Was the civil war just another religious war?

[John Bell Hood]

Was the civil war just another war caused by religious beliefs. Yes is the simple answer. Almost everyone attended church during those times and where influenced by what they heard espoused from the pulpit. The preachers in the north where saying it is wrong to own slaves and they pointed to scriptures in the bible to make their point. Where as the opposite was happening in the south the preachers where saying it's our god given right to own slaves and they where pointing out scriptures in the bible justifying their cause. So, It is my belief that the civil war was a religious war and this fact was covered over by the victors. Wars are and have been fought for religious reasons.

[Leifr]

Not every preacher was an abolitionist.
I believe the civil war was just another war about money because everybody used the local bank.

I think you should really be thinking so much more the harder on this before coming to such a startingly simple conclusion.

[thomas aagaard]

Yes some wars have been over Religion... but few had religion as the main issue and this was not one of them.

Had it been then the political statements from both sides would have used way, way more religious arguments.
And religious details would have been part of the war goals of the two sides. They where not.

Religion was not part of the reason for the war. (but people who are religious are naturally influenced by their interpretation of that religion)


Also, it was to a great extent the losers who wrote the history books for the following century... the fact that there are still people who think the war was about Tarrifs is clear evidence of this.
Or the simply fact that jim crow laws made sure that the white south stayed in power until the 1960ties... at least.

[John Bell Hood]

Aug 22,1862
Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." So the war wasn't about slavery it's about Lincoln's legal opinion backed by violence and intimidation like all laws...then and now.

[Bravescot]

*Sigh* Here we go again. I've had enough of these threads blow up into a metaphorical fist fights, so know that I'm going to be keeping a serious eye on here.

[thomas aagaard]

Aug 22,1862
Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." So the war wasn't about slavery it's about Lincoln's legal opinion backed by violence and intimidation like all laws...then and now.

Nothing there about Tarrifs. Or Religion

The war was fought over the question of unilateral secession.
Could a state, without the consent of the other states, leave the union?

And that secession was over the question of slavery.
As the original seceding states clearly stated in their political decisions to leave. (https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_4PO--obPAhVBsCwKHZWgDQQQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.civilwar.org%2Feducation%2Fhi story%2Fprimarysources%2Fdeclarationofcauses.html&usg=AFQjCNGCoJ0sFlPIFYnUg0TlejYcs-F6YA&sig2=r1M3ji0_0mnRYdVrwDux2Q&bvm=bv.132479545,d.bGg)




Then after january 1st 1863 the destruction of the institution of slavery became a war goal.

[BloodBeag]

a war isn't religious because the people fighting it were religious

[John Bell Hood]

Before the civil war people identified with their state before they identified with the federal Government. After the civil war people identified with the federal government, ex. I'm a US citizen, more than they identified with their state mostly. I myself consider myself Texan like many other Texans before I consider myself a US citizen. In fact Texas is the 7th largest economy in the world and if Texas did leave the US they would have an extra 1 billion dollars a day to spend where it wishes. That gay marriage, transgender bathrooms and a federal government mandating it's will through the supreme court on the people of Texas no matter what they think or how they vote rubs many Texans the wrong way...That is why there is talk of a Texit the people want self determination. There is secessionist movements in Alaska, California, New Hamphire , Texas, Vermont, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Puerto Rico right now. So regardless of the issues during the civil war as then so it is now... Are you free or does someone else decide and determine what you can and can not do in your own geographic area.

I'm not advocating for an Texit...yet

[Ahyote]

The Civil War wasn't even close to being fought for religious reasons. It was for political reasons.

[A. P. Hill]

a war isn't religious because the people fighting it were religious

Pretty much nailed it.

I agree.

[dmurray6]

Then after january 1st 1863 the destruction of the institution of slavery became a war goal.

You mean, it became a northern war goal military tactic against the south, right? Because those two ideas are VERY different things.

The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in a country in which Lincoln did not preside over. Do you not find it rather amusing that a President who is credited with freeing slaves, and breaking down the institution of slavery didn't actually free the slaves in the only country in which he ran? It's presented quite nicely by the example below also, that slaves were freed in the south, but not in southern areas that the Union had already gained control. I have a feeling that if Lincoln were from a southern state, he too would have defended the south, he was certainly no fore-thinker, when it came to slavery. To some extent, I feel a lot of people confuse or mix racism with slavery. Racism certainly exists without slavery and vice versa, hence the slavery that took place in earlier times. For example, the revolt that Spartacus led was against the Roman Empire, no race association with that slavery. People need to realize that the "Great" Abraham Lincoln was not so great a person. He wasn't an abolitionist, he didn't believe that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and he thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery (colonization meant he wanted to send them to Liberia, the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821....oh how dear of him, that great man.....(sarcasm)).

