All of the changes in Government before the war, favored the South. Dred Scott basically said there was no such thing as a Free State, a slave in Alabama was a slave anywhere in the North. One of the big complaints mentioned as a reason to secede by South Carolina was the fact the individual Northern States refused to acknowledge the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act. Those Northern states were exercising their State's Rights, weren't they?
Piss on all them damn yankees, if they think they can tell me whether i can, or cant bear arms haha i think its funny they think they can decide what people below the dixie line can or cant do, cause i know there's more people like me that keep a gun close by and always loaded and we never surrendered, and we aint going to!
@96Dixieboy Good when the Time comes to anhiliate your race from existance we will no it was justified as you are stockpiling arms . Against the Racially superior Unionist Americans
i'm not racist, and i dont understand why some people are, but i'm pro southern, they stood up agenset big government, to preserve a way of life that a pro northern government was tring to ruin. and if there is another civil war it will not be a black VS white. it will be a Rich VS Poor, when the economy colapsed every one lost money except for the top 1/10 of 1% they increased the money 50% during that time...nice to know, take the blind fold off and see who's running the country
@dierks33 No your a Racist you love the south meaning your a Racist against the master Race of Unionist Americans . Stop shoot yourself now terrorist and go be with osama in hell .
@dierks33 YOU ARE the TOP 1% if you live in America....if you make over $20,000 a year your in the top 5% of the worlds wealth. If you make over $30,000 your in the worlds top 1% already. So your saying what?
@plucknpick you need to check your facts sir... 16k and under is considered poverty 17-20k is lower class 30-100k is middle class, over 100k is uperclass and people who make 500k- one million are considered elite, people who make over one million are the 1%
NOPE, the facts are correct. The majority of the worlds population makes less than a dollar a day. We are so wealthy here that most of our jobs serve the disposable income of the majority of us all....Super size that?
@dierks33 what really bugs me is i am under the 17-20k range, and with my wife we are right around 20 k and we cant qualify for food stamps, we cant pay the utility bills, and have to pay them with credit cards, its seems the government wont help anyone unless the people are so totally destitute, and by then its too late, cause ill be homeless before they actually help me with food assistance, but i will have no adress to send it to
@dierks33 Uh, the South was fighting FOR big government. They used the power of the Federal Government to force slavery on newly formed states in the West, like KS.
Why do you think the Republican Party was founded? To combat that abuse of power.
"the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...Col. John Singleton Mosby...CSA.
@dierks33 : Your neat analysis ignores two facts- first, the Southern "way of life" was largely built around the ownership of other humans, and second, a heckuva lot of Southerners fought on the Federal side and against the Cotton aristocracy- David Farragut and George Thomas as examples of senior officers, and much of what is now West Virginia, and eastern Tennessee and a large part of Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas had no love for the Confederacy. (please, no "No True Scotsman" arguments.)
I live in Marietta and run at Kennesaw Mountain Battleground in the early mornings. There is a feeling of solemness and tranquility that makes you think about the soldiers who died here in the Civil War. The trenches are still evident and you can see what direction the attacks would have come from.
If the South only fought to preserve slavery then why did Jefferson Davis prevent the slave trade from restarting in the South? When the United States Constitution was ratified there were slaves in every state. The only reason that slavery died in the North was because the geography was not suited to it. Not because the North was morally superior to the South with regards to slavery. The same would have happened in the South. And lets not forget that free Africans in the South also owned slaves.
@btdave100 They fought for state rights cleverly crafted by the Southern Aristocracy to cover the real reason preservation and expansion of slavery. Also very early in the war they brought in a draft system. I agree with you that the South made a huge mistake firing on Ft Sumter. The Morill tariff played a small role but again it was only going to have a major effect on the Southern Aristocracy who could well afford it they had the richest men in America living there at that time.
@686204 I think you have it all wrong. Slavery was on it's way out. The Industrial Revolution had made it's way to improving farming. Soon new machinery would replace slave labor. The Morill Tarriff played a huge role. You forget the American Revolution was about unfair taxes. The tariff would raise the price of goods in the South, so everyone, not just the rich were hit by the tax.
@btdave100 Industrial revolution was taking place in the North not the South. The Southern aristocracy had slaves they did not need machines. why was the south so dead against any laws preventing the expansion of slavery if it was on the way out. Do you know that the first reliable cotton picking machines were not developed until the late 1940's and even then most farms did not use them. The American Revolution was about money and power the Colonial Aristocracy against the British Aristocracy.
@btdave100 Approx 1/3 of the Colonialist population was against the revolution as well as those British subjects in Canada. Are you trying to say a small tax on tea was worth a revolution. Canada didn't think so and they got their Independence peacefully without a war. The Civil war was fought over State rights, the right for the Southern plantation owners( who controlled State politics) to maintain slavery and expand it.
@686204 You have a very warped sense of history. You want to blame the rich for everything. You keep expounding on slavery. Why did Lincoln tell the governor of Missouri to put the slaves he freed back in bondage? Canada did things differently, the Mounties brought law as they moved West, for us the law came later. There were other taxes other than tea, you are cherry picking here.
@btdave100 Ever heard of General Smedley Butler. Google "War is a racket" it tells you the reason most wars are fought. Oh so your views are scared and mine are warped could that be because you are pro south. The Wealthy of any Nation have more influence on Government decision making then the ordinary people, always have and still do. Why do you think we have so many Corporate lobbyists hanging around Washington. By the way the Mounties were not formed in Canada until 1873 long after the RW
@686204 I am not pro South, my ancestors all fought for the Union. I am pro truth. Nothing more nothing less. The victors write the history of the war
@btdave100 If you are pro truth then you should learn the history of slavery in this country. It was a black mark on its history from its inception up until 1865. It was also carried forward in the South in the form of segregation up til the 1960's. Anyone saying that the South seceded for an reason other than the preservation and expansion of slavery has not studied its history or is pro South.
@btdave100 I'm sorry. You have it all wrong, totally completely. South Carolina wanted to secede years before. Tariff laws were changed to quell those elements. High tariffs on the South were inacted in 1860, the South seceded. Read your History, stop Cherry Picking the facts, History stands on its own
@btdave100 go to youtube, Civil war setting the record straight VIII, I think it is or Dispelling the Lincoln Myth. Look up why he set freed slaved in Missouri back in bondage. "The truth shall set you free." Slavery is morally and totally wrong. Lets get the record straight. Why did Grant not free his slaves until forced by the 13th amendment??
On March 2, 1861 a constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419—36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.
@hungarygator Again it comes down to your interpretation of the Constitution. If you take the point of view that the Constitution does not allow for secession but needs to be made more clear and concise on the matter so there is no doubt than your point of view is wrong. As I have stated before the Constitution on the matter of secession was viewed differently by both sides and still is today by some legal minds far more knowledgeable then us on law.
@686204 The 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have a power named in the constitution, then it is reserved to the states. Since secession is not named......and most people north and south thought states did have the right to secede as did several of the Founders. It was supposed to be a voluntary union, not one held together at the point of a sword.
@hungarygator Look all I am trying to say is you might read into it that the 10th Amendment offers the right of secession but others don't. Legally in the case of secession by a state the burden of proof would lie with the state to prove secession was legal. There is legal jargon which gives that impression but there maybe other factors that over rule it. As far as a lot of people are concerned if secession is not specifically mentioned it is not legal.
@686204 Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton all said the federal government could not hold a state in by force. The textbook used at West Point written by one of the top con law scholars in early America and a personal friend of George Washington said states had that right. Several states ratified the constitution with the reservation of a right to secede. New England states had considered seceding several times. Lincoln even said it was a right in 1848. Most people felt it was their right.
@hungarygator It would have been easy for the South to establish a test case and bring it to the supreme Court for interpretation and ruling yet they didn't why? For that matter it would have been easy for Lincoln to do the same thing he didn't why? Were they both afraid of losing? The fact also remains that in 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal. I know you will state but that was after the war what do you expect. However todate no one has challenged that ruling.
@686204 what you're not getting here is that the supreme court was not then what you think of now...it was not the supreme and sole arbiter on constitutional matters. That is the case NOW, that was not so then. Jefferson and Madison said states had the right to interpose or nullify laws or to secede.
