Who Were the Traitors of the Civil War?

The traitor is whoever lost the war. The winners write history, not the losers.

 

That's called propaganda. Not historical fact.

 

So do you mean to tell me that in the English textbooks, their books call we Americans traitors?

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

No because they didn't win. If they won then yeah, Americans would be traitors.

Did you know the ruling party of China is also the traitor of China? But they won...so......

 

The southern leaders were traitors to their own people. The south was devastated by the war over their idiotic ideology.

 

Their "idiotic ideology" was that the constitution should be upheld as it was written and signed. And if it was to be changed then it needed to be changed by going through the prescribed constitutional process with the consent of the governed. That's how this country is SUPPOSED to operate.

 

And many of those people who were "governed" had no rights or political voice. Not saying that the Union was perfect, but I don't think the issue of "state's rights" was going to be solved with civility.

 

In the English textbooks covering that war!!!!! I know they lost, but they too wrote history.

 

We shall never know. Abe never bothered to try diplomacy. He wanted a fight and got a fight.

States rights are not some mystery. They are outlined in the constitution. Then states also have constitutions.

 

No, perhaps you know nothing of the people of the South voting? When Abe was elected, states in the South had citizens who wanted out of the union but also citizens who did not want out.

To find what each state would do, they put it to the vote.

That is the right thing to do.

CA has had people trying this right now. i think my last word is they took a time out.

 

There is so much wrong with what you just said. I can't begin to even address all of it. All that matters now is that the Union defeated the Confederate forces. States still have some autonomy, but it's the federal government that truly has the final say. We can look back at our history and conduct our own revisionist history all we want. I don't see the point in defending slavery. At all.

 

By that logic, all those who participated in the American Revolution were traitors.

 

Rather than judge the poster, simply speak of the topic.
Today we are in a deep mess over race and slavery. To this day, I am supposed to get beat up due to at a minimum, 12 presidents owned slaves and enjoyed fashionable lives.

I argue the constitution. I argue that there was a civil solution. Abe caused the grief we all endure right now.

I did not defend anything other than civil rights for each then free human. It is not my doing that so many presidents owned slaves and enjoyed them as workers.

 

They were. Not that I wish they were not, but some of them were executed.

 

Well I disagree. All they had to do was to allow the Southern states to govern themselves. Then they could have instituted complete federal control of their states if they wanted. But they desired the economic income from the southern states. They placed enormous taxes on goods coming out of the south and then unevenly distributed those funds to the northern states.

But even without that, slavery was a dying institution. Jefferson Davis made that very clear. Not to mention, the South banned slavetrading from foreign nations in their constitution as well as put mechanisms in place in the southern constitution which would have allowed an individual state to ban slavery by their citizens within their borders. Why would a bunch of hungry slavers do that? Would they want to propagate slavery as much as possible if that's what they were fighting for?

 

It's not about defending slavery. It's about defending the constitution. The Federal government was attempting to remove part of the constitution without going through the constitutional process to do so.

Look we can ALL agree that slavery was egregious and the fugitive slave clause should have been removed from the constitution. However, the precedent CANNOT be allowed to stand unchallenged that the federal government can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral, refuse to uphold that portion of the constitution, ignore TWO direct orders of unconstitutionality from the supreme court, attempt to change the constitution as it sees fit without going through the constitutional process and without the consent of the governed and then violently oppress anyone who disagrees.

That is UNACCEPTABLE and must be challenged with all available resources up to and including warfare. The Southern people had a responsibility and a duty to stand up and defend the constitution. They did so against all odds, outsupplied, outgunned, outnumbered and with much sacrifice and blood spilled. They should be honored for that.

 

You missed that whole "firing on a Federal Institution" thing.

but at least you were honest enough to admit it WAS about slavery

 

You really want to make it about hitting heavily fortified walls?

Abe could have got out. But he blew his fuse.

Sure, leaving the union was over the broken promise to honor slavery. But Abe did not fight for that reason.

 

If there were Play Dough back in 1860 there would have been no American Civil War.

In 1860 the Democrats refused to except that their side lost the election just like we are seeing today.

The question is, was it a civil war or a rebellion ?

If it was a civil war then President Lincoln's naval blockade of the South was illegal and was a war crime.

Constitution and the Laws of War during the Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure -> http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=faculty_scholarship

 

None of that matters. They fired on a Federal Installation. End of story

 

Once the guns are fired...none of that garbage matters

 

So, say Gerry Brown is angry at Trump. And has some of his guard guys squeeze off some rounds at the wall of Camp Pendleton, you saying Trump can invade Washington state or Missouri?

That makes as much sense as what outlaw Abe did to VA.

 

That would be a VERY serious event that would have MAJOR ramifications. You act like it's no big deal

By the way...when South Carolina fired on a Federal Installation they were already part of a "nation in rebellion" that has it's own government and of which Virginia was part. Virginia by the way had raised an Army that was approaching Washington DC.

Go read some history with your eyes open

 

Uhhh no sir. Once the northern states and the federal government breach contract in regards to the constitution and refuse to stop, they forfeit any right to lands which are in possession of the southern states in their territory.

They fired on their OWN property which was invaded by a general against order from his commanding officers.