From the article "5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation"....
"Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union."

[Kyle422]

You mean, it became a northern war goal military tactic against the south, right? Because those two ideas are VERY different things.

The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in a country in which Lincoln did not preside over. Do you not find it rather amusing that a President who is credited with freeing slaves, and breaking down the institution of slavery didn't actually free the slaves in the only country in which he ran? It's presented quite nicely by the example below also, that slaves were freed in the south, but not in southern areas that the Union had already gained control. I have a feeling that if Lincoln were from a southern state, he too would have defended the south, he was certainly no fore-thinker, when it came to slavery. To some extent, I feel a lot of people confuse or mix racism with slavery. Racism certainly exists without slavery and vice versa, hence the slavery that took place in earlier times. For example, the revolt that Spartacus led was against the Roman Empire, no race association with that slavery. People need to realize that the "Great" Abraham Lincoln was not so great a person. He wasn't an abolitionist, he didn't believe that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and he thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery (colonization meant he wanted to send them to Liberia, the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821....oh how dear of him, that great man.....(sarcasm)).

From the article "5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation"....
"Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union."

Could not have said it any better my friend!

[thomas aagaard]

From a (union) legal point of view the CSA did not exist.
Freeing the slaves in the areas in rebellion did become one of the the goals of the war and it made it very clear that it was the political goal of his administration to destroy slavery.(and he did later with the amendments) And it made it clear to the south that there was not longer any change of slavery surviving the war...


Earlier in 62 the union started confiscating slaves. They where the property of people in rebellion and like a horse, food or a cannon it could be confiscated and used by the US military.
One legal challenge was that if the owner was loyal he could get his property back.

The emancipation proclamation had the clear effect that the union armies actively started to free the slaves. They where no longer just property that the Union army took control over.
And it freed all the slaved then under the direct control of the union armies. (so slaves that had run off earlier and had been confiscated... not slaves that worked on plantations in areas controlled by the union)

It also helped solve the legal issue about enlisting the former slaves in the army.

So the last part is simply not correct.



About Lincolns views on race... he was a man of his times. And back than anyone suggestion that a colored man was the equal of a white man was some sort of extremist...
Just like it was not normal to think an woman should have the vote or the same rights as a man.

He was very clearly against slavery, but that do not mean that he was for colored having the same rights as white men.
Also you should really understand that his views changed over time... By 65 he was for the former US colors troops getting the vote. And the same for some Colored men who was educated and owned property. And remember in some states not all white men could vote.

Was he a racist my my modern standards? sure. But we should not judge him by modern standard, just like we should not judge the slave owners by our standards.
In their world view their slaves belongs to a race that was less developed and to them slavery was a good ting for the slaves.
And if we want to try understand why they did what they did, we have to accept that world view...

[yoyo8346]

From a (union) legal point of view the CSA did not exist.

In fact it did not exist to any country in the world. No one officially recognized the CS.

[dmurray6]

From a (union) legal point of view the CSA did not exist.


You do realize, that from this statement alone, the discussion is irrelevant?

You cannot base an argument perspective on a statement that cannot be quantified. To this day, the right to secede is heavily debated. Because you make your point from a Union perspective, does not make everything you say from that perspective, correct.

If you'd like to prove the point that secession was in fact illegal, and allowed the USA (and for that matter, the rest of the world...I'm looking at you Canada, after all, you're nothing more than a bunch of Tories that didn't get your way, and left when the American Colonies successfully told Britain to piss off), to not recognized the CSA, then you also must prove why the counties in North-Western Virginia were allowed back into the Union under the name of West Virginia, and its status as a form of secession.

History.net has a fine article on secession, and quotes the following:
'A portion of Virginia did secede from the Old Dominion and formed the Union-loyal state of West Virginia. Its creation and admittance to the Union raised many constitutional questions—Lincoln’s cabinet split 50–50 on the legality and expediency of admitting the new state. But Lincoln wrote, “It is said that the admission of West-Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the constitution, and secession in favor of the constitution.”'

