I was born and raise in the north but if the war were today and I were a young man I'd shoulder my musket for my home and country, South Carolina and the CSA. God bless the south
I am Proud to be Cherokee, Southern and a True "Redneck". Remember the Tennessee Volunteers who broke treaty and fought with the South for our Freedom of the Cherokee Nation. Remember the "The "Half-Breed Gorilla Fighters". Remember how they punished us long after the war for being Native Americans who fought not for slavery but our Freedom!!
Long live the South, Long live Texas Cherokee, Long live the Cherokee Nation!!
Why does it matter? My great great grandpa (Sgt. John Powell) on my mom's side was a Welsh emigrant that joined the union cavalry. Obviously I never met him so I don't know why he signed up; but 7 out of 10 soldiers on both sides were either Irish or German emigrants that signed up for the pay and could care less about the politics.
I think the Confederate cause was about the dumbest cause men ever died over, but I respect the courage of the men who died. They had guts, and that can't be denied.
@classifiedwaste71 do you realy think states rights are that bad the worse cause is brave men dien in the midle east the reason we are over there is to halt midle easter oil producshin china made us go over there becuse there alience with russia and russia seports chinas need for oil and they wanted to capilize
@classifiedwaste71 Well the average Confederate soldier felt they were fighting against a tyranny an for their homes, many that fought didn't own slaves and only the rich did many joined because they felt they were pretecting their families and the south. I think the Confederate soldiers deserves to be respected just as much as the Union soldiers, people don't realise what they went through and what they really fought for.
More Confederate solders joined to fight because they were being over taxed, wanted to fight for their homes, or just because it would be considered honorable to fight in a war. Only the rich owned slaves an mostly the poor fought, they called it "the rich mans war and the poor mans fight"
If the South had won...there wouldnt be slavery for long. Machines were being built that could pick more cotton in a day than 20 slaves could in a week. I notice that you like to "focus" on just the slavery part of the war. The right to slavery was handed to the South on March 2nd 1861 when the Congress voted and passed by a 2/3rd. margin to NEVER interfear with slavery. The Southern States threw this into the trash and rejected the offer. War over slavery? Dont think so.
I don't actually think it was as simple as all that. I've already gotten a lot of flak for that! I merely said that because it was easier. I think that the confederacy was fighting for a number of different reasons, as is the case in most wars, but ultimately, they were far more white supremacist than the north, which was gradually coming around to the idea of freedom for black people, and made that an issue late on in the war, while the south remained just as bigoted.
Well, it still reaches the core of the argument I was making - had the south won, slavery would not have been abolished. It's a bit of a simplification, I know, but equally I have no doubt some of the confederacy was fighting for their right to keep slaves, and that was what I was focusing on.
@Jzadek72 The north treated the south like a colony of theirs, so the south wanted their independence. Lincoln made slavery the issue after 2 years of humiliating defeats suffered at the hands of the south to keep Britain & France from recognizing the Confederacy. Slavery was NOT the cause and no one defends it. About 4% of the southern popultion owned slaves. Men showed up to defend their homes from an invading army, not to protect the rights of wealthy planters to own people - think about it.
@Jzadek72 please don't fall for the politically correct version of history. There is no man in the right mind that would fight for slavery but for their country they would give everything they had. Robert E. Lee General of the south is the perfect example of this. He turned down the offer to help the union. He said himself that slavery is evil. The history books leave out important key facts, thus i can't blame you or anyone who believes it. Always have an open mind.
I'm sure it's more complicated than the simplicities I've just stated, but the fact remains that if the south had one, slavery would probably have remained. No matter the sins of the north (impartial brit here), which were many, I cannot condone that.
@Jzadek72 what do you mean the fact remains the same its not a fact its just something you believe in and no matter what evidence is presented you will stick to the same broken defense. if you think your right prove it but no one ever has any real evidence they just make stuff up. its sicking that people who seek the truth read countless documents and books with all views state a fact and then some A hole with a 1 year education on corrected american history comes along and says they are wrong
A word of advice - if you want to convince people you're right, insulting them is not generally the way to go about it.
Also - if you're views are so clearly fact, then how come it's such a small minority "who see the light"? I thought that the history books were all unreliable? Why are your ones now suddenly correct.
History is written by the victors. Is doesn't mean that the losers are correct.
Washington did not raise arms to break Virginia's oath to the US Constitution. Owning slaves was not what they broke their oath for. They broke their oaths to the Constitution because they knew democracy would eventually make slavery illegal. They fought to get out of the democratic process that would "steal their property"- another human being. Rebels feared honest work.
@trchis thats bullshit the vast majority of Confederate troops were HARD WORKING common people fighting because they felt that there state was being invaded, because they felt more loyal to their state than to the US goverment .Only about 5% of southerns owned slaves less than half of those owned the massive plantations that are thought of today. Please get your facts right before you start attacking my ancestors and the cause they fought and died for.
@26thncst Alas statistics and percentages don't make for principles. Yes, most were not slave owners, but they wanted to right to be, they broke their oath to the US Constitution to have the right to own another human. Please provide one other "State's Right" they fought for, in other words please remember the simple FACT your ancestors fought for only ONE Right the right to own another man. They suceeded from the Union for that right alone and thats one fact you can't sing away.
@trchis What you fail to realize is that it wasn't that simple. It was a group telling another we are going to destroy your business and not offer any other options. And then there were taxes... and mind you the north had slaves as well. Afterwards the north raped the south for taxes as well ... it was alllllllll about money.
@redlizzybeth The economic underpinning of the region was built on slavery. Those in power, rightly or wrongly, felt Lincoln was a direct threat to their power and pressed for secession. Yes, the north had slaves as well but not to the extent that slave owners controlled society as they did in the south.
@rexlibris99 The north had no problem working children to death in factories. We are all guilty of sins but please don't behave as if the southerners were fighting solely for slavery. They were fighting for the right to make their own decisions instead of having someone far away do it for them. To have a voice in decisions made about local policies. Northerners knew nothing about the agricultural society and had their been other options I bet things would be different.
@redlizzybeth Actually, the South were fighting for slavery. You really shouldn't lecture anyone about the Civil War when you've never even read your own Cornerstone Speech or Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, or South Carolina declarations of secession.
And no one worked children to death more than the South. You just don't give a shit about those children, because they were black.
@mollymu1 There were Union states that still had slaves during the civil war such as:Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware although Missouri was still a border state.
The South fought for the right to enslave another man and make as much money from him until he was dead. They broke their solemn oath to the US Constitution for the State's right to enslave. They were traitors and always will be, no fancy words or historical research will change their cowardice and treachery.
@Lodine66 The South fought for the right to enslave another man and make as much money from him until he was dead. They broke their solemn oath to the US Constitution for the State's right to enslave. They were traitors and always will be, no fancy words or historical research will change their cowardice and treachery.
@trchis But isn't that what some Presidents of the Country did . So by your rules George Washington went against the Con . And what do you care about the slaves anyway .
@TThorne931 as my family fled from the Nazis during world war 2 and assisted the American in bringing down Hitler, and terrorist want to spreed their message through killing innocent people.
@TThorne931 You are wrong about that, it was the Union who did the 300,000 counts of murder on civilians, looted the southern cities, burned them to the ground, and even had slaves them selves. If there was a Geneva convention back then, almost every northern General would of been hung for their crimes. You need to read more into history before you come to these forums.
@Ty032392 nope the north put to death Three Hundread thousand Terrorists broke war morale and devastated Terrorists Strongholds . There were no civilians in the south just Enemy Targets
@TThorne931 only, and that was to protect their family. And if you continue to say that the south were Nazis and terrorist than what does that make the federal government, it makes them also Nazis for a holocaust against not only the Southern population, but also the Native American population, and many other populations around the world who just wanted to be left alone. If anything, you are the real racist in this chat room. And a idiot racist to. As I know what a true terrorist and Nazi is,
@Ty032392 no they only thing they did was raise an illegal army and elected Terrorists to lead them. and no the Federal Goverment is the Face of God On earth we are commanded by faith to decimate the enemies of the state without mercy without giving them a breath to wage another war . and fuck the natives i am native cherokee and metis and still think the plains people should have been erradicated from earth . and the terrorists are many names
okay lodine tell me this if america had a base in a country and they told us to leave and we said no and started sending in troops and supplies what do you think they would do its an act of overt agression
@1234TheChief The difference is that Washington considered South Carolina a part of the US just as Britain considered the 13 colonies a part of their empire. NATO's headquarters were once in Paris. France told us to leave and we did.
