Civil war Books From the Southern Perspective

That is a foolish conclusion. You believe that might makes right, in terms of you supporting the South. I remind you that Grant is the only General to destroy an army in the field, and he did it twice. You could not say that GW was preserving slavery, because the British were not fighting to prevent it. You need to do some critical reading.

 

That's the way it works. You have the individual right to leave the country, but no right to deprive others of their citizenship.

The Supremacy Clause is quite clear:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

It wasn't that way until most of the Southerners with personal memories of the war died off. Sherman destroyed property, but he disciplined his soldiers to make sure they weren't killing and raping their way through the countryside.

They were traitors to the United States. They should have emigrated if they no longer wished to be Americans.

Revolutionaries were demanding their rights as British subjects. Denied those rights, they rebelled. Southerners were never deprived of their rights as citizens, nor even of their human property.

 

You're beginning with the faulty premise American forces can invade their own country. There was no legal right to secede, only the individual right to leave the country. Their states were not sovereign and their vote to leave had no force in law.

 

He didn't "invade" Virginia and there's no reason to consider his personal position on secession in terms of any thought a state or states had the right to secede.

 

Their options included staying in the union and living with the potential loss of a right to possess particular property (slaves). If I'm told I can't have heroin, pot, automatic weapons, or a tank, that doesn't give me the right to gather up like-minded individuals in a state and vote to secede.

 

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution trumps all of the emotional arguments:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

 

Oh but he did invade VA.

Any true student of the war from 1861 to 1865 understands that.

I and many others do believe you simply won't find him putting down states rights of sovereignty.

 

There was nothing prohibiting states from leaving. Can you actually point to any speech by Lincoln where he used that excuse?

 

There were no prohibitions vs slavery in the constitution followed by Abe Lincoln or you would have shown it to us.

Why do you present as weakening states rights?

 

Were Trump to send Federal Troops into any state I think I am safe in saying you never would support that and would raise a lot of hell about it.

When troops enter a state and kill humans and use cannon them, that is an invasion.

The oppressor never wants to allow the suppressed freedom.

 

I knew you would excuse the traitor Washington a wealthy man who owned the most slaves of any person in the US. Washington was not denied rights.

However I agree both with Washington and his war against his government as I do with the voters of the South who voted to be left alone.

 

I am mocking the claim Abe did not invade and that he had the right to kill citizens. Abe did not have that right. I am saying the Brits did not suddenly call an end to slavery, the process took years for them to end it. I find my opponents read a book and come to conclusions. They are who needs a lot more reading.

 

Abe said:

Secession

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”
-Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848

Jefferson said:

“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
-Thomas Jefferson
John B Gordon said
“The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
-John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War

 

Slavery's involvement in southern secession is often overstated because slavery was the “occasion” to witch the fight over states rights and the nature of the constitution was fought. Just as Calhoun had said of the tariff of abomination was “The occasion, rather than the real cause” that cause was federal power expansion past its constitutional limits and its encroachments upon the rights of the states.

“This consolidation of the states has been the obiet of several men in this country for some time past. Weather such a change can ever be effected in any manner whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars, whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country time can only determine.”
-Richard Henry Lee 1787

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”
-John Calhoun South Carolina Senator 1831

The deep south saw the republicans as violating the 9th and 10th amendment – and Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling for trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal control rather than state and individual. Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections [and carried on to 1860] plainly stated that a attack on slavery was a attack on states rights, the two issues could not be separated. The question was, is the federal government confined to the powers in the constitution, or was it allowed to step outside of its delegated powers by the states thus nullifying the constitution and transforming the republic, into a centralized nation.

That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
-Democrat plank 9 1852

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
-Democratic Plank 1 1852

“It has often been said that we were fighting for the perpetuation of slavery. This was not so. We were simply fighting for our right to keep slaves if we wanted to. We were fighting for state rights- rights to be allowed to make our own laws for our particular states”
-Joseph F Burke Confederate colonial

 

No, they have rights, as specified in the founding documents of our government. And they all entered into those agreements knowing that they were entering a "Perpetual Union".​

The Fort was not built to protect it from the shore, it was built during the War of 1812 to protect Charleston Harbor from invasion from the sea (specifically against the British Navy and Marines).

All of the permanent batteries were aimed to the sea, and only the smallest of portable guns could be relocated to face shoreward.

