would be a cogent, thoughtful and decisive analysis...but lacking any good sense, let me say you are full of garbage. How does a private party sending forth a slave catcher to retrieve legal chattle violate state's rights? Can you define what is "states' rights"? What was the legal definition of chattel as a result of the Dred Scott decision which was good law at the onset of the Civil War? You need to examine things in legal, logical and historical context before posting.
Stallex 3 months ago
@Stallex I refer primarily to the Personal Liberty Laws enacted by several northern states to ensure that those hunted by slave catchers would be granted due process. Though such laws were declared unconstitutional, many believed that they fell within the sovereign right of any state. There is also the question, whether you care or not, of morality. Not every law is a good one. I would suggest that you mind your tongue....or leave. Your choice.
rexlibris99 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rexlibris99 Personal liberty laws enacted by Northern states. Last I checked, Federal law preempted State law on the issue, so whatever the Yanks did was merely symbolic. Secondly, most laws involve a moral choice: sometimes intelligence must trump emotion and vice-versa, but that had nothing to do with your original argument which I addressed. The law of the land was the law of the land (which is my point) like it or not.
Stallex 3 months ago
@BigSlimJimmy
And give me a specific example on how the CSA "Crushed" states rights!
Huh? The instituted the draft and incorporated the Army of Tennessee into the Confederate Army - under General Bragg, who kept 10% of his Army in the rear to shoot any soldiers in front who might lag. Read the diary of Sam Watkins and how he felt when any soldiers whose family held slaves were released from active duty. The war was about slavery. Southern whites don't want to believe it, or Blacks either.
mikehvar 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy Confederate Army - under General Bragg, who kept 10% of his Army in the rear to shoot any soldiers in front who might lag. Read the diary of Sam Watkins and how he felt when any soldiers whose family held slaves were released from active duty. The war was about slavery. Southern whites don't want to believe it, or Blacks either.
mikehvar 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage In fact, prior to the pro-slavery side claiming "states rights'" to SUPPORT slavery they had championed the supremacy of federal power when they demanded (especially south carolina) that the northern states be forced to enforce the fugitive slave act.
mowgli2071 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy the Davis regime was a failure. European powers didn't recognize them primarily due to slavery and internal opposition. You can't just SAY you're a country and expect people to believe it. Sovereignty is either given or taken. The south wasn't lucky in either regard.
rexlibris99 1 year ago
@rexlibris99 you are right, my mistake, i still beleive the csa had a right to be a separate nation, though it is not in the constitution
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage winston county alabama and jones county mississippi both seceded from their states after their states seceded from the union and were forced back with military occupation and military impressment. funny how those states think they have the right to secede but their counties do not. the csa also invaded maryland and raided vermont through canada as well as MO, KY, and IL.
gobabygo90809 1 year ago
@gobabygo90809
The name of the dance is the Confederate Two-Step. It's a hoot, how quickly Johnnies go from chanting the mantra of states rights, individual freedom, "Any people anywhere"...blah blah, to marching in lock step with imperialism, when those same principles are applied to the CSA.
My favorite response is when they hide behind the tenth amendment, then claim that secession is "unConstitutional when applied to groups of counties, and refer to Unionists as..."traitors".
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy what about the invasions of kentucky, maryland, and pennsylvania
gobabygo90809 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Where are the official statistics of how many people supported or opposed the CSA? And most northerners wanted to preserve the union, because a "House divided against itself cannot stand". It mattered on your viewpoint back in those times.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Enlistment records.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage ...And Lincoln had run a large campaign based on the idea of abolishing slavery, and when the southern states seceded, the rest of the country likely assumed they did for the reason for supporting slavery. The people back then did not get the facts they needed due to a national inquirer-estque newspaper.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
The Cornerstone Speech, secession declarations of the seceded states, and other documents make it very clear why the South seceded.
One of my favorite quotes from a Southerner on why the South fought..."we fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...John Singleton Mosby
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Only 4 of the 11 official declarations of Secession stated slavery was an issue, among many other things. And my favorite quote from ulysses s grant... "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
"Among many other things"...what things?
