Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Sun City, Sep 5, 2018.
Wasn't one aspect of it.....'civil'!! :idunno: :shake:
Only used because it was between two factions of one country.
Of corse it wasn’t a civil war in the technical sense, since the south was making no claim on the federal government. However the nasty fact is that wars between one people are more bloody the wars between nations. An Englishman can forgive a Frenchman and feel pity for him. But... a supporter of Richard will get no quarter from a Tudor man.
Better the vilest enemy then a Whig (or a Tory)
Civil in "Civil War" is a noun not a verb.
It is what the War of Rebellion came to be called as a conciliatory measure, and to heal the nation....Otherwise, the "rebels" (secessionists) under the constitution were traitors. No Confederates were charged and convicted of treason after Appomattox.
Jefferson Davis complained about the term “rebellion” in private in the 1870s, and then, in his 1881 book “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,” he referred to the conflict as a “civil war.”
So, if you want to use civil as a verb....You could say that the "civil" part was not executing all the confederates for treason.
Such is the dilemma of a civil war.
I would disagree that they committed treason under the constitution. The constitution had no provision that stated the states that voted to join the union and accept the constitution could not vote to unaccept it. No confederate conspired or gave aid or comfort to an enemy in a declared war or tried to overthrow the lawful government of the United States. No confederate could be said to have met the legal definition of treason under the constitution.
No matter what one may think of the southern cause, the fact is had the north not invaded the south the south would have done nothing to interfere with the government or economy of the north. The southjust wanted to leave in peace.
Lincoln felt it his duty to fight and prevent the south from leaving. It could be argued that the west would break off from the east, or New England from the rest over the tiniest regional squabble. So a free south would mean the ultimate end of the United States. So people who think Lincoln did the right thing have plenty of ammo.
But Lincoln or all the south could not be called traitors. Not acording to the constitution.
Treason is the only crime specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Article III section 3
Section 3 - The Text
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
War against the union is exactly what the confederacy did.
B.S answer....There were 34 states at the beginning of the war, only 11 formed the confederacy. A clear minority....A vote wouldn't have changed anything.
Also B.S. The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.
That's not very "peaceful"
I don’t think it can be said that the south made war on the USA. The fort was picked as a symbolic area since it would have little chance to produce causulties.
Lincoln called out troops to crush the rebellion, but the south had made no move on the north.
What the other states did was of no effect here. The south wasn’t asking any state to follow.
What if, just for the sake of argument here, Georgia or Pennsylvania had not voted to accept the constitution. And the other twelve states had. Would Washington have been justified to march on that state?
If a free people could vote to join a union after the revolution, why could their grand children not vote to unjoin?
In California today there is a sucseion movement. I don’t think it would serve California well to leave, but how could a nation built on the idea that people could sever political ties with another when it was judged that the other government was not serving their needs justify not letting them go.
There would have been no war had troops not marched on the south.
Each state on its own voted to accept the constitution. The vote to leave was an instate vote and was not subject to the votes of other states. It wasn’t a convention of states. The south wasn’t voting to change the constitution or structure of the government, only to withdraw from that political union.
No law prevented the people from leaving the union.....They just couldn't take the states with them.
Was our country not founded on the idea that the body politic had the right to join or sever ties with other ad lib? Is that not what we did in 1776, or Texas sixty years later?
Hold the phone....Statehood required a vote of the citizens and approval by congress.
The constitution states that States may be granted statehood by the U.S. Congress.
Generally speaking, if a law does not state a specific condition then the status quo remains until that law is amended.
So, since the constitution does not specify leaving the Union.....You can't without an amendment.
So the people who voted to join the union voted away their children’s rights to unjoin. How’s that?
James Madison so eloquently said;
"The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution a miracle; their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world."
How's that is right. :shocked2: ...How does one unilaterally invoke that right or take it away from his neighbor....Not all southerners wanted their states to secede.... What about them? and their children?
Not all the people wanted to leave the rule of Britain. How ever the thirteen states did vote to leave.
America did nothing to stop the Tories that left America after 1781 or 83. Nor did the USA stop the people who went to Texas in 1820s and welcomed them back in the 1846.
The states voted to leave the union. The same thing the states did in 1776.
Our rights are protected in the constitution, they do not devolve from the constitution. They are the inalienable rights we are endowed with from our creator. The const aknowledges that just because a right hasn’t been enumerated in the bill of rights should not be construed to mean that right didn’t exist. The fall back position is not that the right has to be granted, but that the denial of that right has to be a high bar to be encumbered.The Declaration of Independence clearly stated people have the right to sever ties to states they were formally bound to.
The Declaration listed abuses from the British government. Did the Federal government abuse the south? Certainly the people of the south thought so.
That's right....Nothing prevents a person from packing up and leaving....You just can't take the land with you....
Not exactly the same....In '76 the union (Britain) lost the fight....in '65 the union (U.S.) won the fight.
If you want to continue that argument you could say the British seceded from the French and the French from the Dutch.... :haha:
Have we found the "civil" part yet?.... :haha:
I think we have been pretty civil. There is certainly nothing to get angry about .... just two old farts beating a dead horse. Or the disicated mummy of a dead horse.
And even though your wrong I don’t hold it against you :rotf:
The fact that the Brits lost or the north won should not be construed as they were in the right or in the wrong.
There is emotion around this war, howsomever I can get on a soap box about William the Bastard and the free people of Saxon England. And I just can’t help but to take Ceasers side over the Boni.
And we know how that turned out.
Ah!.....There it is...
Why is there emotion around this war?
This is why I often refer to it as the UnCivil War.
During the period, it was often known in the South as "The Third War of the American Revolution," with the AWI and the War of 1812 (as commonly known today) were the First and Second Wars of the American Revolution.
Please define "civil" and "uncivil" as they have been used in the above sentences.
Separate names with a comma.