@Yorgar Why not? The Europeans are a major part of the alliance and NATO was set up to defend Western Europe. We don't need the troop levels there we did in 50s-60s but the HQ is a small thing.
@rexlibris99 because the continent is often taken yet the brittish isles are able to stand seperate and its easier to defend look how well they did during wwii
@Lodine66 The overwhelming majority of soldiers in any army in any war fight because they have to. As for Lincoln's letter, that is so misquoted it isn't even funny. His primary objective was to preserve the Union and he said he'd do that if it also meant freeing all the slaves. People seldom read the entire letter.
@mollymu1 Like I said, few people read ALL of the letter. His first priority to was to uphold the Union. "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." That pretty much states his position.
@rexlibris99 Well that leaves a lot open for interpertation doesn't it . Free all at one time , free to stay here or go somewhere else ? I'm sure there were slave owners who wished they could all go free also but knew that would mean they'd be out of business. And wouldn't be the best thing for them also . I wish everyone in Mexico could come over here and be a citizen but it wouldn't work so I know they have to stay where they are . The bulk of them .
@rexlibris99 And I may wish that all abortion clinics were closed and woman didn't have abortions but my greater wt wish to not be a murderor of abortion nurses and doctors precludes the other wish . Wish link con had the same integrity . I feel sorry for you people that are so hard up for a hero that you have to make one up .
@mollymu1 How many times have you disagreed with your in-laws? As for "slave owning general" you'd be better served by giving a name. Grant's in-laws were slave owners, as was his wife, but his parents were abolitionist. There were differing views North and South.
@rexlibris99 Well if I felt that strong about something . They wouldn't of been my inlaws to start with . Maybe that shows they were that adiment about it . The Gen was Grant . He owned a slave as far as I know . If it was owned by his wife that is about the lamest argument I have ever heard in my life. Thank it shows that Slavery was more intertwined than we are taught AND that it wasn't as bad maybe as we are taught . If his wife owned a slave he is a slave owner and also maybe a wuss.
@rexlibris99 That gives me a diff view of abos also . I would of thought they wouldn't tolerate a child marrying a slave owner , which I don't know how happy there were with it . Was she such a babe that he overlooked his feelings . I think he owned a slave or he wouldn't of married one .
There have been some good "rational" posts here. You have to remember down South the civil war is often called the war of Northern agression. The way it was viewed was that Lincoln raised an army to invade supposedly his own country (Virginia) and the Virginia militia was expanded to repel the Northern invaders. After the american revolution the states were set up individually with strong central goverments and the Southern states were fighting to maintain the right to govern themselves.
@gibsonrb75vl I will add that I am a decendant of soldiers on both sides but only one ( that I know of) in the union army. My direct decendent Great great etc Grandfather along with his brother and a cousin were in the 8th Virginia Cavalry. My Great great etc grandfather on my moms side served in the 20th Virginia Cavalry and on my dads mothers side was the union veteran who served in the 22nd kentucky infantry. I will say the Civil War they teach in school today is far from the truth.
@gibsonrb75vl You mean the War of Southern Agression when a band of Terrorist lead by the Transvesttite Jefferson Davis Raised an ILLEGAL army of Occupation and conqured 13 US States by Force conscripting its children to die for Terrrorist Ideals . The Banner of States Right fails it was a war about slavery look to the terrorist speaches of seccession they speak of enslavment defense for their land .
@TThorne931 No, rebels are Americans, the original 13 colonies rebelled against Britain, Robert E. Lee's father fought in the revolution. Robert E. Lee refused to invade another state like Lincoln ordered he chose death before dishonor he paid dearly,guess whose property Lincoln ordered Arlington National Cemetery to be built on. Lincoln was a tyrant but we glorify him because how could America ever admit to being wrong.
@REALbigWHITEdog There you are. What's up? You do know I'm from the South, right? What was the comment to my profile earlier today all about? I need some clarification. Please reply. Thanks!
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and others were known to be more than a little ambivalent about secession before 1861. As for Lincoln's quote, things obviously changed with him over 12 years. If you hang on his "any portion of a people can" why did Richmond refuse to let East Tennessee stay in the Union?
@rexlibris99 Liccoln - Douglas Debate..Mr. Lincoln states " Im Not preaching rebellion, I dont have to. This countries instutions belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they should grow weary of the existing goverment, they can exercise thier Constitutional Rights of amending it, or their Revolutionary Right to dismember it or overthrow it. If the Founding Fathers gave us anything, they gave us that," Not my opion..Fact
@meetman57 Lincoln obviously believed that Richmond had insufficient reasons to begin a war and leave. The speech was his opinion at that time. It is a fact that East Tennessee wanted to remain in the Union. It is a fact that their elected representatives said so. It is a fact that they were occupied by a Confederate army.
@rexlibris99 !. The war started in South Carolina...not Virginia. Richmond only spoke for Virginia. Each state goverment left the union on its own. Richmond had nothing to do with the other states leaving.
@meetman57 "Richmond" refres, of course, to the Confederate government. While South Carolina started the process, and hysteria swept it along, the Richmond government was indeed responsible for processing the war and also occupying Unionist East Tennessee wqhich had made it plain it wanted no part of a Southern Confederacy.
@rexlibris99 Tennessee was a core Confederate state, they overwhelming voted for secession. In facte they were among the first states to secede before the CSA was even formed.
@deadfan666 East Tennessee was overwhelmingly Unionist and voted against the ordinance of secession. That is also a fact as is that Tennessee supplied a number of Union regiments.
@deadfan666 no they weren't Tennessee resisted session far more than North Carolina did and later on in the war was a jumping off point for raids into North Carolina and Tennessee raised more than a couple Union regiments and cavarly regiments
@meetman57 It is also a fact that, although he conveniently left himself an out, Robert E. Lee wrote in January 1861 that the Founding Fathers had never intended for any state to leave the Union.
I have noticed in your replys that you use a lot of "Your Opinions" instead of facts.
I cant understand for the life of me why you keep speaking of going to "Court" over anything. As iin the Texas vs. White case showed that secession was declared not legal in the year 1869. You seem to think that the Souithern States needed to ask permission from the Goverment. Thats silly. Do you think that King George would have given permission to our Coloinal forfathers?
@meetman57 My opinions are no better, or worse for that matter, than yours. You use those freely enough. I've already stated that Colonial justification seem to me to be greater than Confederate ones (i.e. the protection and expansion of slavery). The Congress fought a war for independence and won. That is the major difference.
There are so many different ways that could've formed the Confederate States of America as the outcome: The war could've started 10 years sooner, Gettysburg's artillary barrage could have actually hit some one, along with the calvary not running away like scared pansies, and the North could've flat out let us be our own nation without attacking us. I'm from Louisiana so I'm a true southerner and I hate that we lost, but now we have one kick butt nation that I am damn proud to be a part of.
Once again, the states were fighting for the right to secede. the slavery debate blowing from the north is what sparked that secession debate. its just like if states secede over obamacare. all the south lost was the right to secede for the rest of the country. jim crowe laws, etc, kept the black man down for over 100 years and some argue today still. you tell me who won the war.
@MultiZmxncbv Ya it did it to me to and im from georigia we shouldve won the war but didnt and everybody is saying theres gonna be another one cuz the goverments so dam stupid
I HAVE SWORN TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND IT, TO THE LAST DROP OF MY BLOOD, TO MY FOREFATHERS WHOM FOUGHT AND DIED FOR OUR BELOVED TENN. SOON, ONCE AGAIN WE WILL BE FORCED TO PROTECT OUR STATES CONSTITUTION, OUR STATES RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. I ALONG WITH OTHERS WILL FIGHT TO THE VERY LAST DROP OF BLOOD TO PRESERVE THIS RIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN AND THEIRS. MAY GOD SAVE OUR REPUBLIC.
You are correct about the silence of the Constitution on secession. Hence the 10th Amendment applies------any power not elaborated in the Constituion is left to the states. Once again, secession was legal in 1860. It doesn't prohibit Richmond from raising armies an navies as Richmond represented A FOREIGN COUNTRY, lawfully seceded from US and can raise whatever it chooses. The Confederacy, indeed, fired the 'first shot' as would a homeowner whose land was being INVADED.
@TThorne931 Your really quite nuts arent you, you write linking the CSA with the Nazi who appeared in the 19/1920.. The Civil War was over 60 years . Your not a Yankee but you seem to be a birther Republican... You one strange person.