The Grant quote is bogus. The only source for that quote was one of Grant's political enemies, used to discredit him during an election.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@wolfencrow The Arizona territory settlers officially seceded and made their own provisional govt. and made themselves a territory of the CSA that was made a proclamation that was signed by Jeff Davis
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Nope... a SEGMENT of the population that were Southern sympathizers took it upon themselves to declare the territory for the CSA. Same thing was tried in CO, NM, and Nevada.
Jeff Davis also signed the orders to send a military invasion to seize those territories by force. Same exact thing they claimed to be the victims OF.
The name of the dance is the Confederate Two-Step.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage $100 says if you text KGB they will say the Civil War was about slavery. Text "Was the Civil War over slavery or states rights?"
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Once again...if states rights was the issue, why did the South try to force portions of Southern states, and western territories into the CSA at bayonet point?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
Why did the US force the same implications on their own states and throw Southern Sympathizers in Jail?
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
What implications? The majority of individual states and territories sided with the Union. That means that the US government (the legitimate lawfully elected government) was acting in the interests of the American people, by arresting people who were aiding the enemy during a time of war. That is their job.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage The Southern Sympathizers in the North Were thrown in jail.
They wanted civilians to side with them.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy
Funny how the majority of those civilians failed to see their side of it, and joined the Union Army.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 year ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Because (fact) southern sympathizers were thrown in jail in the North!!!!! And explain this, if the CSA loved slavery so much, why did %5 of southern citizens own slaves? Why was it acceptable to let free states (Like OK) join the CSA?
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy and Unionists were thrown in jail in the CSA and impressed into the army. East Tennessee was a Union stronghold and when they asked to be allowed to stay in the Union they received an occupying army. The percentage of southerners owning slaves is meaningless because those who did held political power and stifled reform. Oh, and Oklahoma didn't become a state until 1907.
rexlibris99 1 year ago
@rexlibris99 I was referring to OK the territory that was claimed by both sides (basically) but it was free
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy Sorry i meant to say "About States rights"
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
"The CSA tried to use military coercion with EVERY state and territory it bordered..." -- as a reaction to the threat of force contained in bills like the Wilmot Proviso and the Leavenworth Constitution, and to intentional nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by border states. Slavery is evil, but let's not paint either side as crazed tyrants--doing that is what leads to Taiyama2's assumption that everyone was an "a**hole in some form". They were people like us, all in all no better or worse.
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago
LOL...funny how a special interest group (slavers) who supposedly worshiped at the altar of states' rights use Federal power to advance their interests, then, get their panties in a wad, when states subjected to their tyranny, have the gall to defy Federal authority, and refuse to enforce those laws. Gotta love the Fugitive Slave Laws.
That same special interest used Federal power to nullify the popular vote of the citizens of Kansas.
wolfencrow 2 years ago 4
Have you ever researched the experience of Southern Unionists, or dissenters during the Secession Crisis, and the war itself?
How 'bout four MILLION slaves consigned to permanent bondage by the CSA's Constitution?
I'd say 'crazed tyrants' about covers it.
wolfencrow 2 years ago
Colorado and New Mexico were in no way threatening the CSA. Kentucky initially declared their neutrality, which the CSA refused to honor.
wolfencrow 2 years ago
Slavery was an abomination, as I said. The contentious issue happened to be regarding southern slavery, but it could as well have been over tariffs (which it partially was--e.g., Tariff of 1828) or numerous other causes. Also, the Free Soilers in Kansas were as violent as the Border Ruffians. If the only perspective you can see in the American Civil War is 'crazed tyrants', I dare say you've too invested in the matter to consider it objectively.
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago
Official US revenue records show that Northern ports paid more than 90% of tariff revenue, at the time of the secession crisis. If it was about tariffs, why is that the only thing being discussed by secessionists at the time, was the protection of slave rights.