So Lincoln clearly draws some comparison between doing something for or against the best interest of the Constitution. But there is no more evidence that Lincoln's opinion is the correct one as there is evidence that secession was legal or illegal. All Lincoln can say is that if secession of these counties from Virginia into the new West Virginia is going to be tolerated is because its "our secession." So what's the story, is secession legal or not......based on the above the Union felt secession was only legal when it was to their benefit...Damn, sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton these days, doesn't it? To make a long story short, Lincoln had to confront the issue that to accept West Virginia into the Union he would be a hypocrite if he tried to say that secession was illegal for the south. Sad but true fact.

Please refrain from rebuttal with a Union spin, especially if your rebuttal is not objective. Think of this forum like the O'Reilly Factor....lets keep it spin free and fact based.

And can I ask what evidence you have that Lincoln was clearly against slavery? You know when Lincoln became "against slavery"..........when it became the convenient stance for him to take, because everything else he had tried, had failed. If you're going to say that Lincoln was clearly against slavery, I'm going to rebuttal with the fact that Lincoln tried as best he could to have the Corwin Amendment ratified prior to the Confederate firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln was so "against slavery" that he was willing to ratify an amendment that would make any future constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, illegal. The Corwin Amendment never says the word "slavery" in it, but it says everything short of the word slavery......

Here's the basis of the Corwin Amendment, if you're unfamiliar......

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

WOW, Lincoln sure was "against slavery"..... really?

About the only part of your post that I can agree with is that history should NOT be viewed through or judged with today's glasses.

[thomas aagaard]

You are mixing secession and unilateral secession.
In the first case you find a political agreement on it. properly using some of the same methods as done when admitting a new state.
The state would properly have to pay their share of the national debt and pay for all the federal property in the state.

In the second you leave without any agreement from the other states and take over every piece of federal property you can get your hand on by the point of a gun. That is what SC did.



The Supreme court have ruled on it, and they ruled that secession the way it was done was not legal and the CSA never existed as an independent state.
(and for that matter every single other country in the world agrees)
Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868) can be found here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

You can agree or not, but it don't change the fact that unilateral secession is illegal under the constitution. And it will be so until the court change that decision with a new one or the Constitution is changed.
That is how the system works.



Lincoln and the party platform was clearly against slavery. If you can't accept that, we might as well be debating if the earth is flat.

It was the election of an anti slavery president that was the final straw for south carolina.


But the point was, Lincoln, from his perspective was president for the hole USA, including the states in rebellion. And when looking at his actions you need to accept this point of view.
And similar, when looking at actions by Davis, he naturally had a different point of view, we again need to remember. Since it in both cases helps to explain their actions.


Edit: Corwin Amendment don't mention anything about the question in the territories. Lincoln knew very well that he could not do anything about slavery in the states where it existed. The party platform, was clear about the question of the territories.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620 see point 8.

And in the south that was not acceptable.

[dmurray6]

You are mixing secession and unilateral secession.
In the first case you find a political agreement on it. properly using some of the same methods as done when admitting a new state.
The state would properly have to pay their share of the national debt and pay for all the federal property in the state.

In the second you leave without any agreement from the other states and take over every piece of federal property you can get your hand on by the point of a gun. That is what SC did.



Nah, I'm not mixing secession with unilateral secession. First, unilateral secession is a ridiculous notion. To expect both sides to agree with secession is naive at best. Especially considering that Lincoln's main concern was to not see the Union dissolve under his presidency. Your idea of unilateral secession and secession itself, would suggest that Virginia would have had to approve the secession of the north-western counties that wished to eventually become West Virginia in order to be secession and NOT unilateral secession. Do you believe that occurred? You think that the whole of the Old Dominion was OK with a portion of their state becoming a northern-sympathizer? I'll tell you what history tells us, and not shockingly. It tells us that the voting people of those counties voted for secession from Virginia. It doesn't say that the WHOLE of Virginia agreed with those counties, and their right to secede, which by your suggestion would be what would have to happen for unilateral secession to NOT take place. Though, there is statement that Union troops were posted in and near voting facilities to make sure that southern sympathizers did not get their vote. That seems pretty fair, don't you think? To sum it up, the counties of north-western Virginia were no better or worse than the people of South Carolina in their desire to secede, and frankly, they both seemed to take the same route in making it happen. So, like I said earlier, and what the history books won't tell you, is that if Lincoln chose to accept secession of the counties of Virginia to make and accept the state of West Virginia into the Union, he would have rightfully had to accept the secession of the southern states. Only the Union got its way, while the CSA is continuously branded as having performed illegal acts in their secession process.



