Most uniforms of the time were gray, that is how they came out of the factory before they were dyed navy blue for Union use. The rebs just left them gray.
Let me clear this up for the Southerners who are still lost. Southern land IS Union land, it's all part of the United States, secession IS therefore stealing of Union land. Where do you think the railroads, post offices, telegraphs wires etc etc money came from in the south? State money? It was federal money. Up to 1861 the federal government had spent over a billion dollars in 85 years securing and protecting its lands INCLUDING the south.
@thevideogameaddict02 That is total bullshit. The beginning of the war saw bad Union generals which led to bad and overzealous decisions (Bull Run) as well as unacceptably disastrous ones (Fredericksburg).
The troops reflected leadership.
That all changed with Grant and Sherman, not the best generals, but they were finally able to motivate Union troops enough to go into battle with a more positive chance of winning.
@mrceebees14 i made a mistake, when i said that i didn't know much about the Civil War because im a actually a canadian. But I do know about the failure of Second Manassas that General Pope failed to destroy the Rebel Army and made many mistakes.
@ThePalnik Those are state militia/national guard.
Don't have to explain how poor the south was, they had to use what they had. Ironic though, the South were the first to employ the use to troop movement by means of trains.
Lees only fought to fight for him homeland, not slavery. But thats what the south fought for. now commonly known as "states rights" lol. It makes sense to just change the meaning of states rights to slavery
@Wackylackay i agree with the first part of your statement, but disagree with the second part. The "states rights" was not, in any way, slavery. Thats just what 4th grade school teachers tell their kids so that they "understand" better. Slavery wasnt a factor in what they fought for, it just was a fuel of WHY they fought. The government first didnt respect the southern states because of the slavery, and so the southern states started losing pwer in congress.
John Brown was a hero, a real Freedom fighter, not a fighter for the freedom to enslave others, like Lee. There should be a holy day called "The John Brown Day" or "Real Freedom Day". Fuck Jackson and Lee and all rebs and present day nostalgics !!
@powerdriller10 John Brown Drores day,Washington and Lincoln aren't celebrated so why would they celebrate a piece of shit like John mud butt Brown Drores.The Macho Man Randy Savage died today why not make a day for him.
LEE DIDN,T WANT TO LEED AN ARMY AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE ONLY THE GREED OF AN YANKEE WOOD DO THAT AND IT WASN,T CHEAP 600000 MEN TO SET THE SLAVES FREE IS TO FUCKING EXPENSIVE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT WENT TO CIVIL WAR TO ABOLISH THE SLAVE SISTEM BUT IN REALITY IT WAS OTHER INTEREST,S INVOLVED LIKE HOW ABOUT MONEY?FINALLY THE AMERICAN,S ARE A VERY VIOLENT PEOPLE THE OTHER DAY I SAW ON THE NEWS HOW A 3 YEAR OLD KID WAS FIREING A MAGNUM IT WAS A GIFT FROM HIS FATHER.
Hard to believe it was 150 years ago BTW there was alot more to the succession than tariffs, there was also John Brown incident and others issues that built up to this action by BOTH sides...
@TTBluez john brown was a madman and a terrorist. His" Slave revolt" had little to do with slaves. He killed a free black who was related to George washington.. he had a constitution ready naming himself president once he took power. He was a terrorist and maniac.
@23mbtx23 Actually you have your facts all mixed up, it was Lewis William Washington who was a great-grandnephew of President George Washington who was taken hostage during the raid, but he was not a Free Black man. The Free Black man killed during the raid was Hayward Shepherd and he was shot for warning a train about John Brown's intentions. And his revolt had everything to do with the slavery since he was a strict abolitionist and the Provisional Constitution was for only States like kansas
@TTBluez thank you for the correction.. John Brown still was a terrorist and lunatic and his raid at harpers ferry had nothing to do with the secession movement. Why would South Carolina wanting to leave the union based on the actions of John brown or abolitionists.. a crazy small minority of 2-3%. The republican party ran on a platform of no expansion of slavey but at the same time FOREVER LEGALIZING it in the south VIA CORWIN AMENDMENT. But it sounds like your a john brown fan.. god bless u
@23mbtx23 Actually the succession movement had begun earlier in 1859 and John Brown's raid garnered the rest of the country's attention and obviously you sound like someone who only recognizes abolitionist as terrorist, the revolutionary war Patriots were much more about terrorism than JB ever was.In fact SC was about succession long before the CW began in fact Citadel cadets fired on a civilian merchant ship in Jan 1961, months before the war began JB had an indirect effect of SC leaving ...
the truth is virginia was pro union even after fort sumter... it was only when lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to invade its own country.. i know i wouldnt be forced to go to another state and put a gun in another americans face for any reason
Your points about the Revolutionary War and rebellion against the British Government are well taken. You are right, but the government in Washington City was as much the South's as the North's. Until the Civil War, most of the US Presidents and most of the real power in the Congress came from the South.
@Boelcke1916 most of the presidents especially early on thanks to the Virginia dynasty. The Congress certainly not. The Norths great population ensured it control over the House and by 1860 with more states, over the Senate too. With the election of a sectional candidate beholden to northern business interests and with the certainty of a high tariff which would bleed the South dry (the Morill Tariff)secession was the South's only option not to become a mere economic colony of the North.
@Boelcke1916 until the mid 1830's the Federal Government was controlled by the Southern Aristocracy and the same guys controlled State politics as well. It wasn't the people of the Southern States that rebelled against the Union but the Southern Aristocracy (plantation owners). The question the South should be asking is why immigrants were flocking to the North and not the South. It was because with Slavery there are no jobs to offer. They had themselves to blame for not changing with the times
@686204 The federal government was not "controlled" by the so-called "Southern Aristocracy". Its true that several successive Virginians were elected president-4 of the first 5 in fact. But then again these were all key Founding Fathers. The South certainly didn't control Congress. The population of the South clearly did support their states in the war for Southern Independence. Who do you think served in the Confederate Army? Who elected the Convention Conventions which opted to secede?
@686204 as to why immigrants were flocking to the North and not the South-because slavery is an inefficient economic system. It depresses the wages of free labor. Clearly the Southern states should have acted to get rid of "the peculiar institution" sooner. At the very least they should have emancipated the slaves and then fired on Ft Sumter. Their chances of gaining foreign allies would've been much greater and the manpower was sorely needed.
@hungarygator I agree with you on your summation on immigrants not flocking to the South and that supports my reasoning as to why the South lost political power. The North's population was growing while the Souths was standing still. It all had to do with voting power. They should never have fired on Ft Sumter they should have waited it out and Lincoln make the next move. Lincoln out foxed them plain and simple.
@686204 I agree with you there. They should not have fallen for Lincoln's ploy. He would have had a much more difficult time gaining political support had they done that.....understand they had every legal right to do so. No nation is going to tolerate a foreign power holding a fort in the middle of one of its principle harbors-imagine the Brits holding one in NYC after 1782. Think Washington would have tolerated that? Politically however it was a dumb move to make.
@hungarygator I don't believe they had the right to ask the North to vacate Ft. Sumter. It was a Federal fort located on Federal land legally purchased from SC. Also you claim the CSA was a nation but it was never recognized as such by any other Country in the world at that time. They were viewed as rebel states at that time supporting slavery that's why they could not get the Brits and French to recognized them. The Atom Bomb was dropped on Japan to save allied lives and to shorten the war.
@686204 It was on SC land. They were quite willing to compensate the feds for any installations and to pay a portion of the federal debt-Lincoln wouldn't hear of it. The 13 colonies weren't recognized by anybody until after the Treaty of Paris. I'd argue they were separate nations after the Declaration of Independence in 1776-Americans certainly claim that today. No disagreement about the use of the A-bomb. Horrible but standard tactic for both sides in that war.
@hungarygator No it was on Federal land legally purchased from SC. What you don't seem to understand is the North did not see things the way the South did that's why the war was started. No we were not a separate Nation until after the Treaty of Paris was sighed. Up till that time we were rebels committing treason in the eyes of the Brits and if we had lost that war the Founding fathers would have been tried and hung.
@686204 About the first point, we'll have to agree to disagree. About the second....exactly! What the Founders did was no different from what their children and grandchildren did....ie seceded...ie asserted the inalienable right to self determination. If anything, the secession of 1861 was much more firmly grounded in constitutional principle since the 13 colonies had done exactly the same thing before. Jefferson Davis cited the Declaration of Independence a lot in his inaugural address.
@hungarygator Not to belabor the point but we all know the Declaration of Independence had flaws namely "all men are created equal". It did not apply to blacks to get around it rather than use slavery they were deemed to be property. The Southern states and the VP of the CSA reaffirmed that belief in their declarations of secession and his cornerstone speech. One of the major problems of the Constitution was the matter of secession you give reasons as to why it was myself and others say no.
