Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 10 2020 07:39pm)

I was looking up an Orwell quote and came across an interesting quote of Jefferson Davis:

“The North was mad and blind: it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came. And now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge or right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, and that, or extermination.”

also:

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
– Confederate Major General Patrick R. Cleburne

Secession and self government aren't traitorous acts and the Confederate states weren't the aggressors.
Read more about Fort Sumter, particularly its reinforcement in contravention of agreements with the South.


If a state seceded now would that be an act of treachery? Of course not.
It is supposed to be a voluntary union of states, not permanent and unconditional servitude.

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 10 2020 10:55pm)

I think the Civil War was about... grits. The south was seriously pissed off that the north weren't as hooked on grits as the south was.
It created economic hardship in the south, and that started the Civil War.

Quote (Tyrantus @ Jun 10 2020 11:58pm)

I would totally go to war for some Cracker Barrel grits. Would you like to join this cause? It's only light treason I think.

Quote (Tyrantus @ Jun 10 2020 11:48pm)

Says it right in the Confederate Constitution. You could boil it down to: it was about states' rights.

But states' rights about what, exactly? Slavery. The plantation class had a vested interest in keeping things the way they were. The problem was the slaves were freed in a way that still kept them chained up.

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 10 2020 11:01pm)

Not me. I'm a Cream o' Wheat Yankee... born and bred. :D


/e But I have been to Maysville, and I had a friend in the service, from Peduka. :)

Quote (Tyrantus @ Jun 11 2020 12:07am)

Damn man, well you're always welcome in the Gritz Gang.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 10 2020 11:52pm)

Absolutely it would be. Where did you get this nonsense that it's a "voluntary union of states?" Yea, you voluntarily JOIN but there is no mechanism to secede. Was it an oversight by the Founding Fathers or intentional? Either way, the right of secession would need to be codified via constitutional amendment. Personally, I would oppose such an amendment but you would need it regardless. It's not just my opinion that there is no mechanism to secede, James Madison felt the same way! He wrote the damn thing!

I'd say that Cleburne's quote is off base. He's not wrong that history is written by the winners, but I think he severely underestimated how powerful Southern propaganda would be. Most of the history that I learned out in California was very sympathetic towards the South. The Daughters of the Confederacy and their view of the "Lost Cause" succeeded beyond their wildest dreams IMO. My perspective only changed after VISITING the Ft. Sumter museum in Charleston. After reading more primary sources, it became clear to me that the South was being very unreasonable with their demands.

As for the Davis quote, this doesn't surprise me at all. What would you expect him to say?

Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 10 2020 11:06pm)

'It was all about slavery' is absolutist ignorant nonsense.
Slavery is not why the union waged war against the south.
Slavery was not the only objection the South had to the North ruling over them.


What is the tariff of abominations?
What is the Morill Tariff?
Why did Lincoln state over and over that the abolition of slavery was not his goal?
Why was he primarily concerned about forcing the south back into the union if its all about slavery?
Why did he support the Corwin amendment which would have enshrined slavery in the south?
Why was he more concerned with statements indicating he would impose tariffs and fees on the south?
How does the south's objection to that part of his inaugural address mesh with your statement that its all about slavery?
If its all about slavery, why were newspapers in the North calling for war over lower tariffs in the south?

Clearly there was much more in play than 'good guys vs slavery'.

A significant portion of the history is about control and power.
Economic control and control of territory.

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 10 2020 11:10pm)

I have partaken of the evil grits a time or two. :D

My dad worked for Lord Electric local 5. They did a job in Maysville for about 7 months. He would drive down on Sunday, and drive back on Friday evening. He would take 2 of the 4 kids every now an then.
We were all disappointed that the grass wasn't really.... blue. :D





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_7_RTogRBw

Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 10 2020 11:18pm)

No, secession is not an act of aggression.
Secession is "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state"
Typically advocated by people seeking freedom from overbearing federal control.
A majority vote doesn't determine morality.
A majority indicating they want to control a minority doesn't make it an act of aggression for the minority to want freedom and separation.
No two thirds vote on an amendment is needed.
Secession movements were fairly popular in the north prior to the secession of southern states.
If a state secedes tomorrow are they aggressing against the other states? How and why?
This country was founded on secession and the founders were secessionists. Throwing off the chains of the English empire and declaring independence.
They didn't need to wait for the King to say it was OK.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-The Declaration of Independence.