@686204 War was not what the seceding states wanted. Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address said "all we want is to be let alone." It was the Lincoln administration which wanted war to deny them self determination. Let me put it this way, divorce is a bad thing but if one partner wants out, should the other have the right to keep them in a relationship they no longer want to be part of? Should they have the right to say the other's reasons for leaving are not valid?
@hungarygator No one has ever proven secession to be either constitutional or unconstitutional. The question never reached the United States supreme Court, which would be the only lawful arbiter. Only a court decision can decide the matter. The Constitution is very ambiguous on the matter. Quote by William C Davis Author & Historian three time winner of the Jefferson Davis award given for books covering works on Confederate History.
@686204 According to the Founders the USSC would NOT be the lawful arbiter. That would be asking one branch of the federal government if the federal government has to agree to give up land, money and power. That's like having the fox guard the henhouse. OF COURSE they are going to rule in the federal government's (which they are a part of) favor.
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
@hungarygator I feel the SC judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. However it is not their role to implement changes that rests with governmental process which involves the executive branch,legislative branch, Senate and Congress. Someone has to be there to tell them where they are passing laws in violation of the Constitution. It's called checks and balances.
@686204 you are correct that NOW SC judges are the ultimate arbiters...it was not always so. The Founders built a system with another huge check on a centralized government becoming oppressive at home and aggressive abroad - state's rights. The ultimate right being the right to secede. Washington could never be too oppressive or aggressive if dissatisfied states could leave. It is hardly surprising the central govt sought to and did destroy this check on their power.
@hungarygator One of the major decisions made by the SC was the Dred Scott case it ruled that the Government implemented laws contrary to the Constitution. No complaints by the south on that one by the way. My only point of argument here is the Challenge of the legality of secession through the SC was an option open to the South instead they chose the gun. The Judges maybe the ultimate arbiters but they don't pass the laws or make amendments to the Constitution thats what we have....
@686204 They didn't choose the gun. They wanted to go in peace. Lincoln chose to transform the union from one of consent to one of force-thus destroying THE key check on centralized power, state's rights.
@686204 [the only alternative to states rights]....is to hand over sovereignty to the black robed deities of the court who disappear into their chambers and then tell us what orders we must obey, no matter how nonsensical or unpopular they may be.". John C. Calhoun
@686204 My point is before proceeding to war every avenue should be explored. I feel that in this case both sides did not live up to the expectations of the people and the Constituion. Power and money was the primary reason for actions taken and not the interests of the people the Constituion was protecting.
@686204 I agree with this part. Lincoln needed a casus belli and did all he could to provoke the Confederates into providing one by holding a fort in one of their principal harbors and then resupplying it after promising not to. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government were very foolish IMO to give Lincoln what he wanted. They should have tolerated the insult and forced him to fire the first shot.
@hungarygator My point is that for everyone who claims it was legal there is someone to say it wasn't. The Supreme Court was there to handle such matters back then and was an option to take rather than war. Because someone says it is Constitutional does not mean that is the case. The Constitution has numerous amendments made to it because it was felt further clarification was required It would only be natural for someone to challenge the meaning of the Constitution if they felt it was ambiguous
@686204 The supreme court was not there to handle such matters back then. That's what you don't seem to get no matter how often I say it or what quotes I show which demonstrate that this was not what the Founders intended. The vast majority North and South thought states did have the right to secede...ie that it was a voluntary union in which government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
@hungarygator I know where you are coming from man and if the vast majority North and South thought states did have the right to secede why did the North raise an army to prevent it. What I am talking about here is was it legal based on how the Constitution was drafted. The Supreme Court at that time was well established to handle such matters pertaining to the Constitution it was considered the supreme arbiter of the Constitution during the time of Marshall back in the early 1800's.
@hungarygator an executive branch and legislative branch for and what ever they come up with it has to get through the congress and Senate. Also governments have been known to ignore SC rulings.
"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them bette. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right....Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848
@hungarygator You have your interpretation and I have mine if I was the government and you decided I was wrong don't you think I should be given the chance to amend my decision before going to war at the expense of 600,000 lives? That's why the Supreme Court was created.
@686204 Should America be able to decide to withdraw from the UN? I don't see anything in the UN charter granting a country the right to withdraw. What if the other countries in the world decided to invade the USA for withdrawing from the UN? Would they be justified in doing so? Was it the intent of any of the countries which signed up for UN membership that they never be able to withdraw? As absurd as that sounds to you NOW, it was a similar situation then.
"I am determined to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than to give up the rights of self government in which alone we see liberty, safety and happyness." Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
America was born via an act of secession. Think the founders intended to bind their states to a strong central govt after just fighting a long 8 year war to get away from one?
To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?" Alexander Hamilton
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." James Madison
The constitution was not passed until 1788, so I think the outlawing of slavery in the next decade and half in the north qualifies as ending slavery soon after the foundation of the country. Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not Northern states, since they did not commit treason they were allowed to keep their institutions until after the war. Economics is neither moral nor immoral, like rain it falls on both the sinners and the saints.
Morality is evolutionary. Slavery was not always considered or recognized as Immoral. In 1861, the cultural forces that believed slavery was immoral grew large enough to clash with those who believed Slavery was necessary for their cultural survival. Some lessons are learned the hard way.
@SeigleM How was it possible that the rest of the world ended slavery without bloodshed, and it cost Americans over half a million lives? If ending slavery was the north's reason for declaring war on the south, why didn't Lincoln free the northern slaves at the same time he freed those in the south?
Slavery ended in Northern states after the Rev War. Borders states did not end slavery until the 13th Amendwas adopted in December 1865. Slavery was violently ended in Haiti, and violent slave revolts played a role in the ending of some Latin American revolutions against Spanish rule. 1800’s the English ended slavery in Africa during their colonial wars. China ended slavery around the time of the Chinese revolution of 1910 and the Ottoman Empire during their revolution after WW1.
@SeigleM Slavery didn't end in northern states. The legal trade in slaves ended, not ownership. Even then New York was a slave state until 1799, New Jersey until 1804 and Maryland as well as some border states right up to the time Lincoln flooded them with Union troops following the secession of SC. Morality is often dictated by economics. The depletion of the northern source of slaves (West Indies) and the rising cost of African slaves made slave ownership in the north less appealing.
This was re-inacted some time ago.... I remember calling the cops thinking there was a local robbery... how emberassed I was to fund out that it was a re-inactment...
Family fought at Kennesaw defending Atlanta. Maybe someone will post David Russell doing this song-awesome arrangement and power to the verses. Words and music by Don Oja Dunaway.
I love looking at the people that think their confederates, because they can say "god save the south". And for the idiots that say the Confederates are un-American, let me tell you that the Civil War was the most American thing that ever happened, and if you don't believe take a look at the United States morals in the constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
hermenos de dixie unamonos estamos esparcidos por todo el mundo yo les hablo desde el peru y siempre glorificare la causa del sur viva la confederacion viva el sur resucitemos dixie arriba arriba hermanos dixie vive en el mundo entero
To say that the Southern cause was illegitimate because of slavery, then one must be consistent and concur that the U.S Revolution of 1776 was illegitimate because they too at the time had slaves, and viewed them as the property they didn't want taxed without representation. The south wanted to be independent from the Federal Government. It was a Just cause. A just causes might be lost on the battle field, but never in the arena of ideas!
My familys land near Acworth and Kennesaw was where the battle took place.
The whole family was in the war, and it was a hard time and a long time ending. Grandma never got over the loss of family. Remember William B Hickman. He died for Freedom his state, and his family.
@IslandersMets10 incorrect the revolution of 1776 was just since it was about fighting a foreign kingdom 1000miles away...the rebellion of 1861 was definitely NOT JUST since fighting a federal government is not very patriotic. it s always the same excuse neo-cons use.
Why should the South have felt patriotic about a government that was ruled by the North. Southerners loved the SOUTH, and didn't give a damn about the North, thus they were definently justified in rebelling against a foreign ruler (the North)
@IslandersMets10 The Revolutionary war was fought by British colonists who were traitors to the Crown. If they had lost, most of the founding fathers would have been hung by the Brits. The Declaration of Independence was a lie when it came to claiming all men are created equal. Slavery was a black mark on the history of this country the founding fathers chose to ignore the problem in order to appease certain states and get the Constitution accepted.
