I think it's getting glossed over a lot in the South bad, North good interpretation of the Civil War.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the states seceded, they did not declare war. They defended themselves and fought back -- and they weren't all or even nearly all racist slave owners. They were mostly homesteaders, homeowners, who never knew any other home. So I don't even want to make this a racial discussion, just factual, as much as possible.
People saying these monuments need to be torn down and are of traitors seem to be missing like some really big take aways in the history and are only seeing the racial undertones of mah slavery.
They fired on Fort Sumter first. Attacking a Federal Installation is an act of war.
Details aside. That one act started the war regardless of what Lincoln was going to do in regards to supplying the fort.
I had to look this up to refresh, but Sumter was mid 1861. Secession started in Southern states in the early winter of 1860, with SC. Sumter was part of them seizing what they now deemed their land and the property upon it. I'm not arguing morality though. Lincoln says he will quash the rebellion. It's really actually pretty gray if you look to lay the blame on any point in the escalation.
The escalation was pretty much gray. At any point it probably could have been defused if both sides were willing to listen.
But Lincoln was dead focused on keeping the union together by any means necessary and the south was focused on seceding by any means necessary. Regardless of all the chatter about diplomacy or what have you.
The Civil War was pretty much guaranteed from the nation’s founding. The North and South for the most part had Diametrically opposed life styles and ideals that came to blows repeatedly before it boiled over in the civil war.
What I’m saying is the Civil War was inevitable 3/5ths compromise or no. When you have diametrically opposed cultures and lifestyles forced to share 1 nation. Eventually one will overtake the other or the nation will collapse into conflict with one emerging victorious over the other.
The secession was the declaration of war.
The South was what it was, for good and bad. The DNC wants it all erased so they can try to pretend they were never pro-slavery racists.
Only if you hold the side of the Union. If you take the position of the Confederate states, they had every right to secede. Sumter was mid 1861, SC seceded and started seizing "federal" institutions in late 1860.
I am solidly pro-union on that one. But the statues should still stay up.
Fair, and am not knocking you nor Lincoln for holding the view. I just wanted a chance to to talk about this shit without BLM overtones for a second before Second Islam burns down all our history. Thanks u/NeOmega for making that impossible. Cunt.
For the politicians who started the secession, it was all about slavery. For the citizens, it was usually about community or their State. The best thing about Confederate statues is that they help us remember that people and issue are complex. I think General Lee was wrong , but I still admire him. Stonewall Jackson? Pickett’s charge? Very brave men. I would never have fought to disband the Union, but I love me some Skynyrd and Dukes of Hazzard. Heritage, not hate
This is a very level take, and I appreciate it a lot.
You are negative as fuck.
Why do I need to look it up when you wont stop talking about it?
It was about state vs federal power. Big government won.
Slavery was eventually going to be on it's way out because other countries were banning it and the US would have done so as well with the abolition movement growing.
I see you are all up in this post on some mah slavery when I'm trying to talk about some other facts that are getting glossed over because of mah slavery, so please stfu if you have nothing else to add.
Yah, no. Making it just about slavery and rioting over it 160 years later is stupid and myopic. Thanks, no thanks. I even prefaced the post for people like you. yet here you are. Ranting, while everyone else is having a conversation. Nobody here demonizing Lincoln. Buchanan was actually the president when things began escalating to war. Lincoln responded how he did, and I can't really knock him either. His true belief was that the Union must be strong. Southern states had a true belief that no matter the reason, they could secede from the Union at their choice, but then were denied that choice. Trying to have a conversation where we aren't demonizing each other for a change. Yet again, here you are.
I'm not faggot. I said the word in my post and you've chosen your cause to be a faggot about. I get it. Have a good day.
We can talk about both then and now without it getting too confusing for you, right? You really don't see the connection and understand why I made this distinction to avoid this stupid fucking argument?
There are ample other arguments that don't pepper over the slavery issue, that you are hypocritically peppering over to make your stand.
The claim that Confederates are traitors, aside from being stupid, is fairly new, seems to me. It's so common now that I suspect it's a propaganda ploy, preparing the battlefield for when states start talking again about seceding from the US in response to the globalist takeover of the federal government.
It's not that new. The confederacy didn't secede properly. They were technically belligerent traitors. Your other points still stand however. Laws have also changed since then quite a bit. What the colonies did to gain independence would not have been legal to do in the us at the time of the civil war and regardless of the technicality regarding secession, there are now laws to prevent actions and speech that would even lead up to what the confederacy did in the civil war. The loss of even one state would be so great that even legal secession, which is still possible, would invite the world powers to pick us apart like vultures over a carcass. States like California know this and do a lot to push that concept for their corrupt financial benefit.
Didn't secede properly? There's no mechanism in the Constitution for secession. You just have to do it, and try to fight for it if the other states are going to exert force over you.
They weren't traitors in any sense, unless you think removing yourself from a political union is treason. Of course it's not. Good Lord. This assumes that a state or some distinct portion of the country must remain bound to the status quo political order in perpetuity. That's nonsense.
If California tried to secede, I wouldn't call them traitors. It doesn't make sense. They're not betraying the country to some other power or interest. They're just excluding themselves from the current political order.
That "technicality" is the only reason it's even debatable whether they had a right to secede, let alone to do it properly, which they were being given no recourse to do, because of the other side of Consitutional argument.
Lincoln addressed it as a rebellion. Which is timely in the current "State of the Union."
Because those states voted to?
Seems like it was a short debate then. Wonder what took those other states like 6 months to agree on it. Faggot.
The real shame is that States lost a lot of freedom because they wanted the “right” to deny freedom. The aftermath really messed up the balance of power
Yah, 'cause now we have the cancer of the West Coast just stuck to us like hot, itchy, pulsating skin bubbles.
Hang tight, let me fire up my way back machine from when I was taught US history without slant....
1783, treaty of Paris, ended the conflict between England and the colonies. In the treaty. It states there where 13 sovereign nations, the colonies. In 1787 they came together and as principals set up the government as their agent. Lawfully, any of these principals could fire their agent, or succeed. In many state ratification documents, they listed a clause that states of the federal government started acting like tyrannical dicks. The states could bail.
.............Drink of beer.............
So. The climate of the day, ruling dicks in the north, money making plantations in the south. The politicians started making moves to get some of that sweet sweet cash. You now, the same junk they do now.... anyway, feds got way to Authoritarian and the south pulled the rip cord. The southern states wanted to succeed. and.to prevent it. The feds needed to pick a fight to go whoop some ass. Being the Victorian SJW’s they were, and to hurt the southern manufacturing base, they did the whole slavery abolition thing.
Yes. The war was about slavery and slavery was bad, BUT the bigger cause of the war was STATES RIGHTS. the ultimate goal was to keep the south in their place and get that sweet king cotton cash
I think I’m drunk, somebody better fact check me on the fly
Seems legit, everything checks out.
Remember. The victors write history.
Not that into it, just know the gist from US government class in 9th grades
I don't remember all the details either. But I don't think it was even about slavery. IIRC, the north had slaves too, but they were called "indentured servants".