Why did secession NEED to be justified? It was perfectly legal in 1860.. It was Lincoln who started the War by ignoring that fact, colluded with by the northern press converting "secession", a lawful act to "REBELLION", a casus belli.
@reuthful The Constitution is silent on any orderly and lawful means of secession. It specifically prohibits many of the things Richmond did such as raising armies and navies, among others. It seems clear that the Confederacy fired the first shots. As far as rebellion itself goes anyone can do that. You simply have to win.
@rexlibris99 We came very close to winning if everybody wouldve listened to Robert E. Lee at Getteysburg ther woulda been a 99 percent chance of us winning. and if the goverment dont whatch it i think there might be another civil war
@LeftiusMaximus what do you expect from a nazi too proud in his German nazi training to win a war well if he wasen't mentally incompteent to lead he might have won
@rexlibris99 Texas vs, White is the perfect example why Secession "WAS' legal. 1st., The Texas vs. White case was in 1869..four years after the war. The case was argued before the Supreme Court for the first time and was THEN declared Not Legal to leave the Union. If the Courts declared it not legal in 1869, then it was legal in 1861. And as far as your common sense goes. holding someone somewhere that they dont want to be is simpy silly, What common sense are you talking about?
@meetman57 "And as far as your common sense goes. holding someone somewhere that they dont want to be is simpy silly," Whenever I mention East Tennessee to a Southerner I'm told "Oh, that is just a part of state". No, it was, and is, a part of the United States.
@rexlibris99 You are right, the Constitution is completly silent on secession. It does not have the power to allow secession or surpress secession. So we turn to the 10th amendment that states that in cases such as these, the STATES reserve the right to make the call. So secession was VERY legal in 1861.
As far as raiseing armys and navies..that is for the States of the U.S. If a state had seceeded, it was no longer a part in anyway with the Constitution of the United States.
@meetman57 Richmond never approached the Supreme Court to establish the legality of their actions which is suspicious. The "Nine Old Men" probably would have stated that it wasn't in the Constitution either which is a valid inetrpretation in my opinion. More importantly, why did Richmond forcibly suppress the majority Unionist movement in East Tennessee if it was acting constitutionally?
@rexlibris99 I really dont think that you can name anything that the Confederate Goverment is guilty of that our forfathers in the Colonial Goverment was not guilty of. Remember, King George said that a country did not have the right to leave and form their own country, but our forfathers felt that as free men we did. Thus our 1st war for Independence. The Southern States fought a second war for Independence.
@meetman57 My opinion is that the Colonials had far greater justification and attempted to reconcile where the Confederates did not. As for right, we are comparing British and American law which may not be the same. If I were an apologist for the Confederates I would be troubled by their not making a case in the courts and also denying the rights they claimed to areas such as East Tennessee.
@rexlibris99 January 12th. 1849 when Mr.incon was in Congress, he stated in a speech" Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to raise up and shake offthe existing goverment and form a new one that suites them better. This is a most valuable most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing goverment may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people can.
@TThorne931 Listen, 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,' -- we hold those truths to be self evident. Buchanan returned Southern forts on his way out, they weren't 'Federal land.' -- Secession was not illegal. Nor would our forefathers have it that way.
@StonewallJackson86 Yet you didn't dissolve It you sent an Offensive War Against America and your nazi Whermacht were whipped by glorious Generaliissmo Sherman and Commander Grant and loyal lincon
as soon as i could remember, i had a tune like this in my head. i didn't even know what it was or what the lyrics were saying, but ever since, i've been looking of that song and you posted it. now i can end my search! thanks!
Blook Kin is strong and some of us don't forget... We honor our family, our ancestors and our God.... We still stand as Rebels, and we fight for freedom and right and Liberty.
Talking nasty of the dead shows an ignorance of Life and Liberty. We the living are asked to ensure that truth is spoken. There are always two sides to any War! God Defend The South!
@vincereviews . It took 50 or 60 years and the death of my people who were involved to calm things down in the South there seems to be a low down dirty cowards who want to to continue a fight long since over. Trash talking abut the South and my family is not something I willingly tolerate. Most of the scum who makes bold lies are uneducated idiots who don't really read and are would never be as brave as the Federal Soldiers were. They may have been the South enemy, but now we all are Americans.
@progressiverebel couldnt agree more it was in no way an insult if you were trying to turn anything around on me i was on your side so that would make no sense to argue if we are on the same page here
"Early in the war, a union squad closed in on a single, ragged confederate. And he obviously didn't own any slaves, he couldn't have much interest in the constitution, and they asked him 'What are you fighting for anyhow?' and he said 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' which is a pretty satisfactory answer."-Shelby Foote, Ken Burns "The Civil War."
@bloodngutspatriot Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances or confederations. They are also prohibited, among other things, from keeping troops, ships of war or entering into agreements with other states or foreign powers to do so. These are expressly forbiddent. the Richmond regime did all of this and more.
@rexlibris99 The constitution prohibits the states from doing such things while the states are in the union, once the states leave, the constitution cannot bind them. and the constitution says nothing about the states not being able to leave. and be careful to so loosely throw around the term regime, one must also look at the lincoln administration, and realise they had many regime like tendencies.
@longliveJohnWayne The constitution also does not explicitly say that states may leave. These things listed are expressly forbidden. Richmond didn't try to settle the issues at hand because the power elite realized they were losing power in Washington and left. Since my personal philosophy does agree with Richmond's course of action it explains my language.
@longliveJohnWayne As I said before the Constitution was a legal contract between the States & the Feds. In a legal contract unless specified neither party can unilaterally break the Contract. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution therefore the Southern States violated the contract. Their only course of legal action would have been to take it to the supreme Court for a legal decision. However as we all know in 1869 the SC ruled that Secession was illegal.
@Southernjuggalo63 The Union was putting down a rebellion you go where the rebels are I don't call that invading at all. The first shot was fired by rebel troops on a Federal Fort which was sitting on Federal Land legally purchased from SC. By the way the Southern rebels also sent their troops into Northern States.
@686204 well first off FORT SUMPTER WAS IN A SECEEDED STATE dumbass in other words it was like how england occupied here 2nd off the south gave lincoln 2 chances to evacuate the fort it was ignored also the south seceeded to keep from going to war hence the papers served to the federal government and last lincoln broke the constitution where states rights is meaning no state has the right to march their soldiers into another state also the south only went into the north 2 times
@Southernjuggalo63 You can't change the fact that Fort Sumter (not Sumpter) was on Federal Land purchased from SC. It makes no difference if life were lost or not it started the war. Also the secession of the Southern states was illegal and not recognized by the remainder of the Union. As I said before when putting down a rebellion you go where the rebels are. You make no sense it's OK for the South to go into the North because they only went 2 times but not the North. lol
@686204 so go find some dumb high school kid who hasnt educated themselves on facts to talk to cause to me your ignorant to historical facts and very one sided
@Southernjuggalo63 Also you can't have it both ways if the South seceded legal as you claim then how was Lincoln violating the Constitution by going into a state of another Country with troops. You keep contradicting yourself young man. I have forgotten more history then you have ever learned and old enough to be your grandfather so if you wish to debate an issue learn your history and when you talk to someone do it in a respectable manner your making yourself look silly.
You're debating with a retard who can't spell "seceded" correctly and doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? Really? That's fish in a barrel---and developmentally disabled fish, to boot!!!
@686204 because states rights to march your states soldiers into another state is a no no i know you still believe the old indoctrination version of the war but never forget jefferson davis tried to avoid the war by sending peace letters to lincoln but was ignored cause well lincoln fat cat gun friends wouldnt have made any money AMERICA DIED IN 1865 we went from a decentralized government to a centralized government i mean look at us now we are having to police the world and u think thats good?
@Southernjuggalo63 Look the Union viewed the secession of the South as a rebellion it was illegal and I gave my reason in previous comments. The Firing on Ft. Sumter is the same thing as soldiers going into another state the fort was on Federal Land. So I would have to say the South started it first and also sent their troops into Union state territory on 2 other occasions.
@Southernjuggalo63 In the Unions opinion a rebellion was taking place and the rebels started a revolution by firing on their troops are they going to stand by and do nothing. In order to put down the rebellion they had to go where the rebels were in the South. The South made two fatal mistakes 1st they should have taken the issue of secession to the Supreme Court for a ruling and 2nd they fired on Ft. Sumter.