@IslandersMets10 The civil war was fought over secession and slavery was the reason for secession by the south. The North felt Secession was illegal and went to war to preserve the Union. The Civil war was a rebellion against the government pretty much the same as the Revolutionary war. All states signed and approved the Constitution which was a legal contract with the Federal Government the South unilaterally broke it thus their secession was illegal.
@686204There was not one person alive in 1861, that signed the original federal constitution. I never knew you could have a legal contract by the virtue of birth!!! wow! lol. One of the first acts of congress after the war of 1776 was the alien and sedition act. That's an unconstitutional act, and by your logic the feds "broke the contract" so therefore the contract is void! WOOO HOO! The south should "LEGALLY be free".
@IslandersMets10 You have a point however the question is who declared it unconstitutional the supreme court didn't because it was never sent to them for review. If the supreme court had declared it unconstitutional the government would have a choice to change it or ignore it and face the consequences. The opportunity however is there for the government to correct its mistake which is how democracy is suppose to work.
@IslandersMets10 The south had the same opportunity to take secession to the supreme court for a secession on its legality they didn't. Instead they unilaterally declared on their own that it was ok. Also I fail to see your point on the fact that not one person who signed the constitution was alive in 1861. The same goes for your smart ass comment regarding birth. Can't you debate an issue without coming across in a demeaning manner.
@686204 if the states were sovereign...and I think the overwhelming evidence is that the Founders intended that they never surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government, then the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Putting the federal govt in charge of determining whether you can remove yourself from control of the federal govt, is like having the fox guard the henhouse. They will NEVER find that they are not entitled to your land and money.
@686204 Wrong. The states were free to withdraw anytime they chose. 3 states including VA, NY and RI ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they could withdraw. "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address. There are plenty of others among the Founders who said the same...so did Lincoln in 1848.
@hungarygator And yet in 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal. Also you forgot Texas. Just because you say you would do something does not mean you can when it comes down to doing it. How do you know what the founding fathers intended when they drew up the Constitution where you there. All I know is that no where in the Constitution does it say secession is an option. If you view the Constitution as a legal contract unless specified no one can unilaterally break the contract
@686204 1869 was after the war. How did you really expect the court to rule? Yes secession is not mentioned in the constitution. What does the 10th Amendment say about that? If its not mentioned, its reserved to the states. You realize who chaired the convention in Virginia that ratified the constitution with the express proviso that Virginia retains the right to secede? He was a guy by the name of George Washington.
@hungarygator After the war or not the fact remains that the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal. Are you saying it would have been a different decision before the war. If so why didn't the South approach the Supreme court at that time for clarification. Contracts are drawn up for a purpose and quite often disputes develop between two parties which require legal interpretation in this case the two parties (North @ South) had a difference of opinion that's what the supreme court is there for.
@686204 What I'm saying is the founders clearly intended this to be a power left to the states and that they knew that putting it into the supreme court would be like having the fox guard the henhouse....ie the states would have to ask a branch of the federal government if the federal government had to give up land, money and power. Obviously, the federal government is NEVER going to be of the opinion that its own power should be reduced.
@hungarygator My contention is the South took it upon themselves to make legal judgment and would have been in a far better position to justify its actions having sought the SC ruling if it confirmed its interpretation. I think both North and South were afraid to take this approach in case they lost. Before taking action which can lead to war all Ave's should be explored before hand. The legality of secession has been argued for and against ever since that war and still goes on today.
@686204 Look at the quotes from the Founders. Look at the fact that 3 states ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they had a right to secede. Look at the fact that Madison as president took no action to stop the Hartford Convention where New Englanders were discussing secession, look at the declaration of independence "government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed." The evidence is overwhelming.
@hungarygator spoken like a true revolutionary. If the government doesn't do things the way I want it then lets pick up our guns and go to war to hell with the democratic process. It's funny the founding fathers thought the Supreme Court had a purpose in our Democratic republic I guess they must have been wrong. You can't compare the operation of the UN with our Country its like comparing apples to oranges. It's like trying to compare our constitution to that of Canada not the same at all.
@686204 Spoken like someone who believes government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. You say you can't compare the UN with "our country"? "our country" was VERY different than it is today. it was these (plural) united states. Not the (singular) united states. The federal government was not the last word on everything. You wouldn't recognize it prior to 1861 and the Founders wouldn't recognize it today.
@hungarygator The fact remains that secession is not clearly defined in the constitution and if 3 states ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they had a right to secede then why didn't the others. Was it written in their copy of the Constitution and not the others? Madison took no action to stop the Hartford Convention why would he it's a democratic country what right would he have to stop it. Unless of course it was to discuss overthrowing the government.
@686204 You ask why didn't the others? They didn't need to. No state holds more or less rights than another. Those 3 had made that express reservation so it applied to all of them since they all had the same rights What right did Madison have to stop several states from meeting to discuss secession? None. What right did Lincoln have to use force against states which had seceded? None.
@hungarygator I did a bit of research on your claim that VA, NY @ RI ratified the Constitution with the express proviso that they could withdraw. While it was mentioned in a lot of the articles nothing was provided on the wording used. In fact one researcher went so far as to say only VA passed such a reservation other claims were highly exaggerated. He provide the exact wording used by VA as follows......
@hungarygator "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression". Nowhere does it mention any right to unilateral secession or any unconditional right to revolt for an reason the state sees fit. It was not made in the name of the people of VA but of the people of the United States & it makes the unremarkable assertion that the latter have the right to.......
@686204 the powers may be resumed by them is them saying they have a right to secede. Google "legality of secession" and go to the very first link. The states did not agree in their understanding to be unconditionally surrendering their sovereignty forever. Think about it....they had just fought so hard to get away from that. Why would they now want to throw away their independence forever with no option to leave?
@hungarygator I read your article and found it very interesting however I think it gives an interpretation of the constitution from an anti federalist point of view. I could refer you to a number of pro federalist web sites that would take the same material and give you the opposite view. I have one very good one but don't know how to refer it to you over this web site. More and more I am coming to the Conclusion that the founding fathers left too many legal loop holes in the Constitution....
@hungarygator change their government. In other words approval would have to come from the majority of the people of the United states. I don't think that would have happened. Now I realize most researchers side with one side or the other like you and me. However I was never able to find anything on the wording of NY & RI if in deed they did put such a proviso. If you can come up with such evidence I would be interested to see their wording.
@686204 I might add Charles Adams wrote a book detailing the history of secession and the right to secede etc going back to England. Its called "When in the course of human events; the case for Southern secession". Does he take sides? Sure. He does however present some very compelling evidence both historically and from the Founders and what they thought.
@hungarygator when it came to the matter of secession. I still tend to side with the federalist point of view. When you sign a legal contract there has to be some legal process that has to be followed when someone wants out of it. It would appear in this case there was no other alturnative then revolution/war to settle the matter which means the loser was wrong and the winner was right. Too bad both sides had to let it go that far I still think it was unnecessary.
@686204 The states did follow what they considered to be an impeccably legal procedure-they either held elections and held a convention to decide ie the same means by which states had originally ratified the Constitution or they held referendums. The means by which they seceded were democratic, this was not a case of a few imposing its will on the majority. I do not subscribe to the view that the winners were automatically right. That's nothing more than might makes right.
@hungarygator I should also add that I think the Revolutionary war was unnecessary all you have to do is look north to Canada which obtained their Independence peacefully and without loss of life. I very seldom side with the re voluntary point of view it tends to benefit the few wealthy/power seekers who have no interest at all in the benefit of the general public. Both wars in my opinion were a rich mans war & poor mans fight. Nice to have debated with you.
@686204 Looking at how Canada, Australia and New Zeeland turned out, I'm inclined to agree with you about the 1776 war of secession from the British Empire. We still would have ended up a democracy with individual rights without it. Nice to discuss issues with you as well. Its a pleasure to talk to someone who presents his views rationally without all the insults and namecalling as is so common with all the trolls here.