@686204 slavery obviously should have been gotten rid of earlier. No question. I do not believe the war was "all about slavery". Besides, this wasn't a valid excuse for denying the Southern states their inalienable right to self determination which was declared to be inalienable in 1776. Remember that 4 states which remained in the union were slave states, that slavery existed in Washington DC and that West Virginia was admitted as a slave state.
@hungarygator I agree with you on the states rights to have slavery under the constitution. However I think it was wrong and immoral. I think the Southern states did secede over states rights. However it was to protect the rights for the wealthy plantation owners to both preserve and expand slavery. It also had to do money and political power on the part of the Southern aristocracy. Having said that the North wanted to keep them for reasons of money. It was A rich mans war & a poor mans fight
@686204 slavery was part of their motivation to secede....but economics was too. They were getting HOSED by the Northern states through tariffs and through very unequal federal funding of infrastructure projects and they knew it....and said so. Besides, states had the right to secede no matter what outsiders may think of their motives for doing so.
@hungarygator Slavery was their MAIN reason to secede. Slavery drove the southern economy. Sorry to burst any balloon, but the South wasn't any better than the North in any way.
@Ares99999 The North wanted to make a killing by jacking up tarrifs...at the South's expense while using its congressional majority to continue voting itself about 80% of all federal funds for infrastructure projects. The South figured it would be a lot better off on its own with a low tariff. Slavery would have been protected forever by the Corwin Amendment. Two totally different economies with very different needs and different governing philosophies is why they seceded.
@hungarygator truth is southern states were forced to pay 80% of the entire USA tariff/taxes due to being outnumbered inUS CONGRESS, & northerners dreamed of a USA EMPIRE that would simply not have been possible if they were to lose all the money they were making off the south.THAT is why there was war, Lincoln and federalists with dreams of empire forced the south to remain in the union at gunpoint because the south was their money-maker CSA would have abolished slavery due to european pressure
Treason is treason. The "alien" government was I believe well less than 100 miles away in Washington City )(its name at the time). It was hardly a foreign tyranny.
@Boelcke1916 Treason was subverting the original intent of the Founders as well as the 9th and 10th Amendments limiting the powers of the federal government and changing the nature of the union from a union of consent where government ruled by the consent of the governed to a union of force...a prison from which states could not escape. I agree that was certainly treason. Abe Lincoln was a traitor to the constitution and the values the Founders stood for.
@hungarygator If the Federal Government was changing policies contrary to the Constitution all The Southern states had to do was approach the Supreme Court for a ruling. Also if they had approached the Supreme Court for a ruling on secession it's quite possible we would not have had a war. Also the Southern States seceded before Lincoln took power your statement doesn't hold water.
@686204 back to the idea of the USSC being the supreme arbiter. That's like having the fox guard the henhouse. When has the court....ie 9 government lawyers...ie an agency of the federal government ruled that the federal government doesn't have a certain power? They've ruled the other way countless times as one would expect. Jefferson Davis hung out in DC HOPING to be arrested after resigning from the Senate so he could get a chance at a trial. The feds never arrested him.
@hungarygator And yet the Founding fathers which you support so strongly thought the Supreme Court was adequate to resolve any disputes between state and Feds if used properly. Up until the Mid 1830's the South pretty much got what they wanted, the south had some of the richest men in America at that time and they had great influence on the Washington political scene. Like wise at the State level the Southern aristocracys hold on state politics was supreme.
@686204 The Founding Fathers also did not countenance a large federal government which should have the power to force states to remain in against their will...against the consent of the governed. They also believed in nullification, interposition (kentucky and virginia resolutions penned by Jefferson and Madison) and state's rights. You say up until the 1830's the South got what it wanted. Ever heard of the Tariff of Abominations?
@686204 My statement that Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution by making war on the Southern States certainly holds water. Article IV section 4 the Guarantee of Republican Form of Government...how was military occupation consistent with that? The whole purpose of invading the South was to destroy the state governments established by the people, in militarily occupying those states, the federal government breached its obligation to guarantee to each state a republican form of government
@hungarygator You start a war and then expect leniency there is no such thing as rules of engagement when you are in a war you win it even if you have to fight dirty. Look what we did to Japan when we dropped the Atom bomb. I agree Reconstruction was a botch up from the beginning but you can't blame Lincoln for that and there was a lot of animosity on both side after the war. In my opinion the war was the result of greed on the part of the wealth of both sides, a rich mans war and a poors fight
@686204 No such thing as rules of war? That kind of thinking opens the door to all kinds of barbarism and suffering by civilians. I'm not OK with that. The atom bombing I see as just part of the larger strategic bombing campaign. Both sides had been bombing civilians from the start. There was little reason for the Allies not to do it since the Axis had already done it. Given a choice, I will not be the first to go down the path of barbarism-but I do reserve the right to retaliate in kind.
@hungarygator The Atrocities committed by the North when invading the South were done for the same reason. To break the resolve of the Southern people and make them surrender. Also it should be noted that war atrocities were committed by the south as well. War is hell and when you start one you should be aware of what lies ahead. My dad fought in WW2 decorated 2 for bravery he told me there were atrocities committed by both sides which he would prefer not to talk about.
@686204 are any atrocities OK then since they are designed to break a people's will to fight? Or are they only OK if we happen to agree with the politics of the perpetrators? There were atrocities on both sides but those of the Federals grossly outstripped those of the Confederates. I'm not so naive as to think any war is totally "clean"-none of them are. Still, there IS a difference between ones in which both sides at least try to obey the rules and when they make no effort at all to do so.
@hungarygator No atrocities in war are wrong I am just saying they happen sometimes planned and sometimes in the heat of battle. There is no use crying about it after you have started a war its too late. That's why I believe that war should not be taken lightly and every attempt and I mean every attempt should be made to avert one. In the case of the CW I don't thing every attempt was made by both sides.
@686204 Lincoln was the one who started the war. There is a big difference between individual soldiers committing atrocities on their own without orders and a government pursuing that as a policy. The scale of atrocities is entirely different in those 2 cases. I agree with you about the last point. Neither side had any idea it would be such a bloodbath. Had they realized it, they both would have been far more willing to compromise.
@hungarygator I believe that the Constitution was a legal and binding contract between the States and the Feds. If secession was intended to be part of the contract it would have been clearly defined with procedures that had to be followed in order to do so. My view is The 13 colonies had broken British law and had to fight to get their independence. The Same thing applies to the CW the South broke the US constitutional law & had to fight to get their independence. They were not successful.
@686204 read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Had the Founders intended to give the federal government the power to prevent it they would have done so explicitly-not the other way around. The South did not break constitutional law. States are sovereign and never agreed to surrender their sovereignty.
@hungarygator The States and the Federal government when signing the Constitution were entering into a legal agreement. Under a legal agreement neither party can unilaterally break the contract. The South decided on their own to pull out of the Union thus unilaterally breaking the contract. That is what I would call illegal secession. Had the founders intended to make secession a legal option they would have specifically said so and followed it with procedures on how you implement it.
@686204 3 states (NY, RI and VA) specifically reserved the right to withdraw. Under the comity principle if one state had that right then they all did. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. The people have rights beyond the ones specifically mentioned-that was put in there specifically so that the argument you are trying to put forth could not be made. Under the 10th all powers not granted to the federal govt were reserved by the states. Since secession is not mentioned.......
@hungarygator If NY,RI & VA specifically reserved the right to withdraw then it verifies my opinion that the Constitution is open for legal interpretation on the issues of secession. I have read VA's attachment and I think it is open to legal interpretation. Try as i might i cannot find any attachment submitted by NY & RI on the right to withdraw. If you could provide reference I might be open to reconsideration. It all depends on the wording used.
@686204 The Union's creation of martial law in the South can hardly be within the ambit of “establishing justice” or “securing the blessings of liberty.” “Domestic tranquility” was clearly not insured by the bloodiest war ever fought in North America. The “general welfare” was not promoted when one section of the nation fought, subdued, and militarily ruled the other for 16 years
@Boelcke1916 Secession is treason. Lee believed the people that live on a piece of land should be the ones to decide what goes on there/govern it. If you don't believe that you are a traitor to the people and a government loyalist. You believe a ruling minority thousands of miles away is God. To the British we were traitors. The British version of the revolution is that a group of rebels rebelled against the king and parliament and held off the british army to govern their land. War is uneeded.
@sjbaseball6 Colonel Lee and myself would be in the same position. We both are the same rank, he was in for thirty years and I have a year and nine months to reach my thirty years (Retire). If a Civil War was to break out, this time not North or South nor black or white, it would be a difficult decision. I too would be up late pacing with my hands behind my lower back, head down in deep thoughts. Would I be considered a traitor or a hero?
@rebel2276 In answer to your decision on who you should fight for "I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery a soldier fights for his country right or wrong" quote by John Mosby. A soldier I admire even though he fought for the wrong side and the side he fought for was never really a country.