And how exactly would he have invaded South Carolina without going through other states to get there? The navy was nowhere near large enough to handle that task, and the Marine Corps was less than 2,000 individuals when the war broke out.

In fact, even at the height of the war, the Corps never even reached 4,000 Marines. And would not reach that many until 1900.

OK, I have absolutely no idea what you are even trying to say here. The Revolutionary War had nothing to do with slavery, and it had nothing to do with the war in any way. But the first real "Abolitionist Movement" did not even start until 1785, when the Revolutionary War was already over and done with.

Oh, and slavery had already been banned in England, long before then. All the way back in 1102 in fact. It was only allowed in the colonies.​

 

Robert's comments make no sense. He can write all the revisionism he wants, he can adopt the Lost Cause myth and fable, and all of that means nothing.

Thank heavens for Lincoln and the victory of the North and West against the evil South.

 

You wiped out one of Abe's own arguments. Flat called him wrong.

My point on Sumter is it was a terrible excuse to invade Va and other states. Even terrible to invade S. Carolina.

Damage to bricks is not killing humans. Abe proceeded to invade VA and kill humans. He brought weapons for the purpose of killing humans. The cannon used by the South were lousy killers of humans when they are contained a then powerful fort. Definitely the fort was to protect the harbor from cannon fire from the sea. Did not matter if England other any other navy force, the fort was built strong and kept Anderson's men totally safe.

Abe said:

Secession

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”
-Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848

 

My comments make perfect sense to those who are not Federalist statists. They made perfect sense to Abraham Lincoln himself.

Secession

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”
-Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848

 

You cannot even define "federalist statist." Good heavens. The South fought to keep men in chains, the North fought to free them. And did.

There is no glory in the South and its cause or its armies. The Wehrmacht and the SS were tremendous fighters and soldiers, but in supporting a despicable cause, the like the Johnny Rebs, brought shame forever on themselves.

 

Labeling my commentary is not helping you in any way.

Calling the public then living in the South "evil" does not advance this either.

 

Abe did not wage war to free anybody. In fact, judging by the rampant hostility coming from particular posters writings proves that he did not solve anything permanent.

The South was willing to keep struggling until they encountered an outlaw president. He comes from my party yet I still boldly scold him over his massive earth shattering war. My school teachers had to forget to teach us as children the massive war he waged. The teachers must have ignored the vast sea of death caused when he invaded VA and of course other states.

Back in those days, those men also knew the constitution very well, maybe since it was more simple at that time than today, they knew it better.

This is not about glory. My comments have nothing to do with slaves.

Abe himself defended secession.
Secession

 

Sure, sure.

 

did all slave state leave the union? why did only 7 originally leave and 8 stay ? What you have done is ignore the reasons why they left as presented in my threads, and instead you have been trained to focus on one small aspect [ most slave optional states eventually left] to try and come to the conclusion you have been trained for. Better to ask why did all the Jeffersonian states rights state leave the union?


Only slave states joined the confederacy

“ Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle. “
-Alexander Stevens “cornerstone speech”

“Abide in confidence that some of the great northwestern states, watered by the Mississippi will be drawn by the strong current of that mighty river by the laws of trade.”
-Robert H Smith

Confederate constitution thought future free states would join p71-71

https://books.google.com/books?id=z...tutionalism georgia slave only states&f=false

The csa thought free north western states connected to the Mississippi would join due to the csa constitutions free trade policy. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. NYC almost left the union, and a middle confederacy almost formed including Penn, NY,NJ,MD,and DE during the war and about a third of its supporters wanted to join the south. However the states strongest on states rights, did leave the union. When the confederacy first formed, more slave states where in the union, that is until Lincolns call for volunteers. Many volunteers fought for the south from the non slave state of California. New Jersey produced at least two confederate generals Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolph de Lagnel


“Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
-George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

 

I would agree. Emotion has no place. Lets take a closer look at your argument. What does the supremacy clause say?


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

What it does not say

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”





But your argument comes from our modern post war understanding of the Constitution. In antebellum america the Constitution was understood as delegated authority to the federal by the states. The federal had no authority outside its delegates powers specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/


Thus secession and all matters not specified in the Constitution, belonged to the states.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/

 

Lincoln's duty was to defend the Perpetual Union, first and foremost and always.

The South found that out to its everlasting grief.