@Rebeldragon90 the constant mention of "slave rapers" as he calls them ( he means heroes :P ) aswell as every second word being dumb fuck hes such a retard who wouldnt know a fact if it hit him in the face
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pill from the start of the war -- the first few days, desertions were a huge problem for the slave rapers.
The problems were so serious, Lee was going ape, saying we gotta kill more deserters. Picket killed 22 at one time -- of CONFEDERATE troops.
Toward the end -- Johnston just told Davis - the men are leaving and taking the horses They WILL NOT FIGHT. This isnt me saying it dumb fuck -- its Johnston to Davis.
See Life of Jefferson Davis, by Pollard, pages 512-516
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pill I dont know what Winik said, but desertions were rampant in March April - Johnston told Davis they were deserting en masse --taking the horses too, that they WOULD NOT FIGHT.
That's quote from Johnston dumb fuck. The famous conversation by Beuregard, Johnston and Davis.
The desertions dumb fuck is why the slave rapers lost. You dumb fucks exempted slave owners from the draft.
Big fucking mistake. Finally the rebs just got tired of dying so the rich fucks could have slaves
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Read of Lee's own statements dumb fuck -- "My army is evaporating". In fact, the day before he surrendered (like a pussy) he wanted to surrender, because he didnt believe their were enough troops left to even run away right.
An aide had to convince him that not everyone had deserted -- so Lee was shamed into running more. Then the next day he surrendered.
Read the fucking diaries of those in Richmond -- desertions were the reason the whole thing went to shit for the CSA.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Plus check out the recent book on Confederate Desertion -- "More Daming Than Slaughter: Desertion is the Confederate Army".
Over 300,000 Confederate soliders deserted -- (103,000 officially admitted to). The point is -- many people in the South hated the Confederacy, would not serve it, and when forced to, often deserted.
Book should make it really, really EASY for you to post those names of the WHOLE COMPANIES (you claim) deserted SHOULDN'T IT?
WHERE ARE THEY, sonny boy! What's stopping you from posting those complete unit designations where EVERYONE OF 'EM deserted!
IF there were SOOO many CSA desertions, those 208 (long, long) wks. it took for your ancestors to declare "victory" shows them (to the WORLD) to be even more timid, craven, panicky lil wimps than ever before -- NOW DON'T IT!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pilly -- I got your verifiable shit bout desertions right here. Even at the start of the war -- desertions were about to drive Lee to butt fuck the closest slave.
We have written reports TO Lee right off the bat In a letter from General Wise to Lee - "the state volunteers under my command lost 300-500 men by desertion" in a single fucking DAY.
Desertions were rampant in the Confederacy -- and got much wors, even after Lee ordered mass executions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pillbox -- I just gave you the book where it documents the massive desertions -- Lee's papers where he was losing 300-500 men in a day to desertions.
Thats just one thing -- your own lunatic devotion to the insane myth of Confederate honor. There was no fucking honor -- most of the leaders were greedy slave rapers.
Eventually the men realized it too and just quit fighting for the the scum bag leadership. As Lee said "My army is evaporating"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Picket shot 22 CSA deserters at a time.
Entire companies deserted at one time -- desertions were rampant.
Confederates would have executed more if Davis let them.
Desertions were the biggest problem the South faced. Lee at the end yelled " My army is evaporating!" . He was about to surrender earlier but an aide convinced him enough men had not run off.
The South wins EASILY if OVER 300,000 of their men didnt desert, and if they had real support of the citizens.
All of the changes in Government before the war, favored the South. Dred Scott basically said there was no such thing as a Free State, a slave in Alabama was a slave anywhere in the North. One of the big complaints mentioned as a reason to secede by South Carolina was the fact the individual Northern States refused to acknowledge the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act. Those Northern states were exercising their State's Rights, weren't they?
Kanbound 3 weeks ago
@1gagamehl Scram off EU puppet master no one wants your facist hands here
TThorne931 3 months ago
No, this not authentic Bobby never said it was and yes it is sung by Bobby Horton,
TheSouthron98 3 months ago
My ancestor was here. He was a Confederate soldier and served well.
RiverBirch1967 3 months ago
@RiverBirch1967 And now he toils in hell for murdering his Brother . May god Spit roast your filthy jackboot nazi of an ancestor
TThorne931 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TThorne931 I am far from a nazi. And you are spewing much of the same hatred you are accusing me of. Chillax.
RiverBirch1967 3 months ago
Piss on all them damn yankees, if they think they can tell me whether i can, or cant bear arms haha i think its funny they think they can decide what people below the dixie line can or cant do, cause i know there's more people like me that keep a gun close by and always loaded and we never surrendered, and we aint going to!
96Dixieboy 3 months ago
@96Dixieboy Good when the Time comes to anhiliate your race from existance we will no it was justified as you are stockpiling arms . Against the Racially superior Unionist Americans
TThorne931 3 months ago
What is the Kennesaw line from?
hankock1015 3 months ago
@hankock1015 CO aytch by SAM R. WATKINS
50TNCSA 3 months ago
great song
weakley726 4 months ago
good song using sam watkins book co. aytch
50TNCSA 5 months ago
Interesting the pictures are from Gettysburg
TheMajdoc 7 months ago
i'm not racist, and i dont understand why some people are, but i'm pro southern, they stood up agenset big government, to preserve a way of life that a pro northern government was tring to ruin. and if there is another civil war it will not be a black VS white. it will be a Rich VS Poor, when the economy colapsed every one lost money except for the top 1/10 of 1% they increased the money 50% during that time...nice to know, take the blind fold off and see who's running the country
dierks33 7 months ago 9
@dierks33 No your a Racist you love the south meaning your a Racist against the master Race of Unionist Americans . Stop shoot yourself now terrorist and go be with osama in hell .
TThorne931 3 months ago
@TThorne931 your just a jackass,
dierks33 3 months ago
@dierks33 Prefer the Term Loyal True and Blue Patriotic American . Unlike yourself
TThorne931 3 months ago
@dierks33 YOU ARE the TOP 1% if you live in America....if you make over $20,000 a year your in the top 5% of the worlds wealth. If you make over $30,000 your in the worlds top 1% already. So your saying what?
plucknpick 2 months ago
@plucknpick you need to check your facts sir... 16k and under is considered poverty 17-20k is lower class 30-100k is middle class, over 100k is uperclass and people who make 500k- one million are considered elite, people who make over one million are the 1%
dierks33 2 months ago
NOPE, the facts are correct. The majority of the worlds population makes less than a dollar a day. We are so wealthy here that most of our jobs serve the disposable income of the majority of us all....Super size that?
plucknpick 2 months ago
@dierks33 what really bugs me is i am under the 17-20k range, and with my wife we are right around 20 k and we cant qualify for food stamps, we cant pay the utility bills, and have to pay them with credit cards, its seems the government wont help anyone unless the people are so totally destitute, and by then its too late, cause ill be homeless before they actually help me with food assistance, but i will have no adress to send it to
pj3679 3 weeks ago
@dierks33 Uh, the South was fighting FOR big government. They used the power of the Federal Government to force slavery on newly formed states in the West, like KS.
Why do you think the Republican Party was founded? To combat that abuse of power.
"the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...Col. John Singleton Mosby...CSA.
Learn some factual history.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@dierks33 : Your neat analysis ignores two facts- first, the Southern "way of life" was largely built around the ownership of other humans, and second, a heckuva lot of Southerners fought on the Federal side and against the Cotton aristocracy- David Farragut and George Thomas as examples of senior officers, and much of what is now West Virginia, and eastern Tennessee and a large part of Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas had no love for the Confederacy. (please, no "No True Scotsman" arguments.)
althesmith 2 weeks ago
Well, thank you for that. My ancestor was a young man in the Union side, wounded and lived to return home.