@Southernjuggalo63 Also their piece offerings were in the form of demands justifying their secession why would Lincoln listen to them. You may think the South was right I don't not only did they illegally secede but they did it for the preservation and expansion of slavery, terrible.
@686204 can you say bullshit. look at the history of the US. the founding fathers did the same EXACT same thing as the CSA. you may not realize this but they fought for states rights because the typical white Southern male owned NO slaves.
@ThePhilRobinson I am looking at the history of the US. The founding fathers were considered to be rebels and traitors by the Brits. If we had lost the Revolutionary war the founding fathers would have been tried and hung by the Brits for treason. Yep the CSA did the same thing. Do you know who controlled Southern State politics back then it wasn't your typical white Southern male it was the Southern aristocracy and/or Plantation owners who's whole way of life was dependent on cotton & slavery.
@686204 They needed some kind of battle cry to get the typical white Southern male to do their fighting for them and that was State Rights. No different than the North's battle cry which was preserve the Union. The whole war was based on power & greed for the limited few on the part of both sides. The Civil War was a typical example of "a rich man's war & a poor man's fight. If you wish to pursue this debate futher please refrain from profanities other wise don't bother contacting me anymore.
@stl6281z Ft. Sumter was still on Federal Land legally purchased from SC there is no way you can get around that fact. Tell me what were the troops going to do that were located in Ft Sumter they were surrounded by water and Conferate troops waiting for them if they tried to get off the island. The South instead of waiting it out fired on the Ft. big mistake they played right into Lincolns hands. Then again Lincoln outsmarted his southern political Counterparts all through that war.
@686204 P.S. THE ONLY PEOPLE TO DIE AT FORT SUMPTER WERE PEOPLE WHO SHOT THE CANNONS WHICH IT EXPLODED BY THEIR OWN HANDS(accidents while firing cannons) IT WAS NOT NORTH KILLING SOUTH OR VICE VERCA YOU SHOULD RESEARCH MORE BEFORE YOU SPEAK
@longliveJohnWayne It also says nothing about any process for leaving. Secession was nothing more than a political and military coup. If you don't think some southern states were actively aiding Richmond prior to their own secession you're naive. "Regime" may have different meanings.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks HEY DIPSHIT AMERICA MADE SLAVERY HERE AND THE AMERICAN FLAG FLEW OVER ALL SLAVE SHIPS FOR 90YRS THE CONFEDERACY WAS AROUND FOR ONLY 4 YEARS YOUR VERY IGNORANT TO HISTORY
@RonPaulHatesBlacks lol the confederacy were americans too dipshit your state is your country or are you too stupid to understand the DECLARATION OF INDPENDENCE
@bloodngutspatriot Go back and read what I said about entering into a legal contract. It's plain and simple if you do not want to accept it that's ok with me. Most Pro Southerners refuse to accept it the same as they refuse to accept slavery as being the reason for secession. When you enter and sign an agreement you do it voluntarily no one puts a gun to your head. The fact of the matter is secession is not there and because of it the Constitution is open to legal interpetation on the matter
@bloodngutspatriot In my opinion the South should have approached the Supreme Court for a legal opinion before deciding on their own that secession was legal. They played into the Unions hands by firing on Ft. Sumter giving Lincoln the justification to bring troops in to put down a rebellion.
@bloodngutspatriot The States and the Feds entered into a legal agreement which was the Constitution. Under a legal agreement unless specifically specified neither party can unilaterally break the contract. Since the Southern States were in violation of the signed agreement they illegally seceded. It boils down to legal interpretation which has been argued for an against ever since the South seceded. Because it is open to legal interpretation it falls within the realm of the supreme Court.
@bloodngutspatriot The war was about secession however the secession was primely about slavery. There is now way around it the Southern Aristocracy who controlled State politics knew that their whole economy was based on cotton and slavery. Anyone who says slavery was not the primary reason for secession is afraid or ashamed to face the issue. Slavery was a black mark on the history of this country both South & North.
@bloodngutspatriot The Constitution does not mention secession yet it specifically limits the powers of the states to confederate, raise armies, etc. You can always say you have the "Right of Revolution" but you'd still better win. Many in the south hated slavery because they could see it retarded the growth of the region yet it was the primary reason for secession. Not because of racism but because of economic and political power.
@bloodngutspatriot Secession was never a legal alternative. If Richmond thought secession was peaceful why did they raise an army and navy? This was directly illegal under the constitution. While it is true that newspapers on both sides were inflammatory at times, they do offer us a view of what politicians were actually thinking.
@bloodngutspatriot Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
I was born in the south but raised in the North so in the end I respect both Union and CSA
hankluke15 2 days ago
The past is gone .
truthfull11 1 month ago
Can't...stop..replaying....too...awesome...
long live the South, from all over....
KraljevicPavle 1 month ago
I was born and raise in the north but if the war were today and I were a young man I'd shoulder my musket for my home and country, South Carolina and the CSA. God bless the south
jolyjacktar 1 month ago
a masterpiece
beanhouse55 2 months ago in playlist sdf
I am Proud to be Cherokee, Southern and a True "Redneck". Remember the Tennessee Volunteers who broke treaty and fought with the South for our Freedom of the Cherokee Nation. Remember the "The "Half-Breed Gorilla Fighters". Remember how they punished us long after the war for being Native Americans who fought not for slavery but our Freedom!!
Long live the South, Long live Texas Cherokee, Long live the Cherokee Nation!!
waggonburner007 2 months ago
Why does it matter? My great great grandpa (Sgt. John Powell) on my mom's side was a Welsh emigrant that joined the union cavalry. Obviously I never met him so I don't know why he signed up; but 7 out of 10 soldiers on both sides were either Irish or German emigrants that signed up for the pay and could care less about the politics.
PDunkel66 2 months ago
I think the Confederate cause was about the dumbest cause men ever died over, but I respect the courage of the men who died. They had guts, and that can't be denied.
classifiedwaste71 2 months ago
@classifiedwaste71 do you realy think states rights are that bad the worse cause is brave men dien in the midle east the reason we are over there is to halt midle easter oil producshin china made us go over there becuse there alience with russia and russia seports chinas need for oil and they wanted to capilize
FreedomOfDixie 2 months ago
@classifiedwaste71 Well the average Confederate soldier felt they were fighting against a tyranny an for their homes, many that fought didn't own slaves and only the rich did many joined because they felt they were pretecting their families and the south. I think the Confederate soldiers deserves to be respected just as much as the Union soldiers, people don't realise what they went through and what they really fought for.
AUG351 2 months ago 2
@AUG351 Respect to the men who died on both sides.
classifiedwaste71 2 months ago
@classifiedwaste71 I agree, they all fought for what they believed in
jolyjacktar 1 month ago
More Confederate solders joined to fight because they were being over taxed, wanted to fight for their homes, or just because it would be considered honorable to fight in a war. Only the rich owned slaves an mostly the poor fought, they called it "the rich mans war and the poor mans fight"
AUG351 2 months ago
If the South had won...there wouldnt be slavery for long. Machines were being built that could pick more cotton in a day than 20 slaves could in a week. I notice that you like to "focus" on just the slavery part of the war. The right to slavery was handed to the South on March 2nd 1861 when the Congress voted and passed by a 2/3rd. margin to NEVER interfear with slavery. The Southern States threw this into the trash and rejected the offer. War over slavery? Dont think so.
meetman57 3 months ago
@meetman57
I don't actually think it was as simple as all that. I've already gotten a lot of flak for that! I merely said that because it was easier. I think that the confederacy was fighting for a number of different reasons, as is the case in most wars, but ultimately, they were far more white supremacist than the north, which was gradually coming around to the idea of freedom for black people, and made that an issue late on in the war, while the south remained just as bigoted.
Jzadek72 3 months ago
@Jzadek72 You said that because it was easier? It seems that you need a better reason than that!!
meetman57 3 months ago
@meetman57
Well, it still reaches the core of the argument I was making - had the south won, slavery would not have been abolished. It's a bit of a simplification, I know, but equally I have no doubt some of the confederacy was fighting for their right to keep slaves, and that was what I was focusing on.
Jzadek72 3 months ago
This is a great song!! But the problem is I'm a Yank.