The Supreme court have ruled on it, and they ruled that secession the way it was done was not legal and the CSA never existed as an independent state.
(and for that matter every single other country in the world agrees)
Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868) can be found here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

You can agree or not, but it don't change the fact that unilateral secession is illegal under the constitution. And it will be so until the court change that decision with a new one or the Constitution is changed.
That is how the system works.


This point is certainly a matter of convenience, and after the fact, considering the Texas v. White case occurred 3 years after the war. Ever heard "to the victors go the spoils"....the North wrote the history of the Civil War after they were victorious. And the Supreme Courts ability to rule in the favor of secession being illegal is no big surprise, considering a war had just taken place. Had the case occurred during the war or just after secession, the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to preside over states that were not part of the Union, so their decision of legal or illegal were moot.



Lincoln and the party platform was clearly against slavery. If you can't accept that, we might as well be debating if the earth is flat.

It was the election of an anti slavery president that was the final straw for south carolina.


But the point was, Lincoln, from his perspective was president for the hole USA, including the states in rebellion. And when looking at his actions you need to accept this point of view.
And similar, when looking at actions by Davis, he naturally had a different point of view, we again need to remember. Since it in both cases helps to explain their actions.


You failed to make a valid argument about the Corwin Amendment. If a party platform is to be anti-slavery, why on earth were they working behind the scenes, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, to get the Corwin Amendment ratified? Two states had already ratified the amendment before the firing on Ft. Sumter. The continuation of the war made the amendment a moot point, its intentions of preserving the Union, and slavery, had failed. Another point, if your party platform is to be anti-slavery, it wouldn't have mattered whether they were concerned about pre-existing slavery or the new territories, the platform should stand for the whole of the country.



Edit: Corwin Amendment don't mention anything about the question in the territories. Lincoln knew very well that he could not do anything about slavery in the states where it existed. The party platform, was clear about the question of the territories.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620 see point 8.

And in the south that was not acceptable.

"Lincoln knew very well that he could not do anything about slavery in states where it existed".....????? This contradicts your whole argument that the party platform stood for anti-slavery, and the fact that Lincoln initiated the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP specifically addressed slavery in the "rebellious south", but not in the holier-than-thou North. I suspect your next argument will be that the North had already abolished slavery before the EP. Keep reading the history books written by the North.

Read up a little bit about slavery in the North before and after the Civil War. I think we can all agree today that the inhumanity of slavery in any period is appalling, and racism the same. But the North's graciousness toward the blacks stopped with emancipation. They did nothing to ensure them a prosperous or even a fair future. The North effectively and metaphorically "took the chains off", and then left them to be free in a society that would never see them or treat them as equal. Does that seem any more human than slavery itself? I realize that topics like this perpetuate the worst situation (and everyone's mind is burned with the stigma of slave beatings and massive wounds and scars), but imagine that you were a slave that was not beaten, was provided room and board, had grown content with your life, and was shown appreciation by your, albeit, enslaving family. After emancipation and your long journey to the north you were met by a people that wanted nothing to do with you. I fear saying this, but it doesn't amaze me that there were free blacks that remained in the south.

While I'm at it, I'll also state that your view of tariff's having no effect on the decision to secede is also a flawed view. If you believe that the Morrill Tariff had no impact on the imports of the south from places like Britain and Europe, you're sorely mistaken. I'm not saying its THE CAUSE, but to write the economical effects of various national tariffs off, as if they didn't effect different parts of the country in different ways is careless.

[thomas aagaard]

Czechoslovakia split into two states by agreement. The Swiss constitution clearly sate that if a Canton want to leave the confederacy the other Cantons need to agree to it.
in 1920 there where votes in a number of border areas in Europe and borders was changed. Scotland had a vote on their membership of the UK...

The hole Union is build on the idea that everyone (or at least most) have to agree.
If the US want to add a new state it require the consent of the existing states. Makes sense that they would need to approve if a state want to leave.
If you want to change the Constitution the states need to agree and so on.