GirLInSecondLife 8 months ago
Yankees were invading imperialists and scum, everyone in the world knows that.
sadailinikada86 8 months ago 2
I live in Marietta and run at Kennesaw Mountain Battleground in the early mornings. There is a feeling of solemness and tranquility that makes you think about the soldiers who died here in the Civil War. The trenches are still evident and you can see what direction the attacks would have come from.
sarkelcpa 10 months ago
all-i-see-are-poor-people-on-both-sides-fighting-for-rich-mens-rights-their-sacrifice-and-courage-are-not-in-dispute-both-sides-had-very-brave-men-some-day-maybe-we-will-throw-the-bums-out-and-real-democracy-will-prevail-i-dont-think-it-will-be-any-time-soon-but-hope-springs-eternal-great-music-from-the-south-though-you-gotta-give-em-that
paul1x1 1 year ago
@paul1x1 Spoken like true commie. Now go back to North Korea.
higuma75 11 months ago
@higuma75 Actually, if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know he was telling the truth.
sarkelcpa 10 months ago
@higuma75 Actually, if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know he was telling the truth.
sarkelcpa 10 months ago
"I pity the poor Yankee bastards, who died so far from home."
If I had to give my life for my homeland, I pray I'd be close to it when I fell.
jmoyer92 1 year ago 14
@jmoyer92 I don't pity them at all....shoulda kept their butts back home, and left us well enough alone.
Don't start no trouble, won't be no trouble.....
Fenianboyo 3 months ago
@jmoyer92 Since the country is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, those Union soldiers did in fact die on native soil.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
If the South only fought to preserve slavery then why did Jefferson Davis prevent the slave trade from restarting in the South? When the United States Constitution was ratified there were slaves in every state. The only reason that slavery died in the North was because the geography was not suited to it. Not because the North was morally superior to the South with regards to slavery. The same would have happened in the South. And lets not forget that free Africans in the South also owned slaves.
aslimyboogie 1 year ago
GOOOOO REBELS YA!!!!!!!!!
smither109 1 year ago
Only 6% of southerners owned slaves. So why did the other 94% fight? No one ever mentions the Moriell tariff Act. Read that and understand
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 They fought for state rights cleverly crafted by the Southern Aristocracy to cover the real reason preservation and expansion of slavery. Also very early in the war they brought in a draft system. I agree with you that the South made a huge mistake firing on Ft Sumter. The Morill tariff played a small role but again it was only going to have a major effect on the Southern Aristocracy who could well afford it they had the richest men in America living there at that time.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I think you have it all wrong. Slavery was on it's way out. The Industrial Revolution had made it's way to improving farming. Soon new machinery would replace slave labor. The Morill Tarriff played a huge role. You forget the American Revolution was about unfair taxes. The tariff would raise the price of goods in the South, so everyone, not just the rich were hit by the tax.
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 Industrial revolution was taking place in the North not the South. The Southern aristocracy had slaves they did not need machines. why was the south so dead against any laws preventing the expansion of slavery if it was on the way out. Do you know that the first reliable cotton picking machines were not developed until the late 1940's and even then most farms did not use them. The American Revolution was about money and power the Colonial Aristocracy against the British Aristocracy.
686204 1 year ago
@btdave100 Approx 1/3 of the Colonialist population was against the revolution as well as those British subjects in Canada. Are you trying to say a small tax on tea was worth a revolution. Canada didn't think so and they got their Independence peacefully without a war. The Civil war was fought over State rights, the right for the Southern plantation owners( who controlled State politics) to maintain slavery and expand it.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 You have a very warped sense of history. You want to blame the rich for everything. You keep expounding on slavery. Why did Lincoln tell the governor of Missouri to put the slaves he freed back in bondage? Canada did things differently, the Mounties brought law as they moved West, for us the law came later. There were other taxes other than tea, you are cherry picking here.
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 Ever heard of General Smedley Butler. Google "War is a racket" it tells you the reason most wars are fought. Oh so your views are scared and mine are warped could that be because you are pro south. The Wealthy of any Nation have more influence on Government decision making then the ordinary people, always have and still do. Why do you think we have so many Corporate lobbyists hanging around Washington. By the way the Mounties were not formed in Canada until 1873 long after the RW
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I am not pro South, my ancestors all fought for the Union. I am pro truth. Nothing more nothing less. The victors write the history of the war
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 If you are pro truth then you should learn the history of slavery in this country. It was a black mark on its history from its inception up until 1865. It was also carried forward in the South in the form of segregation up til the 1960's. Anyone saying that the South seceded for an reason other than the preservation and expansion of slavery has not studied its history or is pro South.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 By the way, the precurser to the Canadian Mounties date back before 1873. Again READ YOUR HISTORY!!!!
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 I'm sorry. You have it all wrong, totally completely. South Carolina wanted to secede years before. Tariff laws were changed to quell those elements. High tariffs on the South were inacted in 1860, the South seceded. Read your History, stop Cherry Picking the facts, History stands on its own
btdave100 1 year ago
@btdave100 go to youtube, Civil war setting the record straight VIII, I think it is or Dispelling the Lincoln Myth. Look up why he set freed slaved in Missouri back in bondage. "The truth shall set you free." Slavery is morally and totally wrong. Lets get the record straight. Why did Grant not free his slaves until forced by the 13th amendment??
btdave100 1 year ago
On March 2, 1861 a constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419—36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator Again it comes down to your interpretation of the Constitution. If you take the point of view that the Constitution does not allow for secession but needs to be made more clear and concise on the matter so there is no doubt than your point of view is wrong. As I have stated before the Constitution on the matter of secession was viewed differently by both sides and still is today by some legal minds far more knowledgeable then us on law.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have a power named in the constitution, then it is reserved to the states. Since secession is not named......and most people north and south thought states did have the right to secede as did several of the Founders. It was supposed to be a voluntary union, not one held together at the point of a sword.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator Look all I am trying to say is you might read into it that the 10th Amendment offers the right of secession but others don't. Legally in the case of secession by a state the burden of proof would lie with the state to prove secession was legal. There is legal jargon which gives that impression but there maybe other factors that over rule it. As far as a lot of people are concerned if secession is not specifically mentioned it is not legal.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton all said the federal government could not hold a state in by force. The textbook used at West Point written by one of the top con law scholars in early America and a personal friend of George Washington said states had that right. Several states ratified the constitution with the reservation of a right to secede. New England states had considered seceding several times. Lincoln even said it was a right in 1848. Most people felt it was their right.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator It would have been easy for the South to establish a test case and bring it to the supreme Court for interpretation and ruling yet they didn't why? For that matter it would have been easy for Lincoln to do the same thing he didn't why? Were they both afraid of losing? The fact also remains that in 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal. I know you will state but that was after the war what do you expect. However todate no one has challenged that ruling.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 what you're not getting here is that the supreme court was not then what you think of now...it was not the supreme and sole arbiter on constitutional matters. That is the case NOW, that was not so then. Jefferson and Madison said states had the right to interpose or nullify laws or to secede.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator Before going to war over something costing the lives of thousands wouldn't you feel that taking a legal approach is a moral obligation?
686204 1 year ago
@686204 War was not what the seceding states wanted. Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address said "all we want is to be let alone." It was the Lincoln administration which wanted war to deny them self determination. Let me put it this way, divorce is a bad thing but if one partner wants out, should the other have the right to keep them in a relationship they no longer want to be part of? Should they have the right to say the other's reasons for leaving are not valid?
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator No one has ever proven secession to be either constitutional or unconstitutional. The question never reached the United States supreme Court, which would be the only lawful arbiter. Only a court decision can decide the matter. The Constitution is very ambiguous on the matter. Quote by William C Davis Author & Historian three time winner of the Jefferson Davis award given for books covering works on Confederate History.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 According to the Founders the USSC would NOT be the lawful arbiter. That would be asking one branch of the federal government if the federal government has to agree to give up land, money and power. That's like having the fox guard the henhouse. OF COURSE they are going to rule in the federal government's (which they are a part of) favor.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@686204 Thomas Jefferson, 1820:
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator I feel the SC judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. However it is not their role to implement changes that rests with governmental process which involves the executive branch,legislative branch, Senate and Congress. Someone has to be there to tell them where they are passing laws in violation of the Constitution. It's called checks and balances.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 you are correct that NOW SC judges are the ultimate arbiters...it was not always so. The Founders built a system with another huge check on a centralized government becoming oppressive at home and aggressive abroad - state's rights. The ultimate right being the right to secede. Washington could never be too oppressive or aggressive if dissatisfied states could leave. It is hardly surprising the central govt sought to and did destroy this check on their power.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator One of the major decisions made by the SC was the Dred Scott case it ruled that the Government implemented laws contrary to the Constitution. No complaints by the south on that one by the way. My only point of argument here is the Challenge of the legality of secession through the SC was an option open to the South instead they chose the gun. The Judges maybe the ultimate arbiters but they don't pass the laws or make amendments to the Constitution thats what we have....
