View Poll Results: Which side is yours?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Union

    24 28.57%
  • The Confederation

    60 71.43%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85

Thread: American Civil War: Which Side Would You Favor?

  1. #71
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Berlichingen View Post
    I'd probably be a Copperhead. I'm kinda too far North to successfully defect.
    Copperheads are admirable enough, there was a cousin branch of my family that left for Illinois early in the 19th century and during the war they were arrested and jailed for being Copperheads and for allegedly supporting the Southern war effort monetarily (more than likely the situation was them trying to communicate with their cousins/my branch of the family, being worried for their safety).
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Berlichingen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 05:10 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Wisconsin Wisconsin
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I can't help but notice you're in Germany, Thusnelda. Is the American Civil War often studied in Europe? I always assumed it wasn't.

  3. #73
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Berlichingen View Post
    I can't help but notice you're in Germany, Thusnelda. Is the American Civil War often studied in Europe? I always assumed it wasn't.
    I don't mean to speak for Thusnelda here, however I may have a hunch as to why some European born folks are interested in the American Civil War. Perhaps they see a parallel between current Federal interventionist policies and the situation of the Confederate States during the Civil War?
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  4. #74
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadwallon View Post
    First I will mention the Non-Aggression principle where any initiation by force is illicit and contrary to natural law.
    The act or attempt of separation can not be construed as non aggressive by any stretch, therefore if a violation of such a principle did commence, it was the conspiracy to destroy the compact of union that the States entered into, being unable to effect it is no fault but their own.

    But beside that, the Confederacy had formally violated its term of contract and at that point had symbolically and publicly effected its separation. To affirm their severance they committed violence (aggression) against States and the government general, still functioning under obligation to these States.

    In this light, the Confederacy engaged the states as a hostile entity and in violation of your non-aggressive principle, did indeed commit violence to provoke and agitate further hostilities. You see, war against the Confederacy was not a war between states or a war for independence but a war of states as the Confederacy was already operating independently.

    Now, there is much animosity today leveled against the Federal Government and we should not doubt that it is the work of conspirators who know that the strength of 50 reeds bound together can not be broken. One of the greatest evils that have inflicted the U.S. is the spread of ignorance on the internet about the Government, which I stress is not some detached entity but the states governments in concert, as one, made up of many states and individuals of those states it was created to serve.

    The establishment of the Federal Government was a pact entered into voluntarily for the expressive purpose of establishing a Federation, in solidum between those states, to the protection of those states from other states within or without.

    Back to your non-aggression argument:

    We know that the said States all entered voluntarily into contract with each other to effect an agreement that would promote their prosperity and mutual peace.

    That, this agreement was inclusive as it bound the many as one but not into one, thus the many at all times remain many, thus the United States of America is the only correct name defining this union.

    That per this agreement, those States forfeited their right to sovereignty under the truth that all just government exists at the consent of the governed.

    That just government is that which upholds the principles of lex naturalis per the principles of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and not merely the letter of law.

    That those principles that all of these States sought were themselves the effect of order, unity and brotherhood between them.

    That any State or individual hostile to one State, is a threat to the rest.

    That that general government was created for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority from the majority.

    That it may and must employ force in this pursuit.

    That if it can not or does not for whatever reason, being neglectful in its duties renders the contractual agreement as null and void.

    Thus since the United States ceased to be just a Confederation in 1787 and became a Federation of confederates, the States vesting their authority into and as one general government which was obligated to these terms in the discharge of the above duties. Which, include quelling rebellion within states, prohibiting unions between states as well as their division and protecting these states from any hostile entity intent on their destruction, the use of force is certainly and unequivocally not only justified but mandatory. Yet, the events of this war including the Southern States being repaired and welcomed back into the Union were as unfortunate as they were necessary.

  5. #75
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    The act or attempt of separation can not be construed as non aggressive by any stretch, therefore if a violation of such a principle did commence, it was the conspiracy to destroy the compact of union that the States entered into, being unable to effect it is no fault but their own.

    But beside that, the Confederacy had formally violated its term of contract and at that point had symbolically and publicly effected its separation. To affirm their severance they committed violence (aggression) against States and the government general, still functioning under obligation to these States.


    In this light, the Confederacy engaged the states as a hostile entity and in violation of your non-aggressive principle, did indeed commit violence to provoke and agitate further hostilities. You see, war against the Confederacy was not a war between states or a war for independence but a war of states as the Confederacy was already operating independently.