West virginia was not a secession from Virginia. It was the creation of one state out of some territory of another state. This was not the first time that was done.
You can find the procedure in in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

It require the acceptance of the state loosing territory and congress and Virginia DID accept the creation of west Virginia.
Washington set up a new state government of loyal citizens, who then voted on the issue.

Was that "fair"? naturally not, but sometimes things done by the law is not fair or just.

This was legally speaking a totally different situation than what SC did.
----

The rebellious states was NEVER out of the union. That was the legal view during the war and it still is today. So any SCOTUS decisions taken during the war would legally be in effect in all the states... even if the federal government did at that moment not have the ability to uphold it in some parts of the union.

Yes the main SCOTUS decision on secession was done after the war. That don't change the fact that it is a legal fact that is still in effect today.




And please just read the party platform. You clearly havn't done so.

You do realize that a party can have a goal that they know can't be achieved atm for political reasons?
The republicans wanted to destroy slavery, but knew they could not do it right away. What they could do was block its expansion... and it would die over time.
(an opinion you can find both north and south)



The final part. You do realize that by 1860 there was no (legal) slavery in the north? For the obvious reason that we usually split the union into 3 parts
northern free stats,
the border states (with slavery)
and the south slave states.
If a state had slavery but stayed in the union we would call it a border state.

[dmurray6]

Czechoslovakia split into two states by agreement. The Swiss constitution clearly sate that if a Canton want to leave the confederacy the other Cantons need to agree to it.
in 1920 there where votes in a number of border areas in Europe and borders was changed. Scotland had a vote on their membership of the UK...


I must admit, you are quite exceptional at skirting around the point. Please do not try to use non-U.S. examples of nations agreeing to split, when our original point was concerning the fact that Lincoln REFUSED to see the Union dissolve under his presidency. And I suspect Lincoln would have cared less whether there was a legal path to secession, he was hell-bent on the Union staying together. There was clearly no mutual agreement in the U.S. in late 1860 that each side would agree to let the other go. If there were, we wouldn't be having this debate. Another talking point that could probably be brought up here is how Congress reacted when Jefferson Davis announced to them, on the Congressional floor, that he had heard official word that the citizens of his state (Mississippi) had voted for secession? He was clearly distraught over the matter as he announced the decision to his Congressional peers. He was applauded by members of Congress upon making the announcement of Mississippi's secession. If it was such a legal concern, how do you explain the reaction? Why wasn't everyone appalled? The North had no other choice than to make it a legal/illegal matter in order to justify what they were about to do, and to save face for Lincoln.



The hole Union is build on the idea that everyone (or at least most) have to agree.
If the US want to add a new state it require the consent of the existing states. Makes sense that they would need to approve if a state want to leave.
If you want to change the Constitution the states need to agree and so on.


West virginia was not a secession from Virginia. It was the creation of one state out of some territory of another state. This was not the first time that was done.
You can find the procedure in in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

It require the acceptance of the state loosing territory and congress and Virginia DID accept the creation of west Virginia.
Washington set up a new state government of loyal citizens, who then voted on the issue.

Was that "fair"? naturally not, but sometimes things done by the law is not fair or just.

This was legally speaking a totally different situation than what SC did.
----


You really do not understand what you're reading, do you? The Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution that you point to supports my argument that what the north-western counties of Virginia did was in fact just like secession. Visit and read the following: http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh30-1.html
This describes exactly what those counties did to achieve their "new state" as part of the Union. What you are assuming is the approval of Virginia legislature to allow those counties to leave the state was in fact a vote by what was referred to as "the reformed Virginia Government" which just so happened to be made up of only the representatives of those counties that were seeking to leave Virginia. This WAS NOT a vote by the same Virginia Government that had just voted for secession. Gee, that's awful convenient isn't it. We want to leave, so we'll make a new government comprised just of those of us that want to leave, and then we'll all vote as if we are the legitimate Virginia Government. ?????? You don't see what went on here? HELLO? Have you ever lived a day in the U.S.?

I'll leave you with a reminder of the section 3 you pointed to.....

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

The first part I bold faced is EXACTLY what the counties did to create West Virginia, and the 2nd part I bold faced is what you're assuming was a vote by a legitimate Virginia Legislature, however it was not, it was the "reformed Virginia Government" that voted as if they were the Virginia Legislature....yes, that very legislature that had just seceded. So the vote that the U.S. Congress counted as "Virginia Legislature" was the band of Representatives from the counties that were wishing to leave. I'll ask again, How is that any different than the Representatives from South Carolina all voting for secession? Spoiler Alert.....its not.



