Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Author Message
South Carolina Duke Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,014
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Palmetto State
Post: #21
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
They weren't the same country, ...hence the secession of multiple states.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
07-18-2014 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,454
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 191
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #22
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-18-2014 11:03 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  They weren't the same country, ...hence the secession of multiple states.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Civil wars usually involve separatists that want to break off - they consider themselves separate but the original government does not. The fact that the rebels consider themselves separate does not make it not a civil war.
07-19-2014 02:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Domestic Terrorist and Iconoclast
*

Posts: 34,095
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 655
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #23
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Battle of the Frontiers. Over a million total casualties from August 5 to November 1914. Hard to even get the numbers in your head as to the destruction of human life that surrounds the next 4 years. 16 million people will die.

I find it interesting that very little media attention is being paid to the upcoming 100 year anniversary of this monumental event. I know damn well it is barely touched on in school. Most of what I have learned about the war to end all wars...I have learned myself.
07-19-2014 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #24
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  
(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.
Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm

And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.
07-20-2014 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Domestic Terrorist and Iconoclast
*

Posts: 34,095
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 655
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #25
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  
(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.
Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm

And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.

Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.
07-21-2014 05:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #26
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-21-2014 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  
(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.
Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!
Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm
And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.
Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.

Slavery was the biggest part of it. Look at the articles of secession that the states put out at the time. Or even the article about the Virginia Convention in the Sons of the South link.

Quote:An amendment declaring "that in the event of proposed amendments to the Constitution being rejected by the Non-Slaveholding States Virginia will secede, was voted down 67--58."

That wasn't written by the winners, and that wasn't written after the fact. That's how Virginians were framing the divide in discussions about whether or not they should join the Confederacy.

Let's look at Texas.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
Quote:She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . . .

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. . . .

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.


Now these are just excerpts, and the most inflammatory ones at that, so please go and read the whole thing. But I don't see any way to conclude that Texas did not secede over slavery.

That being said, it still doesn't make them traitors. Nor does the fact that they did not get majority approval make them tyrants - the Constitution did not have majority approval either. It does mean that they formed their own nation for a very evil purpose, however.
07-21-2014 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #27
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-21-2014 10:26 AM)jh Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  
(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.
Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!
Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm
And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.
Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.

Slavery was the biggest part of it. Look at the articles of secession that the states put out at the time. Or even the article about the Virginia Convention in the Sons of the South link.

Quote:An amendment declaring "that in the event of proposed amendments to the Constitution being rejected by the Non-Slaveholding States Virginia will secede, was voted down 67--58."

That wasn't written by the winners, and that wasn't written after the fact. That's how Virginians were framing the divide in discussions about whether or not they should join the Confederacy.

Let's look at Texas.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
Quote:She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . . .

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. . . .

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.


Now these are just excerpts, and the most inflammatory ones at that, so please go and read the whole thing. But I don't see any way to conclude that Texas did not secede over slavery.

That being said, it still doesn't make them traitors. Nor does the fact that they did not get majority approval make them tyrants - the Constitution did not have majority approval either. It does mean that they formed their own nation for a very evil purpose, however.
Considering that only rich, land owning, white men were the ones who called the shots and given the right to vote, women were not given the vote, and non-whites were defined as less than human, that's not even debatable.
07-21-2014 12:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
South Carolina Duke Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,014
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Palmetto State
Post: #28
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Ther were over 250k free people of color in the South. They had property, paid taxes and yea even owned other blacks as their own slaves.

Secession is a right given by the Constitution ,...The Southern States carried this out!


Now now onto taxation. Read the Tariffs of Abomination. The Fed. Gov't wanted an huge increase in cotton. The Northern States may have has the manufacturing but The South had all the wealth.

Lincoln offered the South to keep their slaves if they would give him the money in taxation. That was proposed in February prior to Ft. Sumter.

Carry On.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2014 01:55 PM by South Carolina Duke.)
07-21-2014 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,723
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 778
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #29
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
We've gotten into one of 'those' conversations.
07-21-2014 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,989
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #30
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-21-2014 01:48 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Ther were over 250k free people of color in the South. They had property, paid taxes and yea even owned other blacks as their own slaves.

Secession is a right given by the Constitution ,...The Southern States carried this out!


Now now onto taxation. Read the Tariffs of Abomination. The Fed. Gov't wanted an huge increase in cotton. The Northern States may have has the manufacturing but The South had all the wealth.

Lincoln offered the South to keep their slaves if they would give him the money in taxation. That was proposed in February prior to Ft. Sumter.

Carry On.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Just curious. Which article and section addresses this?
07-21-2014 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.