686204 1 year ago
@686204 They didn't choose the gun. They wanted to go in peace. Lincoln chose to transform the union from one of consent to one of force-thus destroying THE key check on centralized power, state's rights.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@686204 The problem was Lincoln was raising and army to invade the South. The South fired first, a huge mistake.
btdave100 1 year ago
@686204 [the only alternative to states rights]....is to hand over sovereignty to the black robed deities of the court who disappear into their chambers and then tell us what orders we must obey, no matter how nonsensical or unpopular they may be.". John C. Calhoun
hungarygator 1 year ago
@686204 My point is before proceeding to war every avenue should be explored. I feel that in this case both sides did not live up to the expectations of the people and the Constituion. Power and money was the primary reason for actions taken and not the interests of the people the Constituion was protecting.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I agree with this part. Lincoln needed a casus belli and did all he could to provoke the Confederates into providing one by holding a fort in one of their principal harbors and then resupplying it after promising not to. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government were very foolish IMO to give Lincoln what he wanted. They should have tolerated the insult and forced him to fire the first shot.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator My point is that for everyone who claims it was legal there is someone to say it wasn't. The Supreme Court was there to handle such matters back then and was an option to take rather than war. Because someone says it is Constitutional does not mean that is the case. The Constitution has numerous amendments made to it because it was felt further clarification was required It would only be natural for someone to challenge the meaning of the Constitution if they felt it was ambiguous
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The supreme court was not there to handle such matters back then. That's what you don't seem to get no matter how often I say it or what quotes I show which demonstrate that this was not what the Founders intended. The vast majority North and South thought states did have the right to secede...ie that it was a voluntary union in which government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator I know where you are coming from man and if the vast majority North and South thought states did have the right to secede why did the North raise an army to prevent it. What I am talking about here is was it legal based on how the Constitution was drafted. The Supreme Court at that time was well established to handle such matters pertaining to the Constitution it was considered the supreme arbiter of the Constitution during the time of Marshall back in the early 1800's.
686204 1 year ago
@hungarygator an executive branch and legislative branch for and what ever they come up with it has to get through the congress and Senate. Also governments have been known to ignore SC rulings.
686204 1 year ago
"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them bette. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right....Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator You have your interpretation and I have mine if I was the government and you decided I was wrong don't you think I should be given the chance to amend my decision before going to war at the expense of 600,000 lives? That's why the Supreme Court was created.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Should America be able to decide to withdraw from the UN? I don't see anything in the UN charter granting a country the right to withdraw. What if the other countries in the world decided to invade the USA for withdrawing from the UN? Would they be justified in doing so? Was it the intent of any of the countries which signed up for UN membership that they never be able to withdraw? As absurd as that sounds to you NOW, it was a similar situation then.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator The outcome of such a meeting could have been to secede following the democratic process. Sorry I don't buy your propaganda.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 and I don't buy yours.
hungarygator 1 year ago
"I am determined to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than to give up the rights of self government in which alone we see liberty, safety and happyness." Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
America was born via an act of secession. Think the founders intended to bind their states to a strong central govt after just fighting a long 8 year war to get away from one?
hungarygator 1 year ago
To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?" Alexander Hamilton
hungarygator 1 year ago
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." James Madison
hungarygator 1 year ago
The constitution was not passed until 1788, so I think the outlawing of slavery in the next decade and half in the north qualifies as ending slavery soon after the foundation of the country. Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not Northern states, since they did not commit treason they were allowed to keep their institutions until after the war. Economics is neither moral nor immoral, like rain it falls on both the sinners and the saints.
SeigleM 1 year ago
Why would so many southerner's risk all to perserve slavery when most didn't own nor care about slavery?
trb1952 1 year ago
my favorit song.
this song do not exist in sweden.
MrConfederate1 1 year ago
Resident of Kennesaw here
redbaron998 1 year ago
Morality is evolutionary. Slavery was not always considered or recognized as Immoral. In 1861, the cultural forces that believed slavery was immoral grew large enough to clash with those who believed Slavery was necessary for their cultural survival. Some lessons are learned the hard way.
SeigleM 1 year ago
@SeigleM How was it possible that the rest of the world ended slavery without bloodshed, and it cost Americans over half a million lives? If ending slavery was the north's reason for declaring war on the south, why didn't Lincoln free the northern slaves at the same time he freed those in the south?
trb1952 1 year ago
Slavery ended in Northern states after the Rev War. Borders states did not end slavery until the 13th Amendwas adopted in December 1865. Slavery was violently ended in Haiti, and violent slave revolts played a role in the ending of some Latin American revolutions against Spanish rule. 1800’s the English ended slavery in Africa during their colonial wars. China ended slavery around the time of the Chinese revolution of 1910 and the Ottoman Empire during their revolution after WW1.
SeigleM 1 year ago
@SeigleM Slavery didn't end in northern states. The legal trade in slaves ended, not ownership. Even then New York was a slave state until 1799, New Jersey until 1804 and Maryland as well as some border states right up to the time Lincoln flooded them with Union troops following the secession of SC. Morality is often dictated by economics. The depletion of the northern source of slaves (West Indies) and the rising cost of African slaves made slave ownership in the north less appealing.
trb1952 1 year ago
@SeigleM The way slavery ended in Haiti worked out as good for Haiti as it did for us.
trb1952 1 year ago
God bless every soldier lad who wore a suit of gray.
1966jeffe 1 year ago 28
you should know where your loyalties are...you fought against ur own brothers, cousins etc. that s not patriotic at all.
spartanwarrior1 1 year ago
@spartanwarrior1 Yeah right like when the 13 colonies rebelled against their cousins and brothers in England. The Colonials were English and British.
A quote comes to mind from the film ' A passport to Pimlico " It is because I am English that I am fighting for my right to be a foreigner"
balderdashandpiffle 1 year ago
@balderdashandpiffle lol, you were fighting against a king!!!long live the USA you southern idiots.
spartanwarrior1 1 year ago
Very well edited video.
VanHowle 1 year ago
Great song would love to see this place
dave581000 1 year ago
Great song would love to visit Kennesaw some time
dave581000 1 year ago
He said, "Sammy , can't you hear 'em singing..."
23mistakes 1 year ago
Bobby Horton
TheSouthron98 1 year ago
They thought it was a prank call...
ROFLRemix123 1 year ago
This was re-inacted some time ago.... I remember calling the cops thinking there was a local robbery... how emberassed I was to fund out that it was a re-inactment...
ROFLRemix123 1 year ago
@ROFLRemix123 haha :D DERP!
bullyboy1863 1 year ago
My direct descent was here for Louisiana, so this is especially haunting to me. You did a good job.
RiverBirch1967 1 year ago 2
Family fought at Kennesaw defending Atlanta. Maybe someone will post David Russell doing this song-awesome arrangement and power to the verses. Words and music by Don Oja Dunaway.
altstrasse 1 year ago 2
That is awesome.
23mistakes 1 year ago
I love looking at the people that think their confederates, because they can say "god save the south". And for the idiots that say the Confederates are un-American, let me tell you that the Civil War was the most American thing that ever happened, and if you don't believe take a look at the United States morals in the constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
acdcftatr 1 year ago
Good song. Not my favorite version of the song, but still good. I like how it's coupled with the video. Good work.
sabotUP 2 years ago
hermenos de dixie unamonos estamos esparcidos por todo el mundo yo les hablo desde el peru y siempre glorificare la causa del sur viva la confederacion viva el sur resucitemos dixie arriba arriba hermanos dixie vive en el mundo entero
confederado1000 2 years ago
To say that the Southern cause was illegitimate because of slavery, then one must be consistent and concur that the U.S Revolution of 1776 was illegitimate because they too at the time had slaves, and viewed them as the property they didn't want taxed without representation. The south wanted to be independent from the Federal Government. It was a Just cause. A just causes might be lost on the battle field, but never in the arena of ideas!