RockIslandLine513 3 months ago
@Jzadek72 The north treated the south like a colony of theirs, so the south wanted their independence. Lincoln made slavery the issue after 2 years of humiliating defeats suffered at the hands of the south to keep Britain & France from recognizing the Confederacy. Slavery was NOT the cause and no one defends it. About 4% of the southern popultion owned slaves. Men showed up to defend their homes from an invading army, not to protect the rights of wealthy planters to own people - think about it.
stellalouise1 4 months ago
@Jzadek72 please don't fall for the politically correct version of history. There is no man in the right mind that would fight for slavery but for their country they would give everything they had. Robert E. Lee General of the south is the perfect example of this. He turned down the offer to help the union. He said himself that slavery is evil. The history books leave out important key facts, thus i can't blame you or anyone who believes it. Always have an open mind.
REALbigWHITEdog 4 months ago
@REALbigWHITEdog
I'm sure it's more complicated than the simplicities I've just stated, but the fact remains that if the south had one, slavery would probably have remained. No matter the sins of the north (impartial brit here), which were many, I cannot condone that.
Jzadek72 4 months ago
@Jzadek72 what do you mean the fact remains the same its not a fact its just something you believe in and no matter what evidence is presented you will stick to the same broken defense. if you think your right prove it but no one ever has any real evidence they just make stuff up. its sicking that people who seek the truth read countless documents and books with all views state a fact and then some A hole with a 1 year education on corrected american history comes along and says they are wrong
REALbigWHITEdog 3 months ago
Comment removed
Jzadek72 3 months ago
@REALbigWHITEdog
A word of advice - if you want to convince people you're right, insulting them is not generally the way to go about it.
Also - if you're views are so clearly fact, then how come it's such a small minority "who see the light"? I thought that the history books were all unreliable? Why are your ones now suddenly correct.
History is written by the victors. Is doesn't mean that the losers are correct.
Jzadek72 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Britian would of won the Rev War it would of been about Slavery.
mollymu1 4 months ago
I will not call myself a redneck, but i will call myself a rebel or country.
XtraGamerz 4 months ago
God Bless Each And Everyone Of These Brave Men !!!
Flanative57 4 months ago
Washington did not raise arms to break Virginia's oath to the US Constitution. Owning slaves was not what they broke their oath for. They broke their oaths to the Constitution because they knew democracy would eventually make slavery illegal. They fought to get out of the democratic process that would "steal their property"- another human being. Rebels feared honest work.
trchis 4 months ago
@trchis thats bullshit the vast majority of Confederate troops were HARD WORKING common people fighting because they felt that there state was being invaded, because they felt more loyal to their state than to the US goverment .Only about 5% of southerns owned slaves less than half of those owned the massive plantations that are thought of today. Please get your facts right before you start attacking my ancestors and the cause they fought and died for.
26thncst 4 months ago
@26thncst Alas statistics and percentages don't make for principles. Yes, most were not slave owners, but they wanted to right to be, they broke their oath to the US Constitution to have the right to own another human. Please provide one other "State's Right" they fought for, in other words please remember the simple FACT your ancestors fought for only ONE Right the right to own another man. They suceeded from the Union for that right alone and thats one fact you can't sing away.
trchis 4 months ago
@trchis What you fail to realize is that it wasn't that simple. It was a group telling another we are going to destroy your business and not offer any other options. And then there were taxes... and mind you the north had slaves as well. Afterwards the north raped the south for taxes as well ... it was alllllllll about money.
redlizzybeth 4 months ago
@redlizzybeth The economic underpinning of the region was built on slavery. Those in power, rightly or wrongly, felt Lincoln was a direct threat to their power and pressed for secession. Yes, the north had slaves as well but not to the extent that slave owners controlled society as they did in the south.
rexlibris99 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 The north had no problem working children to death in factories. We are all guilty of sins but please don't behave as if the southerners were fighting solely for slavery. They were fighting for the right to make their own decisions instead of having someone far away do it for them. To have a voice in decisions made about local policies. Northerners knew nothing about the agricultural society and had their been other options I bet things would be different.
redlizzybeth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redlizzybeth Actually, the South were fighting for slavery. You really shouldn't lecture anyone about the Civil War when you've never even read your own Cornerstone Speech or Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, or South Carolina declarations of secession.
And no one worked children to death more than the South. You just don't give a shit about those children, because they were black.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 months ago
If the war wasn't about Slavery , why were ALL the states in the CSA slave owning states ?
mollymu1 4 months ago
@mollymu1 There were Union states that still had slaves during the civil war such as:Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware although Missouri was still a border state.
26thncst 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The South fought for the right to enslave another man and make as much money from him until he was dead. They broke their solemn oath to the US Constitution for the State's right to enslave. They were traitors and always will be, no fancy words or historical research will change their cowardice and treachery.
trchis 4 months ago
@Lodine66 The South fought for the right to enslave another man and make as much money from him until he was dead. They broke their solemn oath to the US Constitution for the State's right to enslave. They were traitors and always will be, no fancy words or historical research will change their cowardice and treachery.
trchis 4 months ago
@trchis But isn't that what some Presidents of the Country did . So by your rules George Washington went against the Con . And what do you care about the slaves anyway .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@trchis The Con didn't recognize a Black person as a man I don't think could be wrong .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@TThorne931 as my family fled from the Nazis during world war 2 and assisted the American in bringing down Hitler, and terrorist want to spreed their message through killing innocent people.
Ty032392 5 months ago
@Ty032392 yes the south committed 300,000 Counts of murder 25,000 counts of Enslavment
and 1 million robberies and looting of allied homes
TThorne931 5 months ago
@TThorne931 You are wrong about that, it was the Union who did the 300,000 counts of murder on civilians, looted the southern cities, burned them to the ground, and even had slaves them selves. If there was a Geneva convention back then, almost every northern General would of been hung for their crimes. You need to read more into history before you come to these forums.
Ty032392 5 months ago
@Ty032392 nope the north put to death Three Hundread thousand Terrorists broke war morale and devastated Terrorists Strongholds . There were no civilians in the south just Enemy Targets
TThorne931 5 months ago
@TThorne931 only, and that was to protect their family. And if you continue to say that the south were Nazis and terrorist than what does that make the federal government, it makes them also Nazis for a holocaust against not only the Southern population, but also the Native American population, and many other populations around the world who just wanted to be left alone. If anything, you are the real racist in this chat room. And a idiot racist to. As I know what a true terrorist and Nazi is,
Ty032392 5 months ago
@Ty032392 no they only thing they did was raise an illegal army and elected Terrorists to lead them. and no the Federal Goverment is the Face of God On earth we are commanded by faith to decimate the enemies of the state without mercy without giving them a breath to wage another war . and fuck the natives i am native cherokee and metis and still think the plains people should have been erradicated from earth . and the terrorists are many names
Al-quda USSR Nazi Germany and the CSA
TThorne931 5 months ago
okay lodine tell me this if america had a base in a country and they told us to leave and we said no and started sending in troops and supplies what do you think they would do its an act of overt agression
1234TheChief 5 months ago
@1234TheChief The difference is that Washington considered South Carolina a part of the US just as Britain considered the 13 colonies a part of their empire. NATO's headquarters were once in Paris. France told us to leave and we did.
rexlibris99 5 months ago
@rexlibris99 true but gotta question do you think its smart to have NATO HQ in continental europe i mean historically speakin this is a blunder
Yorgar 5 months ago
@Yorgar Why not? The Europeans are a major part of the alliance and NATO was set up to defend Western Europe. We don't need the troop levels there we did in 50s-60s but the HQ is a small thing.
rexlibris99 5 months ago
@rexlibris99 because the continent is often taken yet the brittish isles are able to stand seperate and its easier to defend look how well they did during wwii
Yorgar 5 months ago
@Lodine66 The overwhelming majority of soldiers in any army in any war fight because they have to. As for Lincoln's letter, that is so misquoted it isn't even funny. His primary objective was to preserve the Union and he said he'd do that if it also meant freeing all the slaves. People seldom read the entire letter.
rexlibris99 5 months ago
@rexlibris99 free all , part or none . Sounds like a pawn in a chess game .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@mollymu1 Like I said, few people read ALL of the letter. His first priority to was to uphold the Union. "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." That pretty much states his position.
rexlibris99 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 Well that leaves a lot open for interpertation doesn't it . Free all at one time , free to stay here or go somewhere else ? I'm sure there were slave owners who wished they could all go free also but knew that would mean they'd be out of business. And wouldn't be the best thing for them also . I wish everyone in Mexico could come over here and be a citizen but it wouldn't work so I know they have to stay where they are . The bulk of them .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 And I may wish that all abortion clinics were closed and woman didn't have abortions but my greater wt wish to not be a murderor of abortion nurses and doctors precludes the other wish . Wish link con had the same integrity . I feel sorry for you people that are so hard up for a hero that you have to make one up .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 Didn't stop him from marrying into a slave owning family or using slave owning general . If you can call him that .