@686204 I have never been a fan of Colonel John Singleton Mosby. He hung one of my family members, William Wallace Prouty, Private, Company E, 5th Michigan Cavalry. It was William that had the sign "Measure for Measure" around his neck. He was 19 years old and had joined the 5th Michigan Cavalry on September 22nd, 1864. He was identified by the small pocket bible they found on him, with his name in it.
@rebel2276 I can understand your feelings regarding that unfortunate incident but it was a case of tit for tat in retaliation for a similar occurrence carried out by Union troops I believe. As I recall it did put a stop to further incidents of that kind. I do not condone such acts of war and it is one of the reasons I hate war. My father who served in WW2 and was decorated for bravery told me he witnessed acts of atrocities carried out by both sides that he would prefer not to talk about.
@686204 It started off with a mortally wounded Union lieutenant claimed he was shot down in cold blood. Mosby's men said he did not drop his pistol or sword. Union soldiers found the lieutenant and sought justice. So they captured around 7-10 of Mosby's men and hung/killed them. Mosby then retaliated and was going to hang/kill an equal number. A few Union soldier escaped and maybe 3-4 were killed. Mosby then wrote a letter to Sheridan and both agreed to end the killings.
@686204 Mosby spent the rest of his life blaming Custer for the killings of his men. I have worked on the Civil War for nearly thirty years and just recently I found out who did order the killings. It was actually MG. Merritt that ordered it done.
My source that MG. Merritt did that : "From Winchester To Cedar Creek" By Jeffry D. Wart, Page 152.
If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. -- New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
It was the will of God that the union be preserved. In the light of all that has happened since the end of the civil war we see better that the world needed the United States. It doesn't mean that the cause of the south was wrong or right.
Lincoln would've let Southern States secede without a fuss. After all, if by the law a territory could join the Union, why couldn't it change it's mind?
But the Army bases, Navy bases, and Post Offices were Federal property. They didn't belong to the Confederacy alone.
@seeingthesigns you seem to forget that the government of the United States was no tyrant.It was no different then it was 30,40, or even 50 years before the war. Laws still went through Congress and the senate. It followed the constitution that every state in the Union signed to the letter.When South Carolina seceded she didn't honor one of the principles of democratic government;Compromise with others after an election and the peaceful transition of government
@seeingthesigns Reconstruction reconstructed our grass roots Constitutional Republic of equals into a top down federally run super state. No state is constitutionally superior to another, not even the district of columbia.
@ke4bss I have just come across this episode and it is a hoot! If I may, it is so close in theme as a new book titled: GETTYSBURG... OTHER TIMES
It’s about two soldiers and a nurse from other times meeting in Gettysburg on the first day of the great battle. People that are on this post would love it, especially JasonOnEarth who I have personally posted too.
Check out the book at my YouTube profile (GETTYSBURGbook) or search Amazon.
@blueray1969 Their states did or rather left the Union and set up a new one. State wide votes were taken in every southern state after Lincoln himself declared there was going to be a bloody war and the result was no question. The rest of the south which had voted to stay prior chose to leave one by one for their can be no union if it is coerced. Union implies voluntarism just like if a wife files for divorce the husband cannot call it a Union any longer even if he forces the wife to stay.
@Luigi84289 The Union was held together by a Constitution which was a legal contract approved by all states. In a legal contract unless specified no one can unilaterally break the contract. Since it was not specified the Southern states were in violation of their signed agreement with the Federal Government. It was up to the South to prove that the Feds were in violation of the contract. Instead of taking it to the Supreme Court for a ruling they chose war by firing on Ft. Sumter.
@686204 The Supreme Court already had sided with the South during the "Dred Scott" case in 1857. They made it crystal clear on all slavery issues. The law was on the South's side, rather if it was morally wrong or right. I don't blame you or any of you, our Government does not go into detail on the "Dred Scott" Supreme Court Case, because the good guys, would not look "Good" anymore. Jeff Davis wrote Lincoln that he would pay for all Fed property/equipment and half the National debt.
@rebel2276 So unlike most southern supporters on this site you are saying that the Civil war was fought over slavery? The question here is why start a war over secession and slavery if as you are claiming the south was within its rights. Why not take it back to the supreme court to determine if secession was legal based on the dred scott decision before starting a war. My opinion has always been that the Civil War was started over secession and secession was started over slavery.
@686204 Again, the war was not fought over slavery, for Lincoln himself wrote that. Lincoln wrote a letter which was buried in the National Archives for a very long long time. One of my assistants found the letter and Lincoln put the blame on the Pope and Jesuits. We believe he was assassinated by the Jesuits as well as some members of the Government. Secretary of War, Stanton ripped Eighteen pages out of Booth's diary, umm wonder why?
@686204 Lincoln had wrote a letter to Governor Pickens (South Carolina) and the letter basically read, that he would pull the soldiers out and abandon the fort. Pretty simple right? But something occurred during that letter and three weeks later when Lincoln "Changed his mind". We believe during that small time frame, as Lincoln wrote, that he was pressured to bring on the war. I can't imagine what we will find say a year, five years, ten, twenty etc down the road.
@686204 At the very start of WW2, President F.D.R did everything in his power to get the Japanese to attack us. Why? So then we could go to war. F.D.R had plenty of reports of the Japanese Navy was sailing east and on route to Hawaii. He did nothing to warn the Americans on the islands. Once Hawaii was hit, presto, he got the war he wanted. All of our wars are very easy to explain. My grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963, he was sent to the South Pole when Kennedy was killed. A bit strange?
@686204 Use your wise judgment and put aside everything you have been told on our wars. Do a deep research on our wars and you will notice a pattern. I will stop at this, not looking for a nasty email tomorrow. I just want to finish out my thirty years in the US. Army, do my research with my friends and associates when I retire and end it at that. If you are ever in Washington DC, please contact me and I/We will show you many things I can not type on here.
@rebel2276 another thing....The Government blew up the USS Maine, not the spanish...that led to the war with spain in the late 1800's early 1900's....you'll never see it in history books as that but its there you just have to look....you are right, conspiracies are all throughout our government...it makes our government almost corrupt... just my opinion though
@sjbaseball6 I read a long time ago that a boiler blew up and that was what sunk the USS. Maine. But, I would not be surprised if the Government was behind it to start a war. Just as their was never a "Golf of Token" incident, it does not surprise me.
@rebel2276 about the boiler....i heard an ammunitions compartment blew up thusly blowing the boiler up...but still i have no doubt the government blew it up just to start something they could finish later...it really is a corrupt business.
@sjbaseball6 We will never know the truth. Do you know if any underwater history detectives have dived on the USS. Maine? I would be very curious to what they found down there.
Have a safe New Years, along with everyone else reading this!
@rebel2276 no i do not know if any detectives have been sent down i look into and you do the same....you never know what you might find...and have a safe New Years
@sjbaseball6 If they can reach the Titanic, I believe they can find just about any ship. The East coast of North Carolina is full of ship wrecks. They found the Monitor and the CSS Hunley, I am sure there are more Union/Confederate ships to be found.
@rebel2276 well considering that i live in North Carolina yes the coast is full of shipwrecks...thats why its called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" but yes im sure some have been sent down to the ship...
@sjbaseball6 I will be horribly wrong on my history on this, but did Black Beard the pirate lose a ship in the inner channel of North Carolina? I don't specialize on 17th Century pirates, please forgive, if I am wayyyy off.
@rebel2276 well to be quite honest no one really knows....Everyone in North Carolina believes it is the Queen Anne's Revenge but, nothing has been found to prove that it really is BlackBeard's ship...and it was about 1-2 miles off Carolina's coast not in the inner channel.
@rebel2276 First why would I send a nasty email we are involved in a debate here right. You don't have to tell me about wars just google "war is a racket" and see what it is all about. The war was fought over slavery as far as the south was concerned not the North. The North fought it in order to preserve the Union. However the South started the war by firing on Ft Sumter. Both sides were equally at fault for that war it was "a rich mans war and a poor mans fight" as is the case with most wars
@686204 Not you with the nasty emails, my little friends that monitor my "Comments". Since my grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963, they are a bit nervous to what I know and monitor my comments. I have been warned in the past, thus I don't cross that line.
@rebel2276 I am against war to settle differences apparently as much as you. It is quite possible that Lincoln even bated the South into firing on Ft Sumter thus starting the war. But no matter what you say it was started over secession and the South seceded over slavery in order to maintain the life style of the Southern aristocracy. They fired the first shot that gave Lincoln his justification to go to war.
@686204 I agree with most of your post, well typed. But I/We believe Lincoln was pressured by the Pope and Jesuits to start the war. That's just us of course. Many things we find at the LOC and National Archives have never been published. Slavery, politics and the numbers game is the most difficult things to work with on the Civil War. I/We are working on the first ever two book "Union and Confederate Colors Captured". I have worked on this project for almost twenty years.
@rebel2276 Whether Davis offered to pay the Union for all Fed property/equipment and half the Nation debt is inconsequential. There was a difference of opinion here the North still believed that secession was illegal so why would they accept such an offer. The South took it upon themselves to secede based on their opinion of the Constitution. Secession by the way in 1869 was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.
@686204 Was secession illegal when Five, New England states, try to succeed during the War of 1812? Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire all were screaming for succession. Their main complaint was, unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty. The only thing that stopped that, was the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. The Federalists party was disbanded and was considered traitors to the South.
@Ares99999 But that is what you believe in typing what you did for to go against your state is to do just that. To place the Government over your home and your family. If Texas decided to secede I would go with it, if other states wished to interfere and sacrifice their own children trying to force us to change our mind, what we want I would look at it as just as crazy as the Northern invading butchering force was.
Hang on didn't you guys rebel against the British in 1775???
You check every past and present British regiments who fought in America as it was seen by the British to be a CIVIL WAR!!! no battle honours were awarded to them for that reason.
Then you went and tried to pick a fight with them in Canada in 1812 that turned out to be a good move ending in stalemate with a burnt down Capital.
Was the South's cause any lesser than there ancestors less than a 100 years before hand???
@gordopark13 Secession is American. It is what we are. It is what we do. Americans today have forgottent that through the effects of a broken Government. That day is coming up soon though. The Government keeps pushing and pushing. Obama just gave 3 of Arizonas counties to Mexico.
@Rizrsniper Ft Sumpter is in South Carolina. It was their fort. Lincoln broke an Armistice with the CSA by sending troops there. We asked him to stop and he sent more.
the south was not fight just for slavery like they teach you in school but for, land liberty, and the way of life they had. the union killed and raped southern women and burned the south. ihope as a texas we leave the union.
@johan12564@johan12564 Actually, it is clear that secession was legal. The United STATESSSSS. Plural. We seceded from England and our founding fathers believed secession to be necessary. And as for your claim about Lincoln, you couldn't be more wrong. I spent a year writing my master's thesis on Lincoln. He was a TYRANT and totalitarian dictator who destroyed our Constitution. Know the facts before you make such a bold claim...
@johnnyrebncsu So, I am wrong about Lincoln. Well, let me tell you this. If you rebelled against a bad president, I could perhaps understand. But against "Old Abe"? My God, what were you thinking? You should read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwinn. It is well written and well researched. Of cause Lincoln was not snowwhite. No politians are. Still, there has never been a better man in the office.
For 134 years the American people have been led to believe that the right of secession had been overturned by a "verdict of arms," but that isn't true ... It is true the shot fired at Fort Sumter was a mistake since it provided the pretext for the Southland to be invaded by foreign troops, but the right of secession realized through the ballot box remains an essential part of our constitutional order. -- George Kalas, Chairman Emeritus, The Southern Party
If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. -- New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
@ThePatriot1776100 Each state can only leave with the permission of all the other states. Such permission had not been given. Succession was null for that reason alone.
@DonMeaker Thomas Jefferson would disagree "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' "
@ThePatriot1776100 And Let us separate, but I pick the terms. When the southern states chose military means to determine the terms of seperation, they chose the potential of not being permitted to separate. If they didn't want to use military means to determine the terms, they should not have called for 100,000 men before Lincoln took office, fired on US troops, stolen US government property etc.
@ThePatriot1776100 So next time, rather than rebelling, file suit to get recognition of your petition to leave the Union, else me and others like me will have to come and fix your wagon again.
@koreankid113 That is only true if the South had a time machine. South Carolina rebelled before Lincoln even took office. They fired on the US soldiers at Ft. Sumter before the US government was invading anyone. You are wrong on facts, that means your argument is wrong.
@DonMeaker Actually. You are wrong. Lincoln made the first aggressive move by trying to resupply a fort that didn't even belong to the United States. I live in Charleston. And I have a master's degree in American history.
@koreankid113 Fort Sumter was fired on before the Union Army ever invaded anywhere in the south. Also one of the big "States Rights" the south was fighting to keep, was the right for Southern States to keep slaves. Sorry to doll out truth on you.
@Kravis63 What you did not know, that a month before any firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln had wrote a letter to the Governor of South Carolina. Governor Pickens read the letter and it basically said. "I will remove the soldiers and abandon the fort." Pretty simple, right? Strange enough, three weeks later, Lincoln all of a sudden changed his mind and now wanted to bring provisions into the fort. A far cry from his "Word and Promise" in the letter.
@Kravis63 Little did any of us known, that Lincoln was actually being pressured to start the war by the Pope and the Jesuits. My assistants, friends and associates that dig deep at the Library of Congress and National Archives here in Washington DC, have found a letter written by Lincoln. Lincoln made it clear who was really behind the war. I shall type some of the letter in the next post.
@Kravis63 "The Civil war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of our noblest sons". "Through all their councils theologians, and common laws....their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children and cut my throat when they find their opportunity...". Abraham Lincoln.
That will NEVER be published and NEVER has been. We are satisfied we have found the truth.
Here's a question. Even if the CSA won the war, was there any guarantee in place to keep those states within the CSA. What if a state then wanted to secede from the CSA? What would have the Confederate government have done then? Would they have allowed that state to secede or force to remain within the CSA? It's all hypothetical but interesting to consider.
Just so people know.
Most uniforms of the time were gray, that is how they came out of the factory before they were dyed navy blue for Union use. The rebs just left them gray.
mrceebees14 1 month ago
Let me clear this up for the Southerners who are still lost. Southern land IS Union land, it's all part of the United States, secession IS therefore stealing of Union land. Where do you think the railroads, post offices, telegraphs wires etc etc money came from in the south? State money? It was federal money. Up to 1861 the federal government had spent over a billion dollars in 85 years securing and protecting its lands INCLUDING the south.
mrceebees14 1 month ago
the confederates were better at fighting then the union at the start of the civil war but as civil war progressed, the union got better
thevideogameaddict02 4 months ago
@thevideogameaddict02 That is total bullshit. The beginning of the war saw bad Union generals which led to bad and overzealous decisions (Bull Run) as well as unacceptably disastrous ones (Fredericksburg).
The troops reflected leadership.
That all changed with Grant and Sherman, not the best generals, but they were finally able to motivate Union troops enough to go into battle with a more positive chance of winning.
mrceebees14 1 month ago
@mrceebees14 i made a mistake, when i said that i didn't know much about the Civil War because im a actually a canadian. But I do know about the failure of Second Manassas that General Pope failed to destroy the Rebel Army and made many mistakes.
thevideogameaddict02 4 weeks ago
8:03 - uniforms from the American Revolutionary War in 1861???
ThePalnik 5 months ago
@ThePalnik Those are state militia/national guard.
Don't have to explain how poor the south was, they had to use what they had. Ironic though, the South were the first to employ the use to troop movement by means of trains.
mrceebees14 1 month ago
Good video. The use of Mary Fahl's song was well placed.
MrHarveyluke 5 months ago
Lees only fought to fight for him homeland, not slavery. But thats what the south fought for. now commonly known as "states rights" lol. It makes sense to just change the meaning of states rights to slavery
Wackylackay 8 months ago
@Wackylackay i agree with the first part of your statement, but disagree with the second part. The "states rights" was not, in any way, slavery. Thats just what 4th grade school teachers tell their kids so that they "understand" better. Slavery wasnt a factor in what they fought for, it just was a fuel of WHY they fought. The government first didnt respect the southern states because of the slavery, and so the southern states started losing pwer in congress.
TheFifanacho 7 months ago
John Brown was a hero, a real Freedom fighter, not a fighter for the freedom to enslave others, like Lee. There should be a holy day called "The John Brown Day" or "Real Freedom Day". Fuck Jackson and Lee and all rebs and present day nostalgics !!
powerdriller10 8 months ago
@powerdriller10 if you think Lee's desire to fight came from slavery you're a fool
s37d 8 months ago 3
@powerdriller10 John Brown Drores day,Washington and Lincoln aren't celebrated so why would they celebrate a piece of shit like John mud butt Brown Drores.The Macho Man Randy Savage died today why not make a day for him.
bjkemp1 8 months ago
"i never thought id live to see the day where a president of the united states raised an army to invade his own country"
the south declared out of the union, which isnt the united states. i never understood that.
crashintonickdm 9 months ago 2
@crashintonickdm Pure legalistic sophistry.
TheLoyalOfficer 7 months ago
LEE DIDN,T WANT TO LEED AN ARMY AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE ONLY THE GREED OF AN YANKEE WOOD DO THAT AND IT WASN,T CHEAP 600000 MEN TO SET THE SLAVES FREE IS TO FUCKING EXPENSIVE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT WENT TO CIVIL WAR TO ABOLISH THE SLAVE SISTEM BUT IN REALITY IT WAS OTHER INTEREST,S INVOLVED LIKE HOW ABOUT MONEY?FINALLY THE AMERICAN,S ARE A VERY VIOLENT PEOPLE THE OTHER DAY I SAW ON THE NEWS HOW A 3 YEAR OLD KID WAS FIREING A MAGNUM IT WAS A GIFT FROM HIS FATHER.
MegaLensman 9 months ago
Hard to believe it was 150 years ago BTW there was alot more to the succession than tariffs, there was also John Brown incident and others issues that built up to this action by BOTH sides...
TTBluez 9 months ago
@TTBluez john brown was a madman and a terrorist. His" Slave revolt" had little to do with slaves. He killed a free black who was related to George washington.. he had a constitution ready naming himself president once he took power. He was a terrorist and maniac.
23mbtx23 9 months ago
@23mbtx23 Actually you have your facts all mixed up, it was Lewis William Washington who was a great-grandnephew of President George Washington who was taken hostage during the raid, but he was not a Free Black man. The Free Black man killed during the raid was Hayward Shepherd and he was shot for warning a train about John Brown's intentions. And his revolt had everything to do with the slavery since he was a strict abolitionist and the Provisional Constitution was for only States like kansas
TTBluez 9 months ago
@TTBluez thank you for the correction.. John Brown still was a terrorist and lunatic and his raid at harpers ferry had nothing to do with the secession movement. Why would South Carolina wanting to leave the union based on the actions of John brown or abolitionists.. a crazy small minority of 2-3%. The republican party ran on a platform of no expansion of slavey but at the same time FOREVER LEGALIZING it in the south VIA CORWIN AMENDMENT. But it sounds like your a john brown fan.. god bless u
23mbtx23 9 months ago
@23mbtx23 Actually the succession movement had begun earlier in 1859 and John Brown's raid garnered the rest of the country's attention and obviously you sound like someone who only recognizes abolitionist as terrorist, the revolutionary war Patriots were much more about terrorism than JB ever was.In fact SC was about succession long before the CW began in fact Citadel cadets fired on a civilian merchant ship in Jan 1961, months before the war began JB had an indirect effect of SC leaving ...
TTBluez 9 months ago
Comment removed
TTBluez 9 months ago
Comment removed
TTBluez 9 months ago
Comment removed
TTBluez 9 months ago
the truth is virginia was pro union even after fort sumter... it was only when lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to invade its own country.. i know i wouldnt be forced to go to another state and put a gun in another americans face for any reason
23mbtx23 9 months ago
Comment removed
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 9 months ago
this is a Scott?
jacko2500 10 months ago
This march is a forced march to save our country....
ThePetronius 11 months ago
Your analysis is right. The election of 1860 was the final straw, but that war still should not have happened.
Boelcke1916 11 months ago
Your points about the Revolutionary War and rebellion against the British Government are well taken. You are right, but the government in Washington City was as much the South's as the North's. Until the Civil War, most of the US Presidents and most of the real power in the Congress came from the South.
Boelcke1916 11 months ago
@Boelcke1916 most of the presidents especially early on thanks to the Virginia dynasty. The Congress certainly not. The Norths great population ensured it control over the House and by 1860 with more states, over the Senate too. With the election of a sectional candidate beholden to northern business interests and with the certainty of a high tariff which would bleed the South dry (the Morill Tariff)secession was the South's only option not to become a mere economic colony of the North.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@Boelcke1916 until the mid 1830's the Federal Government was controlled by the Southern Aristocracy and the same guys controlled State politics as well. It wasn't the people of the Southern States that rebelled against the Union but the Southern Aristocracy (plantation owners). The question the South should be asking is why immigrants were flocking to the North and not the South. It was because with Slavery there are no jobs to offer. They had themselves to blame for not changing with the times
686204 11 months ago
@686204 The federal government was not "controlled" by the so-called "Southern Aristocracy". Its true that several successive Virginians were elected president-4 of the first 5 in fact. But then again these were all key Founding Fathers. The South certainly didn't control Congress. The population of the South clearly did support their states in the war for Southern Independence. Who do you think served in the Confederate Army? Who elected the Convention Conventions which opted to secede?
hungarygator 11 months ago
@686204 as to why immigrants were flocking to the North and not the South-because slavery is an inefficient economic system. It depresses the wages of free labor. Clearly the Southern states should have acted to get rid of "the peculiar institution" sooner. At the very least they should have emancipated the slaves and then fired on Ft Sumter. Their chances of gaining foreign allies would've been much greater and the manpower was sorely needed.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I agree with you on your summation on immigrants not flocking to the South and that supports my reasoning as to why the South lost political power. The North's population was growing while the Souths was standing still. It all had to do with voting power. They should never have fired on Ft Sumter they should have waited it out and Lincoln make the next move. Lincoln out foxed them plain and simple.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 I agree with you there. They should not have fallen for Lincoln's ploy. He would have had a much more difficult time gaining political support had they done that.....understand they had every legal right to do so. No nation is going to tolerate a foreign power holding a fort in the middle of one of its principle harbors-imagine the Brits holding one in NYC after 1782. Think Washington would have tolerated that? Politically however it was a dumb move to make.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I don't believe they had the right to ask the North to vacate Ft. Sumter. It was a Federal fort located on Federal land legally purchased from SC. Also you claim the CSA was a nation but it was never recognized as such by any other Country in the world at that time. They were viewed as rebel states at that time supporting slavery that's why they could not get the Brits and French to recognized them. The Atom Bomb was dropped on Japan to save allied lives and to shorten the war.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 It was on SC land. They were quite willing to compensate the feds for any installations and to pay a portion of the federal debt-Lincoln wouldn't hear of it. The 13 colonies weren't recognized by anybody until after the Treaty of Paris. I'd argue they were separate nations after the Declaration of Independence in 1776-Americans certainly claim that today. No disagreement about the use of the A-bomb. Horrible but standard tactic for both sides in that war.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator No it was on Federal land legally purchased from SC. What you don't seem to understand is the North did not see things the way the South did that's why the war was started. No we were not a separate Nation until after the Treaty of Paris was sighed. Up till that time we were rebels committing treason in the eyes of the Brits and if we had lost that war the Founding fathers would have been tried and hung.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 About the first point, we'll have to agree to disagree. About the second....exactly! What the Founders did was no different from what their children and grandchildren did....ie seceded...ie asserted the inalienable right to self determination. If anything, the secession of 1861 was much more firmly grounded in constitutional principle since the 13 colonies had done exactly the same thing before. Jefferson Davis cited the Declaration of Independence a lot in his inaugural address.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Not to belabor the point but we all know the Declaration of Independence had flaws namely "all men are created equal". It did not apply to blacks to get around it rather than use slavery they were deemed to be property. The Southern states and the VP of the CSA reaffirmed that belief in their declarations of secession and his cornerstone speech. One of the major problems of the Constitution was the matter of secession you give reasons as to why it was myself and others say no.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 slavery obviously should have been gotten rid of earlier. No question. I do not believe the war was "all about slavery". Besides, this wasn't a valid excuse for denying the Southern states their inalienable right to self determination which was declared to be inalienable in 1776. Remember that 4 states which remained in the union were slave states, that slavery existed in Washington DC and that West Virginia was admitted as a slave state.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I agree with you on the states rights to have slavery under the constitution. However I think it was wrong and immoral. I think the Southern states did secede over states rights. However it was to protect the rights for the wealthy plantation owners to both preserve and expand slavery. It also had to do money and political power on the part of the Southern aristocracy. Having said that the North wanted to keep them for reasons of money. It was A rich mans war & a poor mans fight
686204 11 months ago
@686204 slavery was part of their motivation to secede....but economics was too. They were getting HOSED by the Northern states through tariffs and through very unequal federal funding of infrastructure projects and they knew it....and said so. Besides, states had the right to secede no matter what outsiders may think of their motives for doing so.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Slavery was their MAIN reason to secede. Slavery drove the southern economy. Sorry to burst any balloon, but the South wasn't any better than the North in any way.
Ares99999 11 months ago
@Ares99999 disagree. I think it was-like the vast majority of all wars throughout history-driven primarily by economics.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator That's what I'm saying. The South wanted to maintain its economy, and slavery drove it. Why do you disagree, then?
Ares99999 11 months ago
@Ares99999 The North wanted to make a killing by jacking up tarrifs...at the South's expense while using its congressional majority to continue voting itself about 80% of all federal funds for infrastructure projects. The South figured it would be a lot better off on its own with a low tariff. Slavery would have been protected forever by the Corwin Amendment. Two totally different economies with very different needs and different governing philosophies is why they seceded.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Does that excuse the South?
Ares99999 11 months ago
@Ares99999 excuse for what?