IslandersMets10 2 years ago 31
@IslandersMets10 if people think the war between the states was over slavery then they need to read a history book
utubecenseorstruth 2 years ago
@utubecenseorstruth nope abe put his story in those
50oas 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10
Well said i totally agree.
Knasterreal1 1 year ago
My familys land near Acworth and Kennesaw was where the battle took place.
The whole family was in the war, and it was a hard time and a long time ending. Grandma never got over the loss of family. Remember William B Hickman. He died for Freedom his state, and his family.
progressiverebel 1 year ago 3
@IslandersMets10 Why did it take until the gettysburg adress(1863) to right a speech about it! I may be wrong , but not all southerners owned slaves,
Malcmcm 1 year ago 8
@Malcmcm Most didn't. Only around 16% did.
TheBoberton 1 year ago
@Malcmcm Only 6% of southerners owned slaves!
SamuelDMorgan 11 months ago
@IslandersMets10 incorrect the revolution of 1776 was just since it was about fighting a foreign kingdom 1000miles away...the rebellion of 1861 was definitely NOT JUST since fighting a federal government is not very patriotic. it s always the same excuse neo-cons use.
spartanwarrior1 1 year ago
@spartanwarrior1
So it was illegitimate because it was against a federal government and not a kingdom?
We are patriotic, your federal government is just not what we are patriotic for.
TheBoberton 1 year ago
Why should the South have felt patriotic about a government that was ruled by the North. Southerners loved the SOUTH, and didn't give a damn about the North, thus they were definently justified in rebelling against a foreign ruler (the North)
argosime 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10 Tyranny is tyranny. Wheather it's 4,000 miles away or around the corner. Get a clue buddy
IslandersMets10 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10 The Revolutionary war was fought by British colonists who were traitors to the Crown. If they had lost, most of the founding fathers would have been hung by the Brits. The Declaration of Independence was a lie when it came to claiming all men are created equal. Slavery was a black mark on the history of this country the founding fathers chose to ignore the problem in order to appease certain states and get the Constitution accepted.
686204 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10 The civil war was fought over secession and slavery was the reason for secession by the south. The North felt Secession was illegal and went to war to preserve the Union. The Civil war was a rebellion against the government pretty much the same as the Revolutionary war. All states signed and approved the Constitution which was a legal contract with the Federal Government the South unilaterally broke it thus their secession was illegal.
686204 1 year ago
@686204There was not one person alive in 1861, that signed the original federal constitution. I never knew you could have a legal contract by the virtue of birth!!! wow! lol. One of the first acts of congress after the war of 1776 was the alien and sedition act. That's an unconstitutional act, and by your logic the feds "broke the contract" so therefore the contract is void! WOOO HOO! The south should "LEGALLY be free".
IslandersMets10 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10 You have a point however the question is who declared it unconstitutional the supreme court didn't because it was never sent to them for review. If the supreme court had declared it unconstitutional the government would have a choice to change it or ignore it and face the consequences. The opportunity however is there for the government to correct its mistake which is how democracy is suppose to work.
686204 1 year ago
@IslandersMets10 The south had the same opportunity to take secession to the supreme court for a secession on its legality they didn't. Instead they unilaterally declared on their own that it was ok. Also I fail to see your point on the fact that not one person who signed the constitution was alive in 1861. The same goes for your smart ass comment regarding birth. Can't you debate an issue without coming across in a demeaning manner.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 if the states were sovereign...and I think the overwhelming evidence is that the Founders intended that they never surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government, then the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Putting the federal govt in charge of determining whether you can remove yourself from control of the federal govt, is like having the fox guard the henhouse. They will NEVER find that they are not entitled to your land and money.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@686204 Wrong. The states were free to withdraw anytime they chose. 3 states including VA, NY and RI ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they could withdraw. "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address. There are plenty of others among the Founders who said the same...so did Lincoln in 1848.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator And yet in 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal. Also you forgot Texas. Just because you say you would do something does not mean you can when it comes down to doing it. How do you know what the founding fathers intended when they drew up the Constitution where you there. All I know is that no where in the Constitution does it say secession is an option. If you view the Constitution as a legal contract unless specified no one can unilaterally break the contract
686204 1 year ago
@686204 1869 was after the war. How did you really expect the court to rule? Yes secession is not mentioned in the constitution. What does the 10th Amendment say about that? If its not mentioned, its reserved to the states. You realize who chaired the convention in Virginia that ratified the constitution with the express proviso that Virginia retains the right to secede? He was a guy by the name of George Washington.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator After the war or not the fact remains that the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal. Are you saying it would have been a different decision before the war. If so why didn't the South approach the Supreme court at that time for clarification. Contracts are drawn up for a purpose and quite often disputes develop between two parties which require legal interpretation in this case the two parties (North @ South) had a difference of opinion that's what the supreme court is there for.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 What I'm saying is the founders clearly intended this to be a power left to the states and that they knew that putting it into the supreme court would be like having the fox guard the henhouse....ie the states would have to ask a branch of the federal government if the federal government had to give up land, money and power. Obviously, the federal government is NEVER going to be of the opinion that its own power should be reduced.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator My contention is the South took it upon themselves to make legal judgment and would have been in a far better position to justify its actions having sought the SC ruling if it confirmed its interpretation. I think both North and South were afraid to take this approach in case they lost. Before taking action which can lead to war all Ave's should be explored before hand. The legality of secession has been argued for and against ever since that war and still goes on today.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Look at the quotes from the Founders. Look at the fact that 3 states ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they had a right to secede. Look at the fact that Madison as president took no action to stop the Hartford Convention where New Englanders were discussing secession, look at the declaration of independence "government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed." The evidence is overwhelming.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator spoken like a true revolutionary. If the government doesn't do things the way I want it then lets pick up our guns and go to war to hell with the democratic process. It's funny the founding fathers thought the Supreme Court had a purpose in our Democratic republic I guess they must have been wrong. You can't compare the operation of the UN with our Country its like comparing apples to oranges. It's like trying to compare our constitution to that of Canada not the same at all.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Spoken like someone who believes government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. You say you can't compare the UN with "our country"? "our country" was VERY different than it is today. it was these (plural) united states. Not the (singular) united states. The federal government was not the last word on everything. You wouldn't recognize it prior to 1861 and the Founders wouldn't recognize it today.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator The fact remains that secession is not clearly defined in the constitution and if 3 states ratified the constitution with the express proviso that they had a right to secede then why didn't the others. Was it written in their copy of the Constitution and not the others? Madison took no action to stop the Hartford Convention why would he it's a democratic country what right would he have to stop it. Unless of course it was to discuss overthrowing the government.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 You ask why didn't the others? They didn't need to. No state holds more or less rights than another. Those 3 had made that express reservation so it applied to all of them since they all had the same rights What right did Madison have to stop several states from meeting to discuss secession? None. What right did Lincoln have to use force against states which had seceded? None.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator I did a bit of research on your claim that VA, NY @ RI ratified the Constitution with the express proviso that they could withdraw. While it was mentioned in a lot of the articles nothing was provided on the wording used. In fact one researcher went so far as to say only VA passed such a reservation other claims were highly exaggerated. He provide the exact wording used by VA as follows......
686204 1 year ago
@hungarygator "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression". Nowhere does it mention any right to unilateral secession or any unconditional right to revolt for an reason the state sees fit. It was not made in the name of the people of VA but of the people of the United States & it makes the unremarkable assertion that the latter have the right to.......
686204 1 year ago
@686204 the powers may be resumed by them is them saying they have a right to secede. Google "legality of secession" and go to the very first link. The states did not agree in their understanding to be unconditionally surrendering their sovereignty forever. Think about it....they had just fought so hard to get away from that. Why would they now want to throw away their independence forever with no option to leave?
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator I read your article and found it very interesting however I think it gives an interpretation of the constitution from an anti federalist point of view. I could refer you to a number of pro federalist web sites that would take the same material and give you the opposite view. I have one very good one but don't know how to refer it to you over this web site. More and more I am coming to the Conclusion that the founding fathers left too many legal loop holes in the Constitution....