    Now, there is much animosity today leveled against the Federal Government and we should not doubt that it is the work of conspirators who know that the strength of 50 reeds bound together can not be broken. One of the greatest evils that have inflicted the U.S. is the spread of ignorance on the internet about the Government, which I stress is not some detached entity but the states governments in concert, as one, made up of many states and individuals of those states it was created to serve.

    The establishment of the Federal Government was a pact entered into voluntarily for the expressive purpose of establishing a Federation, in solidum between those states, to the protection of those states from other states within or without.



    Back to your non-aggression argument:

    We know that the said States all entered voluntarily into contract with each other to effect an agreement that would promote their prosperity and mutual peace.

    That, this agreement was inclusive as it bound the many as one but not into one, thus the many at all times remain many, thus the United States of America is the only correct name defining this union.

    That per this agreement, those States forfeited their right to sovereignty under the truth that all just government exists at the consent of the governed.

    That just government is that which upholds the principles of lex naturalis per the principles of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and not merely the letter of law.

    That those principles that all of these States sought were themselves the effect of order, unity and brotherhood between them.

    That any State or individual hostile to one State, is a threat to the rest.

    That that general government was created for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority from the majority.

    That it may and must employ force in this pursuit.

    That if it can not or does not for whatever reason, being neglectful in its duties renders the contractual agreement as null and void.

    Thus since the United States ceased to be just a Confederation in 1787 and became a Federation of confederates, the States vesting their authority into and as one general government which was obligated to these terms in the discharge of the above duties. Which, include quelling rebellion within states, prohibiting unions between states as well as their division and protecting these states from any hostile entity intent on their destruction, the use of force is certainly and unequivocally not only justified but mandatory. Yet, the events of this war including the Southern States being repaired and welcomed back into the Union were as unfortunate as they were necessary.

    I believe the South did not violate the Non-Aggression Principle as the movement had its origins in a legislative protest, this curb stomped by Andrew Jackson in his last term when he sent "observational" troops into the Carolina's, then again Confederates petitioned for peaceful separation only to be told to buggar off, the Federals would not remove troops from South Carolina and other Southern States, hence retaliation ensued. It is not imposing, or initiating as the principle states, undue violence when one is retaliating against an abusive partner.

    The South had no obligation to an abusive party in a formerly mutual agreement, if one enters into an abusive marriage one has the right to divorce, same should go at the State level.

    This "nation" was originally established as a Confederacy under the Articles of Confederation which were questionably done away with. The Federation contract entered was at one point mutual, but like in a marriage (as a contract) when one party acts abusive a divorce is the only next step.

    As for the States being "repaired" that is a total load of crap, the "repair" was installment of contaminating industrial complexes that were not desired, swindling of families out of their land for less than what it was worth (my own family suffered because of this), contaminating water supplies via such debacles that took place at places like Oak Ridge, the list goes on.

    The fact is the Union like an abusive spouse did not take kindly to being divorced and sought to act out of pure vengeance, the proof of this seen in the lives and homesteads lost.

    The South could hardly be accused of initiating violence when the vast majority of battles fought were on Southern soil in Southern defense against an invading army lead by those who literally admitted to desiring a genocide of Southron peoples as I have cited in past posts.
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  6. #76
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    I forgot to address this point:

    "That per this agreement, those States forfeited their right to sovereignty under the truth that all just government exists at the consent of the governed."

    The key here is that all just government exists at the consent of the governed, Southrons, as a governed people, no longer consented to a form of governance they perceived as improper for their own independent lives.

    In fact the Union acted contrary to that notion by seeking to impose its governance on those who no longer desired it.

    I can hardly view a movement as in the wrong when your simple Southron man, which the majority of Southrons were common farming folk concerned with their own livelihoods, took up arms against armies that sought to "drive them like swine into the sea" who would not rest "till not one habitation is left standing", by an army that was praised by Lincoln for the burning of the Shenandoah Valley resulting in the destruction of thousands of farms and civilian homesteads.

    I will also bring up again the contest against my using the Non-Aggression Principle in defense of the South. Let us look at this recent event: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=146756

    The woman in Thusnelda's post shot dead a man who sought to invade her home with intent to harm, she obviously did not violate the Non-Aggression Principle in that she reacted against a threat.

