Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire John Wilkes Booth

For crying out loud, it's secession.

secede: to withdraw from an organization (such as a religious communion or political party or federation)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede

I had a few relatives on my mother's side that fought for the Confederacy. When I was about 11 years old I met one of them before he passed on. I asked him abut it but all he would say was it was a horrible time in his life. According to his wife who was into geneology big time, I'm supposed to be related to Robert E. Lee although about 6 times removed. His wife was supposed to send me copies of what she recorded but passed on shortly after he husband. Currently, one of my grand daughters is into that stuff and is trying to confirm what the old lady told me. That is something that I think I should know for sure. With that knowledge and a $5.00 bill I might be ale to buy a cup of coffee somewhere in town.
PJ

All of history summed up in 10 words.

A person born in 1845 would have been 20 years old in 1865 when the war ended. They would be 100 years old in 1945. So, what year were you born to have been able to talk to a Civil War veteran when you were 11 years old? How old was the veteran at the time?

I find it interesting that:

It was moral and right to declare war on every Indian Nation North of the Rio Grande so that we might include those territories into the Union.

It was moral and right to go to war with Mexico so that we could claim California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado.

It was moral and right to go to war with Spain and take possession of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

But it was immoral to go to war and reclaim those states which had seceded?

Did I get that straight?

That secession was about slavery would be correct.

The second part is kind of true, but in a hypocritical way of the part of the South. They South was perfectly fine with the Federal Government imposing its will on states when the South saw it to their benefit. They pushed through and supported the Fugitive Slave Act, a Federal law that required states where slavery was illegal to actively participate in the capture and return of fugitive slaves to their masters. The Southern states openly supported the Dred Scott case, that ruled that a Slave owner could take his slaves into a Free State and that Free State had to legally recognize the masters right to his slaves even thought slavery was supposed to be illegal in that state.

All were immoral to varying degrees. Armed conflict is pretty much always immoral and wrong unless you are fighting a defensive war.

Every war is a defensive war, depending on the point of view.




P

Fugitive Slave Act? You mean Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution wasn’t enough for northern states?

Absolutely, true and almost always so from the point of view of those being attacked.

A Yankee (as a derogatory term) is applied to anyone living any distance north of the speaker with whom the speaker disagrees.

Just a question - if people secede from a country, are they still citizens of that country?

Simultaneously: "So's your old man!"

No, they aren’t but the Northern preachers arrested because they didn’t include a prayer for Lincoln were. The newspaper owners who were jailed and their property destroyed for not supporting the war were. The people and regions denied habeas corpus were. The draft protesters in New York City were. The people forcibly deported to Canada despite not being Canadians, including a US Congressman were. The people subject to General Order No. 6 were. And so on and so forth.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution wasn't enough for Southern Sates. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 pushed it further. But you are right, the Sothern's States as far back as the Constitution loved Federal Power when it was used in protecting their right to own Slaves.

And more recently, Detroit in 1967.

Well, why wasn’t it enough? Are you saying that Northern States were not following the US Constitution simply because they didn’t like what it said and southern states were wrong for insisting that they follow the Constitution? Is that what you’re saying?

Most wars are about money, resources.;

I'm saying the "Lost Cause" myth that the Civil War was about some concept of States Rights and a Federal Government that was too strong is revisionist history nonsense written after the war. At the time the events where unfolding that lead to the war it was almost all about the future of slavery in this country. The South was fine with federal power that was pro-slavery and against federal power that was anti-slavery.