The rebellious states was NEVER out of the union. That was the legal view during the war and it still is today. So any SCOTUS decisions taken during the war would legally be in effect in all the states... even if the federal government did at that moment not have the ability to uphold it in some parts of the union.

Yes the main SCOTUS decision on secession was done after the war. That don't change the fact that it is a legal fact that is still in effect today.

And please just read the party platform. You clearly havn't done so.

You do realize that a party can have a goal that they know can't be achieved atm for political reasons?
The republicans wanted to destroy slavery, but knew they could not do it right away. What they could do was block its expansion... and it would die over time.
(an opinion you can find both north and south)


And touche, please read up on the Civil War and try to comprehend. I cannot accuse of not reading about it, but I can accuse you of not comprehending what you've read. You clearly did not understand whatever slanted or spun opinion you've read on the creation of West Virginia. Please do try to understand what you're reading. I realize it's probably not easy, especially if you're not personally involved or vested in the history. I myself am vested in the history.....my Great Great Grandfather's amnesty paperwork was granted and signed by F.H. Pierpont.....yea, that same fuck that turned his back on Virginia and helped form West Virginia.



The final part. You do realize that by 1860 there was no (legal) slavery in the north? For the obvious reason that we usually split the union into 3 parts
northern free stats,
the border states (with slavery)
and the south slave states.
If a state had slavery but stayed in the union we would call it a border state.

Once again....you're sure about this? How about I let you do some more research before I debunk these statements. I'll give you a little hint though.....go research the state of New Jersey, and when slavery ended there. You'll probably come back with some date like 1804, which is clearly before 1860, but if that's your best answer....keep researching. Also, I'd like for you to determine how the "free slaves" were categorized after "slavery ended" in New Jersey. Screw it, I'll give ya another hint.......The 1804 statute and subsequent laws freed children born after the law was passed. African Americans born to slave mothers after July 4, 1804 had to serve lengthy apprenticeships to the owners of their mothers. Women were freed at 21, but men were not emancipated until the age of 25. Slaves who had been born before these laws were passed were considered, after 1846, as indentured servants who were "apprenticed for life."........
WHHHAAAAAAATTTTT???? Apprenticed for life.........WTF does that mean? It means your ass isn't free. That word apprentice sure is nicer than the word slave, isn't it? Don't try to pass some nonsense off on me that New Jersey was a border state, it was clearly a "Free State". Doesn't sound so free to me.

[thomas aagaard]

1. The president of the US swear an oath of office.
2. The president do not have any authority to change the make up of the union, that it up to congress.

So naturally he did not accept secession, since his oath of office and his job did not allow him to.
Something Buchanan agreed with.

Had SC gone to congress and gotten congress to agree to a way of peaceful separation, likely using the same procedure for admitting new states, there was little Lincoln could have done about it.
In the north there where some who thought it would be a good idea to simply let the slave states go... since that would solve the issue.
But SC never tried to get the other states to agree before acting alone.


The legal legislature of Virginia was the one created from loyal citizens. Since the members of the one in Richmond was in rebellion.
And that legislature agreed to the creation of West Virginia...
Fair or just? hell no, And yes it was convenient but that don't change the legal facts. This is the way current US law sees things.

The difference is that this was done following the rules in the Constitution, approved by the legal Virginia state and by the US Congress.

And this is not the case with what SC did.
What SC did was unilateral secession, without asking congress for permission and then they started bombarding a federal fort... and the legal question became moot, until after the war.
And after the war it was again important. If a citizen in SC had his land confiscated by the SC state, was it still confiscated or not?

The supreme court ruled that the states where never out of the union and that secession was not legal.
Again this is the legal facts. you can disagree all you want, but it don't change this. It is the law of the land today.


New Jersey was called a borderstate and still is in much acw litterateur and it was not in the North. (just like Maryland)
By 1860 there where still a few slaves in the state. (I have seen 16, 18 and 20 mentioned)
But it is an interesting example of gradual abolition.

[dmurray6]

Ok, this is my last post on the topic, as we are clearly getting no where. So I'll leave it at this.


1. The president of the US swear an oath of office.
2. The president do not have any authority to change the make up of the union, that it up to congress.