mollymu1 4 months ago
@mollymu1 How many times have you disagreed with your in-laws? As for "slave owning general" you'd be better served by giving a name. Grant's in-laws were slave owners, as was his wife, but his parents were abolitionist. There were differing views North and South.
rexlibris99 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 Well if I felt that strong about something . They wouldn't of been my inlaws to start with . Maybe that shows they were that adiment about it . The Gen was Grant . He owned a slave as far as I know . If it was owned by his wife that is about the lamest argument I have ever heard in my life. Thank it shows that Slavery was more intertwined than we are taught AND that it wasn't as bad maybe as we are taught . If his wife owned a slave he is a slave owner and also maybe a wuss.
mollymu1 4 months ago
@rexlibris99 That gives me a diff view of abos also . I would of thought they wouldn't tolerate a child marrying a slave owner , which I don't know how happy there were with it . Was she such a babe that he overlooked his feelings . I think he owned a slave or he wouldn't of married one .
mollymu1 4 months ago
There have been some good "rational" posts here. You have to remember down South the civil war is often called the war of Northern agression. The way it was viewed was that Lincoln raised an army to invade supposedly his own country (Virginia) and the Virginia militia was expanded to repel the Northern invaders. After the american revolution the states were set up individually with strong central goverments and the Southern states were fighting to maintain the right to govern themselves.
gibsonrb75vl 5 months ago
@gibsonrb75vl I will add that I am a decendant of soldiers on both sides but only one ( that I know of) in the union army. My direct decendent Great great etc Grandfather along with his brother and a cousin were in the 8th Virginia Cavalry. My Great great etc grandfather on my moms side served in the 20th Virginia Cavalry and on my dads mothers side was the union veteran who served in the 22nd kentucky infantry. I will say the Civil War they teach in school today is far from the truth.
gibsonrb75vl 5 months ago
@gibsonrb75vl yeah they claim it was about States Rights and the Southern plight instead of the south being a bunch of slaving Terrorists
TThorne931 5 months ago
@gibsonrb75vl You mean the War of Southern Agression when a band of Terrorist lead by the Transvesttite Jefferson Davis Raised an ILLEGAL army of Occupation and conqured 13 US States by Force conscripting its children to die for Terrrorist Ideals . The Banner of States Right fails it was a war about slavery look to the terrorist speaches of seccession they speak of enslavment defense for their land .
TThorne931 5 months ago
CSA CSA THUMBS UP IF UR A GOOD OL REBEL
snuffdippingredneck 5 months ago 7
funny how a songs lyrics are as real in todays world as was back in the 1860,s..
fulcher64 5 months ago
@Lodine66 Yup!. Finally someone with a rational post.
FastPonyGT 5 months ago
25 people are yanks
REALbigWHITEdog 6 months ago 21
@REALbigWHITEdog you mean Americans right
TThorne931 6 months ago
@TThorne931 No, rebels are Americans, the original 13 colonies rebelled against Britain, Robert E. Lee's father fought in the revolution. Robert E. Lee refused to invade another state like Lincoln ordered he chose death before dishonor he paid dearly,guess whose property Lincoln ordered Arlington National Cemetery to be built on. Lincoln was a tyrant but we glorify him because how could America ever admit to being wrong.
REALbigWHITEdog 5 months ago
Comment removed
FastPonyGT 3 months ago
@REALbigWHITEdog There you are. What's up? You do know I'm from the South, right? What was the comment to my profile earlier today all about? I need some clarification. Please reply. Thanks!
FastPonyGT 3 months ago
@FastPonyGT well maybe i mistook you for someone else or misunderstood a comment, sorry about that
REALbigWHITEdog 3 months ago
@REALbigWHITEdog Whew! I thought I was going crazy. No problem! Peace.
FastPonyGT 3 months ago
can yall pary fer me cause im goin to go into the marine corp so i need the paryer thanks yall
deagle727 6 months ago
See the crazy things girls will make you do? Damn Polly, lemme be. Such a geat song. Give me a thumbs up if Waylon was your favorite Highwayman?
nightfrailer 6 months ago
See the crazy things girls will make you do? Damn Polly, lemme be.
nightfrailer 6 months ago
King George frowns upon our sheninigans, Re-join the British Empire and achieve your glory!
Belegaer 6 months ago
lol the people who disliked this are probly yankees
deagle727 7 months ago
Is this Johnny Rebel?
MrHelvetia88 7 months ago in playlist Johnny Rebel
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and others were known to be more than a little ambivalent about secession before 1861. As for Lincoln's quote, things obviously changed with him over 12 years. If you hang on his "any portion of a people can" why did Richmond refuse to let East Tennessee stay in the Union?
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 Liccoln - Douglas Debate..Mr. Lincoln states " Im Not preaching rebellion, I dont have to. This countries instutions belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they should grow weary of the existing goverment, they can exercise thier Constitutional Rights of amending it, or their Revolutionary Right to dismember it or overthrow it. If the Founding Fathers gave us anything, they gave us that," Not my opion..Fact
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 Lincoln obviously believed that Richmond had insufficient reasons to begin a war and leave. The speech was his opinion at that time. It is a fact that East Tennessee wanted to remain in the Union. It is a fact that their elected representatives said so. It is a fact that they were occupied by a Confederate army.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 !. The war started in South Carolina...not Virginia. Richmond only spoke for Virginia. Each state goverment left the union on its own. Richmond had nothing to do with the other states leaving.
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 "Richmond" refres, of course, to the Confederate government. While South Carolina started the process, and hysteria swept it along, the Richmond government was indeed responsible for processing the war and also occupying Unionist East Tennessee wqhich had made it plain it wanted no part of a Southern Confederacy.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 Tennessee was a core Confederate state, they overwhelming voted for secession. In facte they were among the first states to secede before the CSA was even formed.
deadfan666 6 months ago
@deadfan666 East Tennessee was overwhelmingly Unionist and voted against the ordinance of secession. That is also a fact as is that Tennessee supplied a number of Union regiments.
rexlibris99 6 months ago
@deadfan666 no they weren't Tennessee resisted session far more than North Carolina did and later on in the war was a jumping off point for raids into North Carolina and Tennessee raised more than a couple Union regiments and cavarly regiments
26thncst 6 months ago
@meetman57 It is also a fact that, although he conveniently left himself an out, Robert E. Lee wrote in January 1861 that the Founding Fathers had never intended for any state to leave the Union.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
I have noticed in your replys that you use a lot of "Your Opinions" instead of facts.
I cant understand for the life of me why you keep speaking of going to "Court" over anything. As iin the Texas vs. White case showed that secession was declared not legal in the year 1869. You seem to think that the Souithern States needed to ask permission from the Goverment. Thats silly. Do you think that King George would have given permission to our Coloinal forfathers?
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 My opinions are no better, or worse for that matter, than yours. You use those freely enough. I've already stated that Colonial justification seem to me to be greater than Confederate ones (i.e. the protection and expansion of slavery). The Congress fought a war for independence and won. That is the major difference.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
There are so many different ways that could've formed the Confederate States of America as the outcome: The war could've started 10 years sooner, Gettysburg's artillary barrage could have actually hit some one, along with the calvary not running away like scared pansies, and the North could've flat out let us be our own nation without attacking us. I'm from Louisiana so I'm a true southerner and I hate that we lost, but now we have one kick butt nation that I am damn proud to be a part of.
TheAmerikanerin 7 months ago in playlist awesome music
I've heard this song sixty times today
ferbraz89 7 months ago
@MrTwill5 - You got it backwards. Lee insisted on the charge that took out half the troops. Longstreet is who the south needed to listen to.
mpzreb17 7 months ago
Once again, the states were fighting for the right to secede. the slavery debate blowing from the north is what sparked that secession debate. its just like if states secede over obamacare. all the south lost was the right to secede for the rest of the country. jim crowe laws, etc, kept the black man down for over 100 years and some argue today still. you tell me who won the war.
mpzreb17 7 months ago
Who is the singer?
1975ANTONIS 8 months ago in playlist southern
I am from Australia and and dont know about american history much but that made my hairs stand on end!
