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 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

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

  1. #81
    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
    So...just because so few owned slaves means it was okay?
    No, I never said that. I said because only a few owned slaves it is ludicrous to wage war for its preservation, especially when slave owners themselves acknowledged the practice as becoming obsolete and were preparing for the next more cost effective method, they were in a transitional phase by the time the war started, only those with interests in the sale of slaves wholeheartedly wished for the practice to be preserved and few of them will you have seen on the front lines knee deep in invader blood, rather those that were knee deep in the fire were non-slave owning yeomen who enlisted in order to protect their wives, homes, and children from men like Sherman who desired to lay waste to all Southrons civilian or military.


    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.
    The North profited from slavery just as much as the South did. So it is not just to pin it solely on the South.

    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 know you stated that it wasn't over just slavery, but bringing up slavery to begin with was rather irrelevant given its fading status to begin with, it was not a true cause of the war but a tactic used by the North in order to weaken foreign support for the Confederacy.

    As for Lincoln he may have wanted negros deported but he also wanted to exterminate the Anglo-Saxon population of the South, if he did not then he would not have congratulated Sherman for successfully enacting his threats in carrying out a "a war of extermination". Lincoln literally conveyed the thanks of the nation to those men like Sherman who torched Shenandoah, burned Atlanta, ravaged Murfreesboro, ravaged Charleston, ravaged Columbia, ravaged Knoxville, ravaged Chattanooga, ravaged Fredericksburg, ravaged Petersburg, etc... The men who destroyed civilian farms, sought to leave "not one habitation is left standing" were celebrated as heroes by Lincoln and the Yanks, that is hardly a cause worth praising.
    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. #82
    Lost in Melancholia
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Thusnelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Bavarian tribe
    Ancestry
    Bavarian
    Subrace
    Nordid-Borreby
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Breathing the forest
    Politics
    Regionalist-conservative
    Religion
    Ásatrú/Forn Siðr
    Posts
    4,393
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    85
    Thanked in
    72 Posts
    I want to thank all US contributors to the thread for their input - as an outsider it´s highly interesting and informative to read and follow the debate, that´s the best way to gain more knowledge and informations on the matter!

    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.
    The American Civil War was absolutely no topic back in school. All my informations about the American Civil War were brought to me by TV documentaries, websites, debates of US-Americans on the matter and some history books. Well, I think it´s regrettable that we learn so less about US history: We had to learn about the Assyrians, the Mesopotamians and who knows what else, but there was no word about US history besides the two world wars and the gold fever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadwallon View Post
    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?
    Yes indeed, there are some striking similarities. My state of Bavaria is a state with a strong level of local patriotism as well (comparable to "Redneck pride" shown by Cadwallon and others ), and my state led some wars against northern German states in history, first and foremost against Prussia which also had a very centralist and elitist agenda. For example, there was a war were some German southern states like Bavaria united with the Austrian monarchy (also a southern German state in some sense) to fight against northern German states who were lead by Prussia.

    So the USA had the war between the northern states and the southern states while we Germans had comparable wars between the northern states and the southern states. And similar to the situation in the US, the spirit and old rivalry is still alive to some extend...

    (And an other similarity is that the northern states prevailed in the most important battles, which led to the sad fact that Austria is a sovereign country now and not a part of Germany. The Prussians were against including Austria into Germany because they feared about their sole position of power in the Reich -> Kleindeutsche Lösung)

    "Judge of your natural character by what you do in your dreams" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    paraplethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 03:55 AM
    Ethnicity
    Irish-Welsh-Scots
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Tasmania Tasmania
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Green Right
    Posts
    292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadwallon View Post
    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).
    Sorry, but what's a copperhead?

    Is it basically supporting the Southern effort though residing in the North?

  4. #84
    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 Thusnelda View Post

    Yes indeed, there are some striking similarities. My state of Bavaria is a state with a strong level of local patriotism as well (comparable to "Redneck pride" shown by Cadwallon and others ), and my state led some wars against northern German states in history, first and foremost against Prussia which also had a very centralist and elitist agenda. For example, there was a war were some German southern states like Bavaria united with the Austrian monarchy (also a southern German state in some sense) to fight against northern German states who were lead by Prussia.

    So the USA had the war between the northern states and the southern states while we Germans had comparable wars between the northern states and the southern states. And similar to the situation in the US, the spirit and old rivalry is still alive to some extend...

    (And an other similarity is that the northern states prevailed in the most important battles, which led to the sad fact that Austria is a sovereign country now and not a part of Germany. The Prussians were against including Austria into Germany because they feared about their sole position of power in the Reich -> Kleindeutsche Lösung)
    Go figure I just now catch this post, I had spent the past few minutes or so constructing a PM pertaining to foreign sentiments on the American 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.

  5. #85
    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 paraplethon View Post
    Sorry, but what's a copperhead?

    Is it basically supporting the Southern effort though residing in the North?
    A quick wiki with some basic information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads
    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. #86
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    643
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    885
    Thanked in
    475 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by paraplethon View Post
    Sorry, but what's a copperhead?

    Is it basically supporting the Southern effort though residing in the North?
    Yes. Many of the original settlers in Indiana & Illinois came from the South - Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, particularly in Indiana. Indiana has been called the most northern of the Southern States. And some people were just wary of the increasing power of the Northeastern States.

    Lincoln himself was born in Kentucky, moved to Indiana as a young boy & then to Illinois as a young adult (Lincoln's boyhood home is within a 1/2 hour drive of my house). Lincoln's parents were born in Virginia.