A Virginia recruitment poster urged men to enlist and 'fight the abolition foe'...not the tariff supporting foe.
I never claimed to be objective. People who create a nation founded on racialism and slavery, ARE crazed tyrants.
wolfencrow 2 years ago 5
Then people who create a nation founded on Native American oppression "ARE crazed tyrants." You want to label slavers are tyrants, but forget the founding fathers were either slavers, or in support of wiping out the "native" resistance to westward expansion. This is not to say that slavers or supporters of Manifest Destiny were morally justified in their beliefs or practices--it is to say that if all you can see is crazed tyrants, you're too invested in the matter to consider it rationally.
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago 2
Tariff was indeed a motivating factor. It was not the main issue being stumped, but it was an actual, socio-political factor leading up the to war.
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago
@wolfencrow Only 5% of CSA citizens owned slaves. And the North were as racist as the south, Abe lincoln disapproved of interracial marriage laws. And the south paid 80% of the overall tax though they made up 30% of the pop.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago
@BigSlimJimmy even the confederate army was a sign of the despotism of the south. rich plantation owners like braxton bragg, or members of richmond high society like robert e. lee were commanders of the armies, while the poor backcountrymen did the fighting. the csa also did not recognize the rights of west virginia as a real state, showing hypocrisy.
gobabygo90809 1 year ago 2
@gobabygo90809 Lee wasn't picked because he was an aristocrat... Lee was picked because he was the foremost professional soldier in the United States (Lincoln and Davis both wanted his for Supreme Command)... besides the ancient Winifred Scott... and it is difficult to find an American general of the period less Aristocratic than Stonewall Jackson
ajferet 7 months ago
The Wilmot Proviso proposed banning slavery in territories acquired from Mexico---where it had already been illegal. If slavery was an abomination, as you have said, then Personal Liberty Laws would not be a problem. The Leavenworth Constitution banned slavery, made no distinction to race in its Bill of Rights and had some provisions for the rights of women. It sounds more like they were on the wrong side of history.
rexlibris99 2 years ago
"It sounds more like they were on the wrong side of history. " Indeed. I agree with you, both on moral and philosophical grounds. But we still need to understand the socio-economic triggers that lead to the cival war. The slave states felt that the proposed legislation was designed to preclude slavery from newly added territories and states, so they reacted accordingly (slavery being a major component in their generation of revenue).
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago
Yet so many on youtube insist that A) slavery had to do with secession and B) the institution was disappearing.
rexlibris99 2 years ago
Many people, everywhere (and in most ever instance, if we're honest), try to simplify major events in word history, by attributing them to a single cause or set of causes. In this particular instance, people want to attribute the entire cause of the Civil War to either states rights or to slavery. The reality is a bit more complicated. It was about *both*, as well as other issues. I agree with you on both moral and philosophical grounds, I just dislike what I see as over-simplifications.
HazeTheVenomousMist 2 years ago
No, the cause of the Civil war was not complicated. True -- anything a million people do, not everyone has the same motivation.
The South said very clearly what the issue was - slavery. Not states rights - the south hated states rights when it meant less slave pussy and profit.
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
Love it!
slappy6817 3 years ago 2
Love this song, thanks for posting it!
rachel1865 3 years ago 2
But since it is a "god given right" shouldn't the Davis regime have honored it?
I'm a Kansan and therefore not a Yankee. You'd be wise to moderate your language.
rexlibris99 3 years ago
If secession is a god given right why did the Davis regime forcibly retain Eastern Tennessee and send an army to keep it against the will of the citizens?
rexlibris99 3 years ago
The Confederacy directly defied the limitations on the states in Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court later cited this section as why the Confederacy had no legal existence. It is really a very simple concept.
rexlibris99 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is of great consequence that no confederate was ever tried as a traitor regarding secession. They wanted to go after Jeff Davis but knew they would loose.
armyofNorthVirginia 3 years ago
It is also of great consequence that Davis was bailed out of prison by prominent citizens of both the North and the South. The list included Horace Greeley and Gerrit Smith one of the "Secret Six".
