Some say Haley was wrong for not mentioning slavery as the cause of the civil war

American elections had a lot more fraud back then.

 

The states' rights stuff is BS.

The CSA was never recognized by any foreign country.

The war continued because traitors attacked the United States. A lot of the South was created from U.S. territory. If you don't like it here, leave.

The war happened because a bunch of traitors took the law into their own hands. They could have passed a bill allowing them to secede.

 

Correct, any argument that it was about states rights and not slavery is BS.It was primarily about slavery, but people are capable of doing something for more than one reason and in fact often do especially when involving many different people. In this case many people did not own slaves but the people who were rich land owners and had the influence and power where the ones who did own slaves.

Why does that matter? If I dress up a turd well enough to look like a pig and everyone recognized it as a pig, does that make it less of a turd?

They secceded, had their own legal system, constitution, border, president, military, and leaders. In every practical way they were their own country before war started. They had the power to secceed as the constitution states that all rights not given to congress is reserved to the states. And since the constitution didn't give the power of secession to the federal government, it belongs to the states.

These are the facts. Just because you do not like the confederacy doesn't change the facts.

 

The states never had a right to secede, and thus constitutionally remained in the Union throughout the Civil War.
Texas v. White

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Texas_v._White


Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the ...

 

That could well be. Those who used their talent to help the South prolonged the war, Lee most of all.

I think Sherman was the right guy in the right place at the right time, or at least there none too soon. I was really impressed by Sir Basil Liddell Hart's, "Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American."

https://www.amazon.com/Sherman-American-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0306805073?nodl=1&dplnkId=dd7f0f68-e769-47f0-b098-d3730c4c6ddc

It would have been nice if Lee had taken the same route as union general Virginian George Thomas.

I liked Grant's account of meeting Lee at Appomattox.

"What General Lee’s feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us."​

 

I believe their ruling to be incorrect but necessary to preserve the union and prevent conflict. But not consistent with the constitution. Their reasoning was entirely based on factors outside the language of the constitution and that is outside their own power to do.

But even if it is my interpretation of the constitution that is incorrect it does not make a difference on whether they were their own country. It only changes the legality of it.

Is the USA not its own country separate from the UK because it was obtained illegally?

 

W.T. Sherman is a particular hero of mine.

 

Well, no. They were never their own country. From the ruling:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[8]"

And remember: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

The South was all about saving the institution of slavery.

Their action was illegal and treasonous.

They way "out" was the same way as "In"--by an act of Congress. There is no power to secede.

So, it's okay with you if California, Oregon and Washington just leave the union? We won't have a port on the West Coast. They walk off with national parks, military bases, government offices, etc.

 

The real question is why she can't just give the simple, correct answer - it started because the South wanted to guarantee the institution of slavery. What, or who, is she afraid of? Why is a Republican Presidential candidate unable to state a single fact about one of the foundational events of her own political party? What has changed about that party that makes this particular truth so difficult for her to speak clearly?

Honest people know the answer, of course.

 

Mine, too. Liddell Hart called him the first modern general. Thought Sherman was a master of indirect attacks and multiple objectives.

 

So was the act of the colonies when they rebelled against Britain. The USA was still it's own country.

Congress has no such power given to it by the constitution. Good thing too because if they could just abandon a state, they would leave them with no military, no weapons, intelligence, diplomatic agreements, etc... even though the military was paid in part by that state's residents.

The only practical solution would be to have a mutual agreement between congress and the state with a plan laid out on how to break apart assets and give the state time to negotiate treaties. But the constitution didn't provide for that because that's not how the federal government existed at the time. They did not have a centralized currency, military etc when the USA first came into existence. It would have been much simpler for a state to break from the union.

My feelings on it don't matter. The constitution allows for it but these concerns you raise were exactly the reason it came to war, it's also why the majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled against allowing them to seceseed even though the power resided in the states.

There was no clear path to secession. Originally the states had their own military but the federal government expanded beyond its original constitutional mandate and the states and federal government became too intertwined.

As I said, the war did not start because of slavery. The secession was because of slavery but the war was because of the disagreement of assets and land.

 

They saw that the expansion of slavery would be denied to new territories.

What they saw was the proverbial writing on the wall, and given that 39% of their population was black they freaked the f out.

It continues to this day. We see it in the posts of many of those here that support DFT & Maga.

After the civil war the South basically criminalized being black and slavery continued under the form of the peonage system.