So naturally he did not accept secession, since his oath of office and his job did not allow him to.
Something Buchanan agreed with.

Had SC gone to congress and gotten congress to agree to a way of peaceful separation, likely using the same procedure for admitting new states, there was little Lincoln could have done about it.
In the north there where some who thought it would be a good idea to simply let the slave states go... since that would solve the issue.
But SC never tried to get the other states to agree before acting alone.


The legal legislature of Virginia was the one created from loyal citizens. Since the members of the one in Richmond was in rebellion.
And that legislature agreed to the creation of West Virginia...
Fair or just? hell no, And yes it was convenient but that don't change the legal facts. This is the way current US law sees things.

The difference is that this was done following the rules in the Constitution, approved by the legal Virginia state and by the US Congress.

And this is not the case with what SC did.
What SC did was unilateral secession, without asking congress for permission and then they started bombarding a federal fort... and the legal question became moot, until after the war.
And after the war it was again important. If a citizen in SC had his land confiscated by the SC state, was it still confiscated or not?

The supreme court ruled that the states where never out of the union and that secession was not legal.
Again this is the legal facts. you can disagree all you want, but it don't change this. It is the law of the land today.


As you can see by your post, Lincoln clearly left no choice for the south, so they did what they did, THAT I will agree on. But your insistence of "its the law.....this is legal, that was illegal, bla bla bla", is clearly being seen through blue glasses. You clearly think what the soon-to-be West Virginians did was "legal", to that, I say its an unfortunate conclusion. So under your way of thinking, if a law is put into order, regardless of how good or bad the law is, it would require the crooked people that put it into place to be the ones to also have to change it so that it is no longer a law. You and I well know, that's not going to happen. So the conclusion is, those with the "legal" foothold will always maintain the foothold, until someone has the balls to form a collective group, and willingness to be called "traitors, rebels, terrorist...." or whatever else you wish to call them, in order to "make a difference". Sort of like what the American Colonists did to form the very country we're debating.



New Jersey was called a borderstate and still is in much acw litterateur and it was not in the North. (just like Maryland)
By 1860 there where still a few slaves in the state. (I have seen 16, 18 and 20 mentioned)
But it is an interesting example of gradual abolition.
[/QUOTE]

You're flat out wrong about New Jersey being a border state, and yet you're still unwilling to even admit that. And you're account of 16, 18, 20 slaves remaining after 1860 is also a sad sad state of affairs. You really should learn to read and think for yourself instead of taking what's spoon fed to you as the gospel. It's clearly documented that slavery did not officially end in New Jersey until 1865. And you cannot even recognize that the "apprentice for life" label attached to children born to slave parents after the 1804 abolition laws in New Jersey were established, is still slavery just under a different label. You were not even willing to address the "apprentice" label for females to the age of 21 and for males to the age of 25 topic? What is that? It's slavery under the label of "apprentice".

Just stop it already with your "legal" standpoint. You're an expert spinner of topics. You take an unloyal group of politicians from Virginia and turn them into a loyal group to the U.S., to fit your agenda, even during a historical period where it was more common for citizens to see themselves as "Texans, Virginians, etc..." before they saw themselves and Nationalists. Yet, you continue to point back to a Supreme Court ruling AFTER the war. You are best left to live in a country where you let the country think for you, do us a favor, if you WERE ever an American, stay in Denmark, if you've never been an American, please don't ever consider becoming one.

Thanks.

Bravescot, feel free to close the thread.

[TrustyJam]

Horrible conduct shown in the last post - possibly also in some of the others.

There's absolutely no reason for the personal attacks (learn to read, stay in Denmark, etc.). I'll forward this to a mod.

We only accept civil and well mannered discussions in this forum.

- Trusty

[Bravescot]

Bravescot, feel free to close the thread.

Great, I'm being told what to do by an extremely rude forum memeber. What a day.

dmurry you're being given an infraction for that last post, it is in clear violation of forum rule #4 and is unacceptable. That you'd then have the audacity to think you can brush it off in such a manner by telling me what to do is shameful. I do not want this happening again or there will be serious issues.

I'm locking this thread as frankly it started of silly and just got worse. I've warned you guys about keeping it civil when discussing such delicate topics and not to go gallivanting off into such rude attacks like the one maybe by dmurry. I won't be so kind in the future.