    Immigration during the 1840s & 1850s contributed to the tension leading up to the war. The increase in population from immigration increased the politcal power & representation in Congress of the North, particularly the Northeast. And the 48ers (German radicals who fled to America) were generally political activists who were influential in Republican politics, before, during & after the war.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Æmeric For This Useful Post:


  8. #87
    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
    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.
    The Constitution is specific about what State rights are permitted and Article 1, section 10 defines what is prohibited.


    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.
    Marriage is a confederation or at least it should be. A federation is different, that is why I stressed the above- in solidum meaning as related to a whole or all, it is more the product of a union where marriage is just union.

    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.

    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.
    Can your parents divorce themselves from you, how about your nervous system? The Federal Government is perpetually the prodigy of the States as long as those States persist. The Federal Government is an integral relation not some imaginary 'other thing' that exists separate and apart from the States.

    No, I never said that. I said because only a few owned slaves it is ludicrous to wage war for its preservation, especially when slave owners themselves acknowledged the practice as becoming obsolete and were preparing for the next more cost effective method, they were in a transitional phase by the time the war started, only those with interests in the sale of slaves wholeheartedly wished for the practice to be preserved and few of them will you have seen on the front lines knee deep in invader blood, rather those that were knee deep in the fire were non-slave owning yeomen who enlisted in order to protect their wives, homes, and children from men like Sherman who desired to lay waste to all Southrons civilian or military.
    This only makes the war the more absurd, that to protect the interests of the wealthy few rivers of blood were shed between brothers. Outside of the slave issue, what other reasons would the South had to demand their State rights?
    Last edited by Vindefense; Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 03:16 AM. Reason: added content

  9. #88
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Mälardalsk
    Gender
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,595
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    I believe in slavery myself, mostly for criminals. One of my kin was James Henry Hammond, the most vocal proponent, and his father himself was from Massachusetts. I was born in RI and my state was the greatest importer of slaves in the 18th century up until and even past the Federal ban on the slave trade. There was recently a referendum on whether to remove the name "Providence Plantations" from the state because liberals called it offensive. Sadly, the state did not do as well as Massachusetts and Connecticut with the whaling industry. Anyway, I don't mind slavery but would support the Union because most of my kind would be. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee because my family came from England to Massachusetts as Mormon missionaries who married into the local Yankee families. I would support the Union even though the textile industry would suffer a great blow, and the American industrial revolution concerning this began in my home state. While I like Andrew Jackson, I do not like the hyphenated-Americans which flock to his party off of the boat. I like the average Southern Democrat anyway, but it is as maddening to me that they supported multiculturalism as the average Northern Republican advocated abolitionism.

  10. #89
    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 Constitution is specific about what State rights are permitted and Article 1, section 10 defines what is prohibited.
    That agreement was entered into with the expectations that the Federal government would not abuse its power, the Federal government abused its power under Andrew Jackson giving power not before seen to the executive office this making null the agreement between the States and the Federal government.




    Can your parents divorce themselves from you, how about your nervous system? The Federal Government is perpetually the prodigy of the States as long as those States persist. The Federal Government is an integral relation not some imaginary 'other thing' that exists separate and apart from the States.
    The Federal government was once the prodigy of the States until the regime of Andrew Jackson which overhauled and changed the face of the Federal government since making it something contrary to the original agreement. The Southern States were not obliged to fall in line with a Federal government so altered.



    This only makes the war the more absurd, that to protect the interests of the wealthy few rivers of blood were shed between brothers. Outside of the slave issue, what other reasons would the South had to demand their State rights?
    The undue extension of executive power under the regime of Andrew Jackson this enforced by Abraham Lincoln, the Force Bill enacted by Andrew Jackson in response to nullifiers in years prior that was upheld by the Lincolnites, the very same Force Bill that lead to Federal troops being stationed in Charleston by Andrew Jackson in order to monitor the civilians of Charleston and the accompanying practice of intercepting and censoring mail from Charleston the descendants in practice were the military units under the command of Major Robert Anderson of Fort Moultrie that was later repositioned to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor with the intent to interfere with South Carolina's commerce, the demands that border States like Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas who previously did not want secession supply 75,000 troop minimum for a war they initially did not want or be invaded themselves, the list of grievances goes on.
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

  11. #90
    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
    An after thought pertaining to the US Constitution Article 1 Section 10
    :

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    The Southern States while part of the Union did not enter into a Confederation, these States seceded first (secession not mentioned in this clause) with the intent of being sovereign republics an example being the Republic of South Carolina formed December 20, 1860.

    The seceded States, then reformed as Republics, formed a Confederacy in 1861 after and only after they were no longer a part of the Union as they were no longer bound by the Constitution while seceded.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
    Not applicable as the Southern States seceded, an action not addressed as illegal, so as independent republics they are allowed to perform these duties.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
    Not applicable as the Southern States seceded, an action not addressed as illegal, so as independent republics they are allowed to perform these duties.

    And to make the North look even worse I will address the bold, the North shot itself in the foot by actually invading the South with the intent to totally annihilate them as admitted by General Sherman this activity praised by Abraham Lincoln, this imminent Danger.
    Lineage migration - Hatfield, Yorkshire, England ->Stainforth, Yorkshire, England ->Whitgift, Yorkshire, England->Blacktoft, Yorkshire, England->Mecklenburg County, Virginia ->Rutherford County, North Carolina ->Overton County, Tennessee.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789

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
  •