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator truth is southern states were forced to pay 80% of the entire USA tariff/taxes due to being outnumbered inUS CONGRESS, & northerners dreamed of a USA EMPIRE that would simply not have been possible if they were to lose all the money they were making off the south.THAT is why there was war, Lincoln and federalists with dreams of empire forced the south to remain in the union at gunpoint because the south was their money-maker CSA would have abolished slavery due to european pressure
23mbtx23 9 months ago
Treason is treason. The "alien" government was I believe well less than 100 miles away in Washington City )(its name at the time). It was hardly a foreign tyranny.
Boelcke1916 11 months ago
@Boelcke1916 Treason was subverting the original intent of the Founders as well as the 9th and 10th Amendments limiting the powers of the federal government and changing the nature of the union from a union of consent where government ruled by the consent of the governed to a union of force...a prison from which states could not escape. I agree that was certainly treason. Abe Lincoln was a traitor to the constitution and the values the Founders stood for.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator If the Federal Government was changing policies contrary to the Constitution all The Southern states had to do was approach the Supreme Court for a ruling. Also if they had approached the Supreme Court for a ruling on secession it's quite possible we would not have had a war. Also the Southern States seceded before Lincoln took power your statement doesn't hold water.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 back to the idea of the USSC being the supreme arbiter. That's like having the fox guard the henhouse. When has the court....ie 9 government lawyers...ie an agency of the federal government ruled that the federal government doesn't have a certain power? They've ruled the other way countless times as one would expect. Jefferson Davis hung out in DC HOPING to be arrested after resigning from the Senate so he could get a chance at a trial. The feds never arrested him.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator And yet the Founding fathers which you support so strongly thought the Supreme Court was adequate to resolve any disputes between state and Feds if used properly. Up until the Mid 1830's the South pretty much got what they wanted, the south had some of the richest men in America at that time and they had great influence on the Washington political scene. Like wise at the State level the Southern aristocracys hold on state politics was supreme.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 The Founding Fathers also did not countenance a large federal government which should have the power to force states to remain in against their will...against the consent of the governed. They also believed in nullification, interposition (kentucky and virginia resolutions penned by Jefferson and Madison) and state's rights. You say up until the 1830's the South got what it wanted. Ever heard of the Tariff of Abominations?
hungarygator 11 months ago
@686204 My statement that Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution by making war on the Southern States certainly holds water. Article IV section 4 the Guarantee of Republican Form of Government...how was military occupation consistent with that? The whole purpose of invading the South was to destroy the state governments established by the people, in militarily occupying those states, the federal government breached its obligation to guarantee to each state a republican form of government
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator You start a war and then expect leniency there is no such thing as rules of engagement when you are in a war you win it even if you have to fight dirty. Look what we did to Japan when we dropped the Atom bomb. I agree Reconstruction was a botch up from the beginning but you can't blame Lincoln for that and there was a lot of animosity on both side after the war. In my opinion the war was the result of greed on the part of the wealth of both sides, a rich mans war and a poors fight
686204 11 months ago
@686204 No such thing as rules of war? That kind of thinking opens the door to all kinds of barbarism and suffering by civilians. I'm not OK with that. The atom bombing I see as just part of the larger strategic bombing campaign. Both sides had been bombing civilians from the start. There was little reason for the Allies not to do it since the Axis had already done it. Given a choice, I will not be the first to go down the path of barbarism-but I do reserve the right to retaliate in kind.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator The Atrocities committed by the North when invading the South were done for the same reason. To break the resolve of the Southern people and make them surrender. Also it should be noted that war atrocities were committed by the south as well. War is hell and when you start one you should be aware of what lies ahead. My dad fought in WW2 decorated 2 for bravery he told me there were atrocities committed by both sides which he would prefer not to talk about.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 are any atrocities OK then since they are designed to break a people's will to fight? Or are they only OK if we happen to agree with the politics of the perpetrators? There were atrocities on both sides but those of the Federals grossly outstripped those of the Confederates. I'm not so naive as to think any war is totally "clean"-none of them are. Still, there IS a difference between ones in which both sides at least try to obey the rules and when they make no effort at all to do so.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator No atrocities in war are wrong I am just saying they happen sometimes planned and sometimes in the heat of battle. There is no use crying about it after you have started a war its too late. That's why I believe that war should not be taken lightly and every attempt and I mean every attempt should be made to avert one. In the case of the CW I don't thing every attempt was made by both sides.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 Lincoln was the one who started the war. There is a big difference between individual soldiers committing atrocities on their own without orders and a government pursuing that as a policy. The scale of atrocities is entirely different in those 2 cases. I agree with you about the last point. Neither side had any idea it would be such a bloodbath. Had they realized it, they both would have been far more willing to compromise.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I believe that the Constitution was a legal and binding contract between the States and the Feds. If secession was intended to be part of the contract it would have been clearly defined with procedures that had to be followed in order to do so. My view is The 13 colonies had broken British law and had to fight to get their independence. The Same thing applies to the CW the South broke the US constitutional law & had to fight to get their independence. They were not successful.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Had the Founders intended to give the federal government the power to prevent it they would have done so explicitly-not the other way around. The South did not break constitutional law. States are sovereign and never agreed to surrender their sovereignty.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator The States and the Federal government when signing the Constitution were entering into a legal agreement. Under a legal agreement neither party can unilaterally break the contract. The South decided on their own to pull out of the Union thus unilaterally breaking the contract. That is what I would call illegal secession. Had the founders intended to make secession a legal option they would have specifically said so and followed it with procedures on how you implement it.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 3 states (NY, RI and VA) specifically reserved the right to withdraw. Under the comity principle if one state had that right then they all did. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. The people have rights beyond the ones specifically mentioned-that was put in there specifically so that the argument you are trying to put forth could not be made. Under the 10th all powers not granted to the federal govt were reserved by the states. Since secession is not mentioned.......
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator If NY,RI & VA specifically reserved the right to withdraw then it verifies my opinion that the Constitution is open for legal interpretation on the issues of secession. I have read VA's attachment and I think it is open to legal interpretation. Try as i might i cannot find any attachment submitted by NY & RI on the right to withdraw. If you could provide reference I might be open to reconsideration. It all depends on the wording used.
686204 11 months ago
@686204 The Union's creation of martial law in the South can hardly be within the ambit of “establishing justice” or “securing the blessings of liberty.” “Domestic tranquility” was clearly not insured by the bloodiest war ever fought in North America. The “general welfare” was not promoted when one section of the nation fought, subdued, and militarily ruled the other for 16 years
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Also like the South the Founders were not perfect they still condoned slavery.
686204 11 months ago
Let's face it, Lee made a bad mistake. He should have stayed loyal. Treason is treason.
Boelcke1916 1 year ago
@Boelcke1916 Secession is treason. Lee believed the people that live on a piece of land should be the ones to decide what goes on there/govern it. If you don't believe that you are a traitor to the people and a government loyalist. You believe a ruling minority thousands of miles away is God. To the British we were traitors. The British version of the revolution is that a group of rebels rebelled against the king and parliament and held off the british army to govern their land. War is uneeded.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@Boelcke1916 Let's face it, Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution and the Founders' principles.
hungarygator 11 months ago
"I have no greater duty than to my home, Virginia".....what a powerful line!
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@sjbaseball6 Colonel Lee and myself would be in the same position. We both are the same rank, he was in for thirty years and I have a year and nine months to reach my thirty years (Retire). If a Civil War was to break out, this time not North or South nor black or white, it would be a difficult decision. I too would be up late pacing with my hands behind my lower back, head down in deep thoughts. Would I be considered a traitor or a hero?
I hope that day never comes.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 In answer to your decision on who you should fight for "I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery a soldier fights for his country right or wrong" quote by John Mosby. A soldier I admire even though he fought for the wrong side and the side he fought for was never really a country.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I have never been a fan of Colonel John Singleton Mosby. He hung one of my family members, William Wallace Prouty, Private, Company E, 5th Michigan Cavalry. It was William that had the sign "Measure for Measure" around his neck. He was 19 years old and had joined the 5th Michigan Cavalry on September 22nd, 1864. He was identified by the small pocket bible they found on him, with his name in it.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 I can understand your feelings regarding that unfortunate incident but it was a case of tit for tat in retaliation for a similar occurrence carried out by Union troops I believe. As I recall it did put a stop to further incidents of that kind. I do not condone such acts of war and it is one of the reasons I hate war. My father who served in WW2 and was decorated for bravery told me he witnessed acts of atrocities carried out by both sides that he would prefer not to talk about.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 It started off with a mortally wounded Union lieutenant claimed he was shot down in cold blood. Mosby's men said he did not drop his pistol or sword. Union soldiers found the lieutenant and sought justice. So they captured around 7-10 of Mosby's men and hung/killed them. Mosby then retaliated and was going to hang/kill an equal number. A few Union soldier escaped and maybe 3-4 were killed. Mosby then wrote a letter to Sheridan and both agreed to end the killings.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@686204 Mosby spent the rest of his life blaming Custer for the killings of his men. I have worked on the Civil War for nearly thirty years and just recently I found out who did order the killings. It was actually MG. Merritt that ordered it done.