MultiZmxncbv 8 months ago 12
@MultiZmxncbv Ya it did it to me to and im from georigia we shouldve won the war but didnt and everybody is saying theres gonna be another one cuz the goverments so dam stupid
MrTwill5 8 months ago
glory to rebels from Italy
fo140351 8 months ago 2
I HAVE SWORN TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND IT, TO THE LAST DROP OF MY BLOOD, TO MY FOREFATHERS WHOM FOUGHT AND DIED FOR OUR BELOVED TENN. SOON, ONCE AGAIN WE WILL BE FORCED TO PROTECT OUR STATES CONSTITUTION, OUR STATES RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. I ALONG WITH OTHERS WILL FIGHT TO THE VERY LAST DROP OF BLOOD TO PRESERVE THIS RIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN AND THEIRS. MAY GOD SAVE OUR REPUBLIC.
LT.COL. TENN RANGERS
doversniper 8 months ago
Comment removed
NinerGreen 8 months ago
You are correct about the silence of the Constitution on secession. Hence the 10th Amendment applies------any power not elaborated in the Constituion is left to the states. Once again, secession was legal in 1860. It doesn't prohibit Richmond from raising armies an navies as Richmond represented A FOREIGN COUNTRY, lawfully seceded from US and can raise whatever it chooses. The Confederacy, indeed, fired the 'first shot' as would a homeowner whose land was being INVADED.
reuthful 8 months ago
@reuthful They weren't a Independent country Richmand was full of Nation Traitors and race traitors
TThorne931 8 months ago
@TThorne931 Your really quite nuts arent you, you write linking the CSA with the Nazi who appeared in the 19/1920.. The Civil War was over 60 years . Your not a Yankee but you seem to be a birther Republican... You one strange person.
progressiverebel 8 months ago
Why did secession NEED to be justified? It was perfectly legal in 1860.. It was Lincoln who started the War by ignoring that fact, colluded with by the northern press converting "secession", a lawful act to "REBELLION", a casus belli.
reuthful 8 months ago
@reuthful The Constitution is silent on any orderly and lawful means of secession. It specifically prohibits many of the things Richmond did such as raising armies and navies, among others. It seems clear that the Confederacy fired the first shots. As far as rebellion itself goes anyone can do that. You simply have to win.
rexlibris99 8 months ago
@rexlibris99 We came very close to winning if everybody wouldve listened to Robert E. Lee at Getteysburg ther woulda been a 99 percent chance of us winning. and if the goverment dont whatch it i think there might be another civil war
MrTwill5 8 months ago
@MrTwill5: Lee made his biggest mistake at Gettysburg, not swinging round the right as Longstreet suggested....that fatal charge was a big mistake
LeftiusMaximus 7 months ago
@LeftiusMaximus what do you expect from a nazi too proud in his German nazi training to win a war well if he wasen't mentally incompteent to lead he might have won
TThorne931 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 The Union is voluntary, any state has the right to withdraw
LeftiusMaximus 7 months ago
@LeftiusMaximus Texas v. White, 1861-1865 and common sense would indicate otherwise.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 Texas vs, White is the perfect example why Secession "WAS' legal. 1st., The Texas vs. White case was in 1869..four years after the war. The case was argued before the Supreme Court for the first time and was THEN declared Not Legal to leave the Union. If the Courts declared it not legal in 1869, then it was legal in 1861. And as far as your common sense goes. holding someone somewhere that they dont want to be is simpy silly, What common sense are you talking about?
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 "And as far as your common sense goes. holding someone somewhere that they dont want to be is simpy silly," Whenever I mention East Tennessee to a Southerner I'm told "Oh, that is just a part of state". No, it was, and is, a part of the United States.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 You are right, the Constitution is completly silent on secession. It does not have the power to allow secession or surpress secession. So we turn to the 10th amendment that states that in cases such as these, the STATES reserve the right to make the call. So secession was VERY legal in 1861.
As far as raiseing armys and navies..that is for the States of the U.S. If a state had seceeded, it was no longer a part in anyway with the Constitution of the United States.
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 Richmond never approached the Supreme Court to establish the legality of their actions which is suspicious. The "Nine Old Men" probably would have stated that it wasn't in the Constitution either which is a valid inetrpretation in my opinion. More importantly, why did Richmond forcibly suppress the majority Unionist movement in East Tennessee if it was acting constitutionally?
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 what? Why did the CSA suppress the Union? You might want to clarify because, frankly, you make no sense sir.
Stallex 6 months ago
@rexlibris99 I really dont think that you can name anything that the Confederate Goverment is guilty of that our forfathers in the Colonial Goverment was not guilty of. Remember, King George said that a country did not have the right to leave and form their own country, but our forfathers felt that as free men we did. Thus our 1st war for Independence. The Southern States fought a second war for Independence.
meetman57 7 months ago
@meetman57 My opinion is that the Colonials had far greater justification and attempted to reconcile where the Confederates did not. As for right, we are comparing British and American law which may not be the same. If I were an apologist for the Confederates I would be troubled by their not making a case in the courts and also denying the rights they claimed to areas such as East Tennessee.
rexlibris99 7 months ago
@rexlibris99 January 12th. 1849 when Mr.incon was in Congress, he stated in a speech" Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to raise up and shake offthe existing goverment and form a new one that suites them better. This is a most valuable most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing goverment may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people can.
meetman57 7 months ago
@reuthful No It was illegal they could seccede but Can't Take US federal land the south started the war with their assault on peaceful Ft sumter
TThorne931 8 months ago
@TThorne931
'peaceful Ft sumter'
I was not aware that a battle fortification armed with heavy guns, that posed a threat to shipping and the harbor, was peaceful.
However, I seem to not know anything when compared to your blinding brilliance.
TheBoberton 8 months ago
@TThorne931 Listen, 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,' -- we hold those truths to be self evident. Buchanan returned Southern forts on his way out, they weren't 'Federal land.' -- Secession was not illegal. Nor would our forefathers have it that way.
StonewallJackson86 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson86 Yet you didn't dissolve It you sent an Offensive War Against America and your nazi Whermacht were whipped by glorious Generaliissmo Sherman and Commander Grant and loyal lincon
TThorne931 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOLLY SHIT GUYS!!! My baby son almost fucking died /watch?v=LDmNQBFbpoM
93Polishguy 9 months ago
May the died on BOTH sides see the gates of heaven! THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR TIME IN HELL
MrSouthernson1 9 months ago
@MrSouthernson1 That I agree with
789southerngirl 9 months ago
as soon as i could remember, i had a tune like this in my head. i didn't even know what it was or what the lyrics were saying, but ever since, i've been looking of that song and you posted it. now i can end my search! thanks!
ssaarraahh110011 9 months ago
Blook Kin is strong and some of us don't forget... We honor our family, our ancestors and our God.... We still stand as Rebels, and we fight for freedom and right and Liberty.
Talking nasty of the dead shows an ignorance of Life and Liberty. We the living are asked to ensure that truth is spoken. There are always two sides to any War! God Defend The South!
progressiverebel 9 months ago 2
@progressiverebel yeah...i don't really think we lost anything but lives...and slaves...but other than those no
vincereviews 8 months ago
@vincereviews . It took 50 or 60 years and the death of my people who were involved to calm things down in the South there seems to be a low down dirty cowards who want to to continue a fight long since over. Trash talking abut the South and my family is not something I willingly tolerate. Most of the scum who makes bold lies are uneducated idiots who don't really read and are would never be as brave as the Federal Soldiers were. They may have been the South enemy, but now we all are Americans.
progressiverebel 8 months ago
@progressiverebel couldnt agree more it was in no way an insult if you were trying to turn anything around on me i was on your side so that would make no sense to argue if we are on the same page here
vincereviews 8 months ago
If you're going to come here just to argue about the war, just get out of here. Nobody wants to hear you talk.
jtl0411 10 months ago
Very nicely done! Thank you for posting it. Do you mind if I ask what program you used to make your video?
John
civilwarstory
JFBott 10 months ago
Confederate heart to fight is proud of all American people. Greetings from Poland
odyn64 10 months ago
"Early in the war, a union squad closed in on a single, ragged confederate. And he obviously didn't own any slaves, he couldn't have much interest in the constitution, and they asked him 'What are you fighting for anyhow?' and he said 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' which is a pretty satisfactory answer."-Shelby Foote, Ken Burns "The Civil War."