686204 1 year ago
@hungarygator change their government. In other words approval would have to come from the majority of the people of the United states. I don't think that would have happened. Now I realize most researchers side with one side or the other like you and me. However I was never able to find anything on the wording of NY & RI if in deed they did put such a proviso. If you can come up with such evidence I would be interested to see their wording.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I might add Charles Adams wrote a book detailing the history of secession and the right to secede etc going back to England. Its called "When in the course of human events; the case for Southern secession". Does he take sides? Sure. He does however present some very compelling evidence both historically and from the Founders and what they thought.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator when it came to the matter of secession. I still tend to side with the federalist point of view. When you sign a legal contract there has to be some legal process that has to be followed when someone wants out of it. It would appear in this case there was no other alturnative then revolution/war to settle the matter which means the loser was wrong and the winner was right. Too bad both sides had to let it go that far I still think it was unnecessary.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The states did follow what they considered to be an impeccably legal procedure-they either held elections and held a convention to decide ie the same means by which states had originally ratified the Constitution or they held referendums. The means by which they seceded were democratic, this was not a case of a few imposing its will on the majority. I do not subscribe to the view that the winners were automatically right. That's nothing more than might makes right.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator I should also add that I think the Revolutionary war was unnecessary all you have to do is look north to Canada which obtained their Independence peacefully and without loss of life. I very seldom side with the re voluntary point of view it tends to benefit the few wealthy/power seekers who have no interest at all in the benefit of the general public. Both wars in my opinion were a rich mans war & poor mans fight. Nice to have debated with you.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Looking at how Canada, Australia and New Zeeland turned out, I'm inclined to agree with you about the 1776 war of secession from the British Empire. We still would have ended up a democracy with individual rights without it. Nice to discuss issues with you as well. Its a pleasure to talk to someone who presents his views rationally without all the insults and namecalling as is so common with all the trolls here.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@Rebeldragon90 the constant mention of "slave rapers" as he calls them ( he means heroes :P ) aswell as every second word being dumb fuck hes such a retard who wouldnt know a fact if it hit him in the face
witchhunter32 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pill from the start of the war -- the first few days, desertions were a huge problem for the slave rapers.
The problems were so serious, Lee was going ape, saying we gotta kill more deserters. Picket killed 22 at one time -- of CONFEDERATE troops.
Toward the end -- Johnston just told Davis - the men are leaving and taking the horses They WILL NOT FIGHT. This isnt me saying it dumb fuck -- its Johnston to Davis.
See Life of Jefferson Davis, by Pollard, pages 512-516
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
what a load of shit wen will u stop ur pish and accept ur lying
witchhunter32 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pill I dont know what Winik said, but desertions were rampant in March April - Johnston told Davis they were deserting en masse --taking the horses too, that they WOULD NOT FIGHT.
That's quote from Johnston dumb fuck. The famous conversation by Beuregard, Johnston and Davis.
The desertions dumb fuck is why the slave rapers lost. You dumb fucks exempted slave owners from the draft.
Big fucking mistake. Finally the rebs just got tired of dying so the rich fucks could have slaves
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Read of Lee's own statements dumb fuck -- "My army is evaporating". In fact, the day before he surrendered (like a pussy) he wanted to surrender, because he didnt believe their were enough troops left to even run away right.
An aide had to convince him that not everyone had deserted -- so Lee was shamed into running more. Then the next day he surrendered.
Read the fucking diaries of those in Richmond -- desertions were the reason the whole thing went to shit for the CSA.
FarceTax 2 years ago
Farce Tax,
You're just incapable of "getting it" aren't ya. Your mentioning a book title proves nothing! Ya still don't know the author's name, sonny!
Exactly how many Southerners "hated the CSA"? Which specific groups "hated the CSA"? Exactly whose diary should we read? Who published that diary?
You continue to give "gobble degook" answers. No one believes your rambling delusional GENERALITIES!
You ARE a FARCE, sonny! An idiotic bad joke, sonny.
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago 2
F Tax,
I've read Jay Winik's excellent, WELL DOCUMENTED book "April 1865". It deals with Petersburg thru Appomattox.
Unfortunately, his schorlarly work just doesn't corroborate ANY of your delusional lying rambling.
Let's see now -- we can all google Jay Winik's credentials.
Now what were yours again? That ,is other than lying delusional internet commando KIDDE and extraordinary fool!
And you ain't fooling anybody (but yourself), sonny!
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Plus check out the recent book on Confederate Desertion -- "More Daming Than Slaughter: Desertion is the Confederate Army".
Over 300,000 Confederate soliders deserted -- (103,000 officially admitted to). The point is -- many people in the South hated the Confederacy, would not serve it, and when forced to, often deserted.
FarceTax 2 years ago
Book should make it really, really EASY for you to post those names of the WHOLE COMPANIES (you claim) deserted SHOULDN'T IT?
WHERE ARE THEY, sonny boy! What's stopping you from posting those complete unit designations where EVERYONE OF 'EM deserted!
IF there were SOOO many CSA desertions, those 208 (long, long) wks. it took for your ancestors to declare "victory" shows them (to the WORLD) to be even more timid, craven, panicky lil wimps than ever before -- NOW DON'T IT!!!
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pilly -- I got your verifiable shit bout desertions right here. Even at the start of the war -- desertions were about to drive Lee to butt fuck the closest slave.
We have written reports TO Lee right off the bat In a letter from General Wise to Lee - "the state volunteers under my command lost 300-500 men by desertion" in a single fucking DAY.
Desertions were rampant in the Confederacy -- and got much wors, even after Lee ordered mass executions.
Its eventually why you lost
FarceTax 2 years ago
F Tax,
OK, ignorance personified -- let's see something "VERIFIABLE" from you!
This will be a UNIQUE experience folks!
Farce Tax doesnt even comprehend the meaning of a CREDIBLE and VERIFIABLE source!
He thinks his delusional, rambling fantacies are credible!
Why don't you go away and come back as NavyBeer, 12FlyMe, RonPaulHatesBlacks, or one of your many other witless troll persona?
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pillbox -- I just gave you the book where it documents the massive desertions -- Lee's papers where he was losing 300-500 men in a day to desertions.
Thats just one thing -- your own lunatic devotion to the insane myth of Confederate honor. There was no fucking honor -- most of the leaders were greedy slave rapers.
Eventually the men realized it too and just quit fighting for the the scum bag leadership. As Lee said "My army is evaporating"
FarceTax 2 years ago
FTax,
GOD -- you are totally uneducated! A book itself is NOT a source!
The bibliography (back of the book) lists the SOURCES for items being presented in the book as factual!
BTW, its customary to give the author's last name (at the VERY least) when referring to a book.
You are a PITTIFUL, SAD excuse for an educated human being!!
Still waiting for those CSA units that deserted to a man!
Wha'sa matter, lose your copy of the book? Maybe some other punk stole it, huh?
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pill dumb fuck -- Lee's own papers show just from ONE report that he was losing 300-500 soldiers in ONE DAY from desertion, got that dumb fuck?
The real shit about the South is the slave, slave rape, and torture, how the Confederacy was founded on slavery.
God bless those guy that deserted.
FarceTax 2 years ago
Faritax,
Same question for you as your TROLL running buddies.
How COULD it take you Yankee wimps four long years ( 208 weeks of Southern Glory) to "win" Abe's illegal war of attrition.
Attrition's not too big a word for ya' is it?
Why'd it take SO MANY of your lil' whiney timid, feeble blue belly ancestors SOOOO LONG to overwhelm 1/3 their number having only 1/10 their means??
What kinda' lacey drawered little pansies are you descended from anyway? Did they squat to pee? Huh, Huh
Pillboxesghost 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Picket shot 22 CSA deserters at a time.
Entire companies deserted at one time -- desertions were rampant.
Confederates would have executed more if Davis let them.
Desertions were the biggest problem the South faced. Lee at the end yelled " My army is evaporating!" . He was about to surrender earlier but an aide convinced him enough men had not run off.
The South wins EASILY if OVER 300,000 of their men didnt desert, and if they had real support of the citizens.
FairtaxFraud 2 years ago