My source that MG. Merritt did that : "From Winchester To Cedar Creek" By Jeffry D. Wart, Page 152.
rebel2276 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. -- New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
ThePatriot1776100 6 months ago
Nationsnotregimes 1 year ago
back when there was no suburbia. gotta love it
CitizenJohnSmith 1 year ago
It was the will of God that the union be preserved. In the light of all that has happened since the end of the civil war we see better that the world needed the United States. It doesn't mean that the cause of the south was wrong or right.
Jimhill58 1 year ago
Lincoln would've let Southern States secede without a fuss. After all, if by the law a territory could join the Union, why couldn't it change it's mind?
But the Army bases, Navy bases, and Post Offices were Federal property. They didn't belong to the Confederacy alone.
MondoBeno 1 year ago
The rebellion was not against Lincoln or the Abolitionists.
It was against an all powrfull government that would rule as a King in Europe.
And that is what we have now. So not only did the South lose, so did the North.
seeingthesigns 1 year ago 11
@seeingthesigns That's the best, concise, and most accurate summary of the situation I've ever read.
Hudsonated 1 year ago
@seeingthesigns im not tryin to start a fight but can u explain to me how the noorth also lost?
Waffenssman 1 year ago
@seeingthesigns More BS... you apparently have no understanding of history.
Tripod102362 1 year ago
@seeingthesigns you seem to forget that the government of the United States was no tyrant.It was no different then it was 30,40, or even 50 years before the war. Laws still went through Congress and the senate. It followed the constitution that every state in the Union signed to the letter.When South Carolina seceded she didn't honor one of the principles of democratic government;Compromise with others after an election and the peaceful transition of government
markmason1000 11 months ago
@seeingthesigns Reconstruction reconstructed our grass roots Constitutional Republic of equals into a top down federally run super state. No state is constitutionally superior to another, not even the district of columbia.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GETTYSBURG… OTHER TIMES – new book.
It is a great read about the famous battle and very different. You can get your copy from my YouTube site (GETTYSBURGbook) or search Amazon or eBay.
Cheers. To all.
GETTYSBURGbook 1 year ago
Nicely done. Thx
dorslv 1 year ago
Wow it is amazing how much Bobby Duvall looks so much like Robert E. Lee.
ke4bss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ke4bss GETTYSBURG… OTHER TIMES – new book.
It is a great read about the famous battle and very different. You can get your copy from my YouTube site (GETTYSBURGbook) or search Amazon or eBay.
Cheers. To all.
GETTYSBURGbook 1 year ago
@ke4bss I have just come across this episode and it is a hoot! If I may, it is so close in theme as a new book titled: GETTYSBURG... OTHER TIMES
It’s about two soldiers and a nurse from other times meeting in Gettysburg on the first day of the great battle. People that are on this post would love it, especially JasonOnEarth who I have personally posted too.
Check out the book at my YouTube profile (GETTYSBURGbook) or search Amazon.
Cheers...
GETTYSBURGbook 1 year ago
@GETTYSBURGbook I just orderd the book. Can't wait until I get it... Tks
DigbyCat 1 year ago
It's not about legal or illegal. It's about what's right and what's wrong!!!
DEO VINDICE!!!
IslandersMets10 1 year ago
Comment removed
johan12564 1 year ago
That fat guy over there is stupid. Of course Lee isn't going to invade his own state. Who would do that?
Luigi84289 1 year ago 10
@Luigi84289 Lincoln
arnaudfable26 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 George Thomas and Winfield Scott certainly would have.
theskippa10 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 Lots of people - not every southerner rebelled against the USA.
blueray1969 1 year ago
@blueray1969 Their states did or rather left the Union and set up a new one. State wide votes were taken in every southern state after Lincoln himself declared there was going to be a bloody war and the result was no question. The rest of the south which had voted to stay prior chose to leave one by one for their can be no union if it is coerced. Union implies voluntarism just like if a wife files for divorce the husband cannot call it a Union any longer even if he forces the wife to stay.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 The Union was held together by a Constitution which was a legal contract approved by all states. In a legal contract unless specified no one can unilaterally break the contract. Since it was not specified the Southern states were in violation of their signed agreement with the Federal Government. It was up to the South to prove that the Feds were in violation of the contract. Instead of taking it to the Supreme Court for a ruling they chose war by firing on Ft. Sumter.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The Supreme Court already had sided with the South during the "Dred Scott" case in 1857. They made it crystal clear on all slavery issues. The law was on the South's side, rather if it was morally wrong or right. I don't blame you or any of you, our Government does not go into detail on the "Dred Scott" Supreme Court Case, because the good guys, would not look "Good" anymore. Jeff Davis wrote Lincoln that he would pay for all Fed property/equipment and half the National debt.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 So unlike most southern supporters on this site you are saying that the Civil war was fought over slavery? The question here is why start a war over secession and slavery if as you are claiming the south was within its rights. Why not take it back to the supreme court to determine if secession was legal based on the dred scott decision before starting a war. My opinion has always been that the Civil War was started over secession and secession was started over slavery.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Again, the war was not fought over slavery, for Lincoln himself wrote that. Lincoln wrote a letter which was buried in the National Archives for a very long long time. One of my assistants found the letter and Lincoln put the blame on the Pope and Jesuits. We believe he was assassinated by the Jesuits as well as some members of the Government. Secretary of War, Stanton ripped Eighteen pages out of Booth's diary, umm wonder why?
rebel2276 1 year ago
@686204 Lincoln had wrote a letter to Governor Pickens (South Carolina) and the letter basically read, that he would pull the soldiers out and abandon the fort. Pretty simple right? But something occurred during that letter and three weeks later when Lincoln "Changed his mind". We believe during that small time frame, as Lincoln wrote, that he was pressured to bring on the war. I can't imagine what we will find say a year, five years, ten, twenty etc down the road.
Have a great New Years!
rebel2276 1 year ago
@686204 At the very start of WW2, President F.D.R did everything in his power to get the Japanese to attack us. Why? So then we could go to war. F.D.R had plenty of reports of the Japanese Navy was sailing east and on route to Hawaii. He did nothing to warn the Americans on the islands. Once Hawaii was hit, presto, he got the war he wanted. All of our wars are very easy to explain. My grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963, he was sent to the South Pole when Kennedy was killed. A bit strange?
rebel2276 1 year ago
@686204 Use your wise judgment and put aside everything you have been told on our wars. Do a deep research on our wars and you will notice a pattern. I will stop at this, not looking for a nasty email tomorrow. I just want to finish out my thirty years in the US. Army, do my research with my friends and associates when I retire and end it at that. If you are ever in Washington DC, please contact me and I/We will show you many things I can not type on here.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 another thing....The Government blew up the USS Maine, not the spanish...that led to the war with spain in the late 1800's early 1900's....you'll never see it in history books as that but its there you just have to look....you are right, conspiracies are all throughout our government...it makes our government almost corrupt... just my opinion though
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@sjbaseball6 I read a long time ago that a boiler blew up and that was what sunk the USS. Maine. But, I would not be surprised if the Government was behind it to start a war. Just as their was never a "Golf of Token" incident, it does not surprise me.
Just imagine that all of it, cough cough.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 about the boiler....i heard an ammunitions compartment blew up thusly blowing the boiler up...but still i have no doubt the government blew it up just to start something they could finish later...it really is a corrupt business.
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@sjbaseball6 We will never know the truth. Do you know if any underwater history detectives have dived on the USS. Maine? I would be very curious to what they found down there.
Have a safe New Years, along with everyone else reading this!
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 no i do not know if any detectives have been sent down i look into and you do the same....you never know what you might find...and have a safe New Years
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@sjbaseball6 If they can reach the Titanic, I believe they can find just about any ship. The East coast of North Carolina is full of ship wrecks. They found the Monitor and the CSS Hunley, I am sure there are more Union/Confederate ships to be found.
Have a great New Years, with your family!
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 well considering that i live in North Carolina yes the coast is full of shipwrecks...thats why its called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" but yes im sure some have been sent down to the ship...