Butternut731863 10 months ago 2
DEO VINDICE
stl6281z 10 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances or confederations. They are also prohibited, among other things, from keeping troops, ships of war or entering into agreements with other states or foreign powers to do so. These are expressly forbiddent. the Richmond regime did all of this and more.
rexlibris99 10 months ago
@rexlibris99 The constitution prohibits the states from doing such things while the states are in the union, once the states leave, the constitution cannot bind them. and the constitution says nothing about the states not being able to leave. and be careful to so loosely throw around the term regime, one must also look at the lincoln administration, and realise they had many regime like tendencies.
longliveJohnWayne 10 months ago
@longliveJohnWayne The constitution also does not explicitly say that states may leave. These things listed are expressly forbidden. Richmond didn't try to settle the issues at hand because the power elite realized they were losing power in Washington and left. Since my personal philosophy does agree with Richmond's course of action it explains my language.
rexlibris99 10 months ago
@longliveJohnWayne As I said before the Constitution was a legal contract between the States & the Feds. In a legal contract unless specified neither party can unilaterally break the Contract. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution therefore the Southern States violated the contract. Their only course of legal action would have been to take it to the supreme Court for a legal decision. However as we all know in 1869 the SC ruled that Secession was illegal.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 and invading your own continent wasnt in the constitution either but the north did it anyway lol
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 The Union was putting down a rebellion you go where the rebels are I don't call that invading at all. The first shot was fired by rebel troops on a Federal Fort which was sitting on Federal Land legally purchased from SC. By the way the Southern rebels also sent their troops into Northern States.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 well first off FORT SUMPTER WAS IN A SECEEDED STATE dumbass in other words it was like how england occupied here 2nd off the south gave lincoln 2 chances to evacuate the fort it was ignored also the south seceeded to keep from going to war hence the papers served to the federal government and last lincoln broke the constitution where states rights is meaning no state has the right to march their soldiers into another state also the south only went into the north 2 times
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 You can't change the fact that Fort Sumter (not Sumpter) was on Federal Land purchased from SC. It makes no difference if life were lost or not it started the war. Also the secession of the Southern states was illegal and not recognized by the remainder of the Union. As I said before when putting down a rebellion you go where the rebels are. You make no sense it's OK for the South to go into the North because they only went 2 times but not the North. lol
686204 10 months ago
@686204 so go find some dumb high school kid who hasnt educated themselves on facts to talk to cause to me your ignorant to historical facts and very one sided
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 Also you can't have it both ways if the South seceded legal as you claim then how was Lincoln violating the Constitution by going into a state of another Country with troops. You keep contradicting yourself young man. I have forgotten more history then you have ever learned and old enough to be your grandfather so if you wish to debate an issue learn your history and when you talk to someone do it in a respectable manner your making yourself look silly.
686204 10 months ago
You're debating with a retard who can't spell "seceded" correctly and doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? Really? That's fish in a barrel---and developmentally disabled fish, to boot!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@686204 because states rights to march your states soldiers into another state is a no no i know you still believe the old indoctrination version of the war but never forget jefferson davis tried to avoid the war by sending peace letters to lincoln but was ignored cause well lincoln fat cat gun friends wouldnt have made any money AMERICA DIED IN 1865 we went from a decentralized government to a centralized government i mean look at us now we are having to police the world and u think thats good?
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 Look the Union viewed the secession of the South as a rebellion it was illegal and I gave my reason in previous comments. The Firing on Ft. Sumter is the same thing as soldiers going into another state the fort was on Federal Land. So I would have to say the South started it first and also sent their troops into Union state territory on 2 other occasions.
686204 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 In the Unions opinion a rebellion was taking place and the rebels started a revolution by firing on their troops are they going to stand by and do nothing. In order to put down the rebellion they had to go where the rebels were in the South. The South made two fatal mistakes 1st they should have taken the issue of secession to the Supreme Court for a ruling and 2nd they fired on Ft. Sumter.
686204 10 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63 Also their piece offerings were in the form of demands justifying their secession why would Lincoln listen to them. You may think the South was right I don't not only did they illegally secede but they did it for the preservation and expansion of slavery, terrible.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 can you say bullshit. look at the history of the US. the founding fathers did the same EXACT same thing as the CSA. you may not realize this but they fought for states rights because the typical white Southern male owned NO slaves.
ThePhilRobinson 10 months ago
@ThePhilRobinson I am looking at the history of the US. The founding fathers were considered to be rebels and traitors by the Brits. If we had lost the Revolutionary war the founding fathers would have been tried and hung by the Brits for treason. Yep the CSA did the same thing. Do you know who controlled Southern State politics back then it wasn't your typical white Southern male it was the Southern aristocracy and/or Plantation owners who's whole way of life was dependent on cotton & slavery.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 They needed some kind of battle cry to get the typical white Southern male to do their fighting for them and that was State Rights. No different than the North's battle cry which was preserve the Union. The whole war was based on power & greed for the limited few on the part of both sides. The Civil War was a typical example of "a rich man's war & a poor man's fight. If you wish to pursue this debate futher please refrain from profanities other wise don't bother contacting me anymore.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 Lincoln had troops at the ready. Where is Ft Sumter? in the waters of South Carolina
stl6281z 10 months ago
@stl6281z Ft. Sumter was still on Federal Land legally purchased from SC there is no way you can get around that fact. Tell me what were the troops going to do that were located in Ft Sumter they were surrounded by water and Conferate troops waiting for them if they tried to get off the island. The South instead of waiting it out fired on the Ft. big mistake they played right into Lincolns hands. Then again Lincoln outsmarted his southern political Counterparts all through that war.
686204 10 months ago
@686204 P.S. THE ONLY PEOPLE TO DIE AT FORT SUMPTER WERE PEOPLE WHO SHOT THE CANNONS WHICH IT EXPLODED BY THEIR OWN HANDS(accidents while firing cannons) IT WAS NOT NORTH KILLING SOUTH OR VICE VERCA YOU SHOULD RESEARCH MORE BEFORE YOU SPEAK
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@longliveJohnWayne It also says nothing about any process for leaving. Secession was nothing more than a political and military coup. If you don't think some southern states were actively aiding Richmond prior to their own secession you're naive. "Regime" may have different meanings.
rexlibris99 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks 686204 is arguing the same points you are and doing a better job. The lack of profanity definitely helps.
rexlibris99 10 months ago
Good for him. People who defend slavery and celebrate the murder of American troops sometimes deserve profanity.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks HEY DIPSHIT AMERICA MADE SLAVERY HERE AND THE AMERICAN FLAG FLEW OVER ALL SLAVE SHIPS FOR 90YRS THE CONFEDERACY WAS AROUND FOR ONLY 4 YEARS YOUR VERY IGNORANT TO HISTORY
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks lol the confederacy were americans too dipshit your state is your country or are you too stupid to understand the DECLARATION OF INDPENDENCE
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
God Bless North Carolina and the other 12 Southern States.
MrTops2100 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot Go back and read what I said about entering into a legal contract. It's plain and simple if you do not want to accept it that's ok with me. Most Pro Southerners refuse to accept it the same as they refuse to accept slavery as being the reason for secession. When you enter and sign an agreement you do it voluntarily no one puts a gun to your head. The fact of the matter is secession is not there and because of it the Constitution is open to legal interpetation on the matter
686204 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot In my opinion the South should have approached the Supreme Court for a legal opinion before deciding on their own that secession was legal. They played into the Unions hands by firing on Ft. Sumter giving Lincoln the justification to bring troops in to put down a rebellion.
686204 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot The States and the Feds entered into a legal agreement which was the Constitution. Under a legal agreement unless specifically specified neither party can unilaterally break the contract. Since the Southern States were in violation of the signed agreement they illegally seceded. It boils down to legal interpretation which has been argued for an against ever since the South seceded. Because it is open to legal interpretation it falls within the realm of the supreme Court.
686204 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot The war was about secession however the secession was primely about slavery. There is now way around it the Southern Aristocracy who controlled State politics knew that their whole economy was based on cotton and slavery. Anyone who says slavery was not the primary reason for secession is afraid or ashamed to face the issue. Slavery was a black mark on the history of this country both South & North.
686204 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot The Constitution does not mention secession yet it specifically limits the powers of the states to confederate, raise armies, etc. You can always say you have the "Right of Revolution" but you'd still better win. Many in the south hated slavery because they could see it retarded the growth of the region yet it was the primary reason for secession. Not because of racism but because of economic and political power.
rexlibris99 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot Secession was never a legal alternative. If Richmond thought secession was peaceful why did they raise an army and navy? This was directly illegal under the constitution. While it is true that newspapers on both sides were inflammatory at times, they do offer us a view of what politicians were actually thinking.
rexlibris99 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Good?
rexlibris99 11 months ago