rexlibris99 3 years ago
Well, looks like I got no response...finally a victory that can't be argued upon when fact is thrown at you in writing...JUSTICE!!
robidius 3 years ago
Freedom Prevails! Thumbs up Soldier!
robidius 3 years ago
Did the CSA constitution say that slavery was to be a permanent and perpetual entity or that it could not be ratified? No it did not. Was Lincoln an abolitionist? No he was not.
armyofNorthVirginia 3 years ago
What part of ex post facto" did you not understand XD!!!! ugh...it was in plain writing right in front of you and you still argue against it...amazing. Yes, yes he was actually
robidius 3 years ago
Do you think that if the overwhelming majority of southerners wanted it changed that it would not happen? Nothing is written in stone. Without change all things die.
armyofNorthVirginia 3 years ago
....uhhhh what part of "ex post facto law" did you not understand? It's SAYING that they can never say "We dont want it anymore" they can never AMEND to get rid of it, duh? Its in writing right infront of you and you still argue against it...for crying out loud. Why do I bother...plain english isn't good enough for us southern stubborn people it seems.
robidius 3 years ago
....uhhhh what part of "ex post facto law" did you not understand? It's SAYING that they can never say "We dont want it anymore" they can never AMEND to get rid of it, duh? Its in writing right infront of you and you still argue against it...for crying out loud. Why do I bother...plain english isn't good enough for us southern stubborn people it seems.
robidius 3 years ago
Actually, writing it on a document is the same thing as "Written in stone" and if the people you wanted call for change it would have led to a similar scandal as the civil rights movement and so on. To change what is written law and basically call the CSA constitution antiquated and old and to change itw ould require a massive movement cause thats basically like overthrowing ones government...so yeah it WAS written in stone. We've just evolved from picks and chizels to paper and pen
robidius 3 years ago
Actually you're young and have alot to learn about life. I remember when I was twenty years old and thought I knew it all. In a democracy the people are to rule. If the people decide that they want it changed either it would or they still had a right to seceed from that union to evoke this change. In this country if everyone had enough solidarity we could change anything about our constitution/gov't that we wish. The power lies with the people not their government. The 2nd amendment backs this.
armyofNorthVirginia 3 years ago
I'm young? I'm 23 years old. I'm not spouting lies nor am I pretending to be 39 year old man named Thomas Jonathan Jackson...you're not "him". The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms and to form a well regulated militia. I agree a government is to the people and so did Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. Unilaterally, they cannot secede without permission and through proper channels...the same way a state is admitted to the union is the way the must leave it.
robidius 3 years ago 3
I've learned enough. I've learned enough to catch you wrong on multiple things so far..so that just goes to show that if "I have much to learn" that you need to learn that much more. If they wanted to change the CSA constitution they'd have to secede from that Confederacy...which is not a Union.
robidius 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You just think your right. There has been debate over the civil war since it ended by notable scholars that have more education than you could possibly have at this time. Your inexperience is showing each time you say stupid shit like that.
armyofNorthVirginia 3 years ago
Stupid shit? You're the one being tossed around being caught wrong time and again not just by me now it seems. As he said, watch who you call Yankee. I was born and raised in Texas and named after Robert E. Lee so watch yourself chum. Seccession is legal when its approved(Thats what most scholars agree), furtheremore, Lincoln is always at the top 3 of most loved US presidents as of right now he's number 2 behind George Washington. Even enemies can respect each other you inconsiderate jerk.
robidius 3 years ago 14
Incorrect, Secession seeks seperation from the current government a Revolution seeks to REPLACE an existing one. That is what we did in the Revo war not in the Civil one
robidius 3 years ago 2
Another great video.
slappy6817 3 years ago
Thanks. I should have mentioned that the singer was Ronnie Gilbert and "Rosin the Bow" was the song the tune was borrowed from.
rexlibris99 3 years ago
This tune is also used in the 19th century song "Acres of Clams."
slappy6817 3 years ago