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@sjbaseball6 I will be horribly wrong on my history on this, but did Black Beard the pirate lose a ship in the inner channel of North Carolina? I don't specialize on 17th Century pirates, please forgive, if I am wayyyy off.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 well to be quite honest no one really knows....Everyone in North Carolina believes it is the Queen Anne's Revenge but, nothing has been found to prove that it really is BlackBeard's ship...and it was about 1-2 miles off Carolina's coast not in the inner channel.
sjbaseball6 1 year ago
@rebel2276 First why would I send a nasty email we are involved in a debate here right. You don't have to tell me about wars just google "war is a racket" and see what it is all about. The war was fought over slavery as far as the south was concerned not the North. The North fought it in order to preserve the Union. However the South started the war by firing on Ft Sumter. Both sides were equally at fault for that war it was "a rich mans war and a poor mans fight" as is the case with most wars
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Not you with the nasty emails, my little friends that monitor my "Comments". Since my grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963, they are a bit nervous to what I know and monitor my comments. I have been warned in the past, thus I don't cross that line.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 I am against war to settle differences apparently as much as you. It is quite possible that Lincoln even bated the South into firing on Ft Sumter thus starting the war. But no matter what you say it was started over secession and the South seceded over slavery in order to maintain the life style of the Southern aristocracy. They fired the first shot that gave Lincoln his justification to go to war.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I agree with most of your post, well typed. But I/We believe Lincoln was pressured by the Pope and Jesuits to start the war. That's just us of course. Many things we find at the LOC and National Archives have never been published. Slavery, politics and the numbers game is the most difficult things to work with on the Civil War. I/We are working on the first ever two book "Union and Confederate Colors Captured". I have worked on this project for almost twenty years.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 Whether Davis offered to pay the Union for all Fed property/equipment and half the Nation debt is inconsequential. There was a difference of opinion here the North still believed that secession was illegal so why would they accept such an offer. The South took it upon themselves to secede based on their opinion of the Constitution. Secession by the way in 1869 was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Was secession illegal when Five, New England states, try to succeed during the War of 1812? Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire all were screaming for succession. Their main complaint was, unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty. The only thing that stopped that, was the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. The Federalists party was disbanded and was considered traitors to the South.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 Who would fight his own country?
PresentAssassin 11 months ago
@PresentAssassin My point exactly.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@Luigi84289 Several officers did so. Out of duty and the oath they took to serve the US Army.
These were the true soldiers. Lee and the others were traitors and betrayed their uniform.
Ares99999 11 months ago
@Ares99999 Only if you believe the Government is God and would murder your own family for it.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@Luigi84289 That was weird from beginning to end.
Ares99999 11 months ago
@Ares99999 But that is what you believe in typing what you did for to go against your state is to do just that. To place the Government over your home and your family. If Texas decided to secede I would go with it, if other states wished to interfere and sacrifice their own children trying to force us to change our mind, what we want I would look at it as just as crazy as the Northern invading butchering force was.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@Luigi84289 So to you the South was the epitome of virtue and was completely right?
Ares99999 11 months ago
Sounds like hypocrisy to me???
gordopark13 1 year ago
Hang on didn't you guys rebel against the British in 1775???
You check every past and present British regiments who fought in America as it was seen by the British to be a CIVIL WAR!!! no battle honours were awarded to them for that reason.
Then you went and tried to pick a fight with them in Canada in 1812 that turned out to be a good move ending in stalemate with a burnt down Capital.
Was the South's cause any lesser than there ancestors less than a 100 years before hand???
gordopark13 1 year ago 2
@gordopark13 Secession is American. It is what we are. It is what we do. Americans today have forgottent that through the effects of a broken Government. That day is coming up soon though. The Government keeps pushing and pushing. Obama just gave 3 of Arizonas counties to Mexico.
Luigi84289 1 year ago 3
@gordopark13 You're very correct. I'm glad i'm not the only one who was thinking about that.
Ulysseys2543 1 year ago
What was the USA supposed to do? They get attacked and they're supposed to over look that?
Rizrsniper 1 year ago
@Rizrsniper Ft Sumpter is in South Carolina. It was their fort. Lincoln broke an Armistice with the CSA by sending troops there. We asked him to stop and he sent more.
Luigi84289 1 year ago 2
the south was not fight just for slavery like they teach you in school but for, land liberty, and the way of life they had. the union killed and raped southern women and burned the south. ihope as a texas we leave the union.
tuggles32 1 year ago
"The Source of the war was not slavery, the source of the war, was the Jesuits". Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln finally admits to who was behind the war and by writing that, he gave up his life to go against the Jesuits.
rebel2276 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebel2276 Take your meds.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
South failed in every aspect of the conflict.
Legally. It's not perhaps cristal clear wether secession as such is legal or not. Firing with guns however, is not legal.
Morally. The cornerstone of the constitution is that every man is created equal. From this idea south walked away.
In judgement. South rebelled against Abraham Lincoln. He was one of the best political leader the world has ever seen.
johan12564 1 year ago
@johan12564 @johan12564 Actually, it is clear that secession was legal. The United STATESSSSS. Plural. We seceded from England and our founding fathers believed secession to be necessary. And as for your claim about Lincoln, you couldn't be more wrong. I spent a year writing my master's thesis on Lincoln. He was a TYRANT and totalitarian dictator who destroyed our Constitution. Know the facts before you make such a bold claim...
johnnyrebncsu 1 year ago 2
@johnnyrebncsu So, I am wrong about Lincoln. Well, let me tell you this. If you rebelled against a bad president, I could perhaps understand. But against "Old Abe"? My God, what were you thinking? You should read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwinn. It is well written and well researched. Of cause Lincoln was not snowwhite. No politians are. Still, there has never been a better man in the office.
johan12564 1 year ago
I'm torn, Gods and Generals had a General Lee that looked the part, but Gettysburg had the much better actor IMHO.
DSVII 1 year ago
Very nice!
TheTrimby1973 1 year ago
For 134 years the American people have been led to believe that the right of secession had been overturned by a "verdict of arms," but that isn't true ... It is true the shot fired at Fort Sumter was a mistake since it provided the pretext for the Southland to be invaded by foreign troops, but the right of secession realized through the ballot box remains an essential part of our constitutional order. -- George Kalas, Chairman Emeritus, The Southern Party
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@TheunPatriot1776100 Good luck getting those votes...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. -- New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@TheUnPatriot177610 Copperhead articles. Is there anything since Jackson's elimination of the Bank of the US where the Democrats were right?
DonMeaker 1 year ago
This is a voluntary union. The States can come and go as they please.
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@ThePatriot1776100 Each state can only leave with the permission of all the other states. Such permission had not been given. Succession was null for that reason alone.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Thomas Jefferson would disagree "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' "
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@ThePatriot1776100 And Let us separate, but I pick the terms. When the southern states chose military means to determine the terms of seperation, they chose the potential of not being permitted to separate. If they didn't want to use military means to determine the terms, they should not have called for 100,000 men before Lincoln took office, fired on US troops, stolen US government property etc.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker This is a voluntary union. not an empire.
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@ThePatriot1776100 it is now, since we got rid of the slavery instituion that the South rebelled to protect.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker No, it was a voluntary union since 1776. Lol! Sure bud.
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@ThePatriot1776100 So next time, rather than rebelling, file suit to get recognition of your petition to leave the Union, else me and others like me will have to come and fix your wagon again.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I am done with you,
ThePatriot1776100 1 year ago
@ThePatriot1776100 Feel free to leave the country. I ain't going anywhere.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Actually, The South never seceded because of slavery, it was for states rights and because the Union invaded the south
koreankid113 1 year ago 2
@koreankid113 That is only true if the South had a time machine. South Carolina rebelled before Lincoln even took office. They fired on the US soldiers at Ft. Sumter before the US government was invading anyone. You are wrong on facts, that means your argument is wrong.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Actually. You are wrong. Lincoln made the first aggressive move by trying to resupply a fort that didn't even belong to the United States. I live in Charleston. And I have a master's degree in American history.
johnnyrebncsu 1 year ago
@koreankid113 Fort Sumter was fired on before the Union Army ever invaded anywhere in the south. Also one of the big "States Rights" the south was fighting to keep, was the right for Southern States to keep slaves. Sorry to doll out truth on you.
Kravis63 1 year ago
@Kravis63 What you did not know, that a month before any firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln had wrote a letter to the Governor of South Carolina. Governor Pickens read the letter and it basically said. "I will remove the soldiers and abandon the fort." Pretty simple, right? Strange enough, three weeks later, Lincoln all of a sudden changed his mind and now wanted to bring provisions into the fort. A far cry from his "Word and Promise" in the letter.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Kravis63 Little did any of us known, that Lincoln was actually being pressured to start the war by the Pope and the Jesuits. My assistants, friends and associates that dig deep at the Library of Congress and National Archives here in Washington DC, have found a letter written by Lincoln. Lincoln made it clear who was really behind the war. I shall type some of the letter in the next post.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Kravis63 "The Civil war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of our noblest sons". "Through all their councils theologians, and common laws....their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children and cut my throat when they find their opportunity...". Abraham Lincoln.
That will NEVER be published and NEVER has been. We are satisfied we have found the truth.
rebel2276 1 year ago
Here's a question. Even if the CSA won the war, was there any guarantee in place to keep those states within the CSA. What if a state then wanted to secede from the CSA? What would have the Confederate government have done then? Would they have allowed that state to secede or force to remain within the CSA? It's all hypothetical but interesting to consider.
concord1995 1 year ago