Nowadays we see here at PF members that vehemently rage on and on about black crime, black poverty, affirmative action, etc.

Not all here who continue to support DFT with their posts are in this category, but all who are in this category support DFT and Maga.

400 years of breaking down an entire set of people takes time to rebuild, and these sons and daughters of the CSA aren't having it if they can help it.

I find it a bit surprising that we don't see them rail on and on more about LBJ than they do about Hillary, Obama, Bill and Jimmy.

***
You may want to take the time to read this.

To quote Captain Jack Ross, These are the facts of the case and they are undisputed.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

If you have not already read it, I think you would enjoy this.
William Tecumseh Sherman: In the Service of My Country: A Life

 

After just four years DFT managed to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality. Four more and there may not be an election for the Ds to win in 2028.

 

Maga!

 

Do not try to label me through your perspective. From the perspective of self admitted “ right wing nut job “ you must consider Liz Cheney and her father Dick Cheney to be liberals because they see and express the truth about Trump. Trump by the way is not a conservative in that he is an opportunist who is excellent at bamboozling people and he is out to destroy our Constitution and hence our republic and in the long run our rights as Americans. Conservatives work to conserve Trump has out Hitler-ed Hitler in getting support from the population. Remember that Trump supported liberal Democrats such as Hileria the scourge of liberalism and the NY mayor before Adams and he contributed to their campaigns. Basically Trump behaves and operates as a prostitute.

 

deleted, text editor error

 

The "race" of slaves (ANY slaves) really hasn't anything to do with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. I see I'll never be able to punch through all this revisionist fog about "slavery" being the prime cause for the Civil War, but since you brought up "race", per se, and helping "people based on need" (?), you may want to include in your calculus the fact that according to the Census Bureau, Blacks make up less than 14% of the population of the United States.

The impression is created that they make up at least HALF the population, based on all the "diversity" and "inclusivity"-based crap you see on network television, but -- as they say -- "it is what it is". Lyndon Johnson was right -- his "War on Poverty" and other welfare programs insured that Blacks would vote Democratic "for 200 years" -- and for at least the last 50 of those years, the rotten old bastard's been spot-on correct....

... but, this has NOTHING to do with the 10th Amendment....

 

Your example of "Texas v White" has no relevance whatever to the issue of what actually caused the Civil War! Why? Because (in case you failed to notice it) "Texas v White" didn't even occur until 1869 -- five years AFTER the Civil War was over! Winners always get to write the histories, and winners always get to make the new rules!

And, for what it's worth, your hero, Sherman, should have been hanged for war crimes! Historians note that high-ranking Nazi Army generals admired him greatly!

 

Yay! Am I incorrect in my assumption that you support DFT?
A bash against LBJ! Most Excellent!!!
It's almost as though I willed this to happen given my very recent post at #263 above - thanks!!!
Curious, does your lineage stem from the South?

 

The fact that Texas v White was not decided until after the war does not change the fact that the principles in the decision were valid throughout our history. There was never a right to secede except by agreement of all the states.
As for Sherman, modern generals of many nations have admired him, and for good reason. He has been called "the first modern general" although I think Grant also has a claim to being modern.
There is a powerful quote about Sherman from his military foe (but personal friend) Joe Johnston: "When I learned that Sherman was making twelve miles a day through the [South Carolina] swamp, corduroying his own roads, I knew there had been no such army since Caesar's legions."

 

I read Mississippi's statement of secession. Pretty horrific.

 

"The fact that Texas v White was not decided until after the war does not change the fact that the principles in the decision were valid throughout our history." Do you not realize that kind of statement has been the convenient mantra-of-choice for every after-the-fact revisionist who ever lived? Sorry... no cigar!

And as I said, Sherman was heralded as a tactical genius by several Nazi Army generals, who were quite impressed by the way he tore through the South like the Nazis went through Europe all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.... What the Wehrmacht studied under von Clausewitz they saw become reality under "Reichsführer-SS" William Tecumseh Sherman.

 

Another poster brought up the whole "race" thing, so I gave him a dose of reality to digest....

My "lineage" came from Germany about the beginning of the 20th-century (no slave owners, no Civil War veterans).

As far as Lyndon Johnson goes, he was surely one of the five worse presidents in our history, and he was an ardent, 'gold-star' pupil to perhaps the very worst one of all -- Frankie Roosevelt!