    The South as this woman did took up arms against a polity that refused to remove unwelcome and invasive troops that were installed by Andrew Jackson in his second term. The North then followed with an invasion whose aim was non other than complete and total annihilation of every Southron be it civilian or militant as illustrated with my afore presented quotes. The South reacted as it had every right to do. It is not "initiating violence contrary to natural law" when one is taking up arms to protect their home, their family, their farm, their own lives as the common yeoman did. My Confederate forefathers marched not into Washington unprovoked seeking blood, they rather enlisted in the 25th Tennessee Infantry Regiment Company H after an invasion was beginning so that they may repel a lethal threat.
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Ediruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 1st, 2021 @ 06:43 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    German-American and proud
    Subrace
    Alpinid-Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    1,302
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    I would side with the Union for many reasons. One, their original goal was to remove the Negro from the Anglo-Saxon population. The White southerners are at fault for maintaining large negro populations as slaves, hence why we have so many negroes in the U.S. to start.

    Yes, the war was over states' rights and what not, but, slavery WAS a main issue, and, on a personal level, I do not believe in slavery, even if it is a state sanctioned practice. I believe it goes against our very human nature to keep others as slaves. We should have just deported all the negroes to the former-slave colonies in Africa. It would have been easier and cost our nation less. America would probably look nice now if we had done that.

    But, even though I stated I would take the Union side, I am totally against Anglo-Saxon vs Anglo-Saxon wars. It was brother killing brother, essentially, and it decimated the American-English population. That I have an issue with. So, I would have taken the Union side, but at the same time looked at the war as being absolutely pointless.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ediruc For This Useful Post:


  9. #78
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ediruc View Post

    Yes, the war was over states' rights and what not, but, slavery WAS a main issue, and, on a personal level, I do not believe in slavery, even if it is a state sanctioned practice. It believe it goes against our very human nature and theirs to keep others as slaves. We should have just deported all the negroes to the former-slave colonies in Africa. It would have been easier and cost our nation less. America would probably look nice now if we had done that.
    First off less than 20% of Southrons owned slaves, second of that 20% less than 10% owned more than two slaves. Third Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee viewed slavery as a moral and political evil and released his own slaves 10 years prior to the start of the war, which was admitted by a former slave of Lee's.

    It would have been pointless to wage a war over slavery in that first, even Southrons admitted to it being a temporary and dying practice, second the majority of Southrons practiced it not, third men like my own forefathers enlisted only after an invasion had commenced.

    The slavery issue was a ploy.
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  10. #79
    Senior Member
    Ediruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 1st, 2021 @ 06:43 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    German-American and proud
    Subrace
    Alpinid-Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    1,302
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadwallon View Post
    First off less than 20% of Southrons owned slaves, second of that 20% less than 10% owned more than two slaves. Third Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee viewed slavery as a moral and political evil and released his own slaves 10 years prior to the start of the war, which was admitted by a former slave of Lee's.

    It would have been pointless to wage a war over slavery in that first, even Southrons admitted to it being a temporary and dying practice, second the majority of Southrons practiced it not, third men like my own forefathers enlisted only after an invasion had commenced.

    The slavery issue was a ploy.
    So...just because so few owned slaves means it was okay?

    Even if they did own very few, there was still a large and significant negro population. Those same negroes had descendents who today are contributing in ruining our nation and ruining our race.

    I also stated that I'm aware the Civil War wasn't also over just slavery. The issue is, there were tons of Negroes within the Anglo-Saxon populations and Lincoln wanted them deported ASAP. I obviously take the Southerner point-of-view with a grain of salt.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Ediruc For This Useful Post:


  12. #80
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    12 Hours Ago @ 09:18 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,576
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,801
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,432
    Thanked in
    686 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ediruc View Post
    Even if they did own very few, there was still a large and significant negro population. Those same negroes had descendents who today are contributing in ruining our nation and ruining our race.
    While I agree negroes have no place in North America, I also believe that if left alone they would and did form their own culture separate from the Germanics. It was leftist jewish founded groups like the NAACP that gave the negroes the idea that the 'white' population owed them something. These negroes thought that they were gaining 'freedom' when in fact they have again become slaves to a welfare state so they could be a voting block.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What the American courts favor when looking at custody hearings?
    By ansuz crowning in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Sunday, November 27th, 2011, 11:29 PM
  2. The American Civil War (1861 - 1865)
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 08:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •