primitives insist Republicans don't matter

[Karin]

Not everybody confuses the issue of which side of slavery the Dems were on.  It's the reason my congressional district has been Republican since the "civil war."   In my neck of the woods, people were passionate abolitionists, and all the old houses (including mine) have remnants of the underground railroad.   I have a tunnel going from my basement to the neighbor's. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

No, history and anyone with an IQ above 40 does. Shall I post a definition for you Yankee bastages?

Actual usage counts for 100 times more in language than a guy caught in a do-loop with a dictionary and an axe to grind.

 

[Rebel]

Actual usage counts for 100 times more in language than a guy caught in a do-loop with a dictionary and an axe to grind.

 

A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.

Again, we wanted no part of Yankeeland. You guys could have created Communism up there for all the Southerners cared.

[Rebel]

BTW, it can also be said that when the North invaded the South, illegally I might add, that the strength of the overpowering federal government started. So, don't like the way things are now? It's only a continuation of what was started in 1861.

[Rebel]

I think there was a few pages in the history books about it somewhere. Somewhere between White People owned slaves and White People descriminated with Jim Crow...


No word on what party passed Jim Crow laws.

Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware were all slave-holding states, and fought for the North. Their slaves were also not freed until one year after the slaves in the southern states were freed.

[djones520]

BTW, it can also be said that when the North invaded the South, illegally I might add, that the strength of the overpowering federal government started. So, don't like the way things are now? It's only a continuation of what was started in 1861.

I already showed you where the South was the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking military installations owned by the Federal government, on land ceded to the Federal Government by those states.  Come on Reb, stop this fallacy of "Northern Aggression".  It's no differant then if Germany where to attack our bases over there.  It's not like we'd just roll over and act like nothing ever happened.

[BadCat]

I already showed you where the South was the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking military installations owned by the Federal government, on land ceded to the Federal Government by those states.  Come on Reb, stop this fallacy of "Northern Aggression".  It's no differant then if Germany where to attack our bases over there.  It's not like we'd just roll over and act like nothing ever happened.

With this president???

Wouldn't count on that.

[thundley4]

Don't we have one of these threads in the fight club? 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Again, we wanted no part of Yankeeland. You guys could have created Communism up there for all the Southerners cared.

Your unsourced definition qualifies everything you say with "Usually," and actual usage of the term encompasses wars of secession.  Fail.

[Karin]

As Frank would say, "Oh My." 

[GOBUCKS]

The Civil War was actually a failed revolution.

[The Village Idiot]

Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware were all slave-holding states, and fought for the North. Their slaves were also not freed until one year after the slaves in the southern states were freed.

You mean a year after the proclamation? The slaves in the south were freed until after the war was over.

[crockspot]

My family all lived in Middlesex County, New Jersey (within sight of New York City) up until 1950. They were small farmers, cabinet makers, tavern owners, etc... pretty much middle class. I have a number of their wills from the pre-Civil War era. Every one of them owned a couple of slaves that they willed to their children.

[Freeper]

I already showed you where the South was the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking military installations owned by the Federal government, on land ceded to the Federal Government by those states.  Come on Reb, stop this fallacy of "Northern Aggression".  It's no differant then if Germany where to attack our bases over there.  It's not like we'd just roll over and act like nothing ever happened.

I don't think we would march in a line 60 miles wide and destroy everything in sight in retaliation.

[GOBUCKS]

It's no differant then if Germany where to attack our bases over there.  It's not like we'd just roll over and act like nothing ever happened.

Today? Yes, we would roll over. We have a sophisticated, nuanced leadership now.

[Chris_]

Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware were all slave-holding states, and fought for the North. Their slaves were also not freed until one year after the slaves in the southern states were freed.

Reb....you might want to read up a bit on Missouri history.......although the north installed a "puppet government" in St. Louis during the war, the only real estate that the union army actually controlled for any length of time until late in the war, was along the single railroad line from St, Louis to St. Joseph...........the great majority of the state fought for the south,  and one of the stars on the "Stars and Bars" represents Missouri.......the elected government in Jefferson City declared itself part of the Confederacy on January 11, 1862.

doc

[Rebel]

I already showed you where the South was the ones who initiated hostilities by attacking military installations owned by the Federal government, on land ceded to the Federal Government by those states.  Come on Reb, stop this fallacy of "Northern Aggression".  It's no differant then if Germany where to attack our bases over there.  It's not like we'd just roll over and act like nothing ever happened.

We were re-annexing that land. They should have vacated the premises with a quickness.

[Rebel]

Your unsourced definition qualifies everything you say with "Usually," and actual usage of the term encompasses wars of secession.  Fail.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+War

We weren't part of the United States anymore. We seceded. So, no, it wasn't a Civil War. The South wanted no part of that piece of swampland known as D.C.

[Chris_]

We were re-annexing that land. They should have vacated the premises with a quickness.

If I recall correctly, they were given appropriate notice to leave.........

doc

[Rebel]

Don't we have one of these threads in the fight club? 

Yes, and I'm going to argue the point until they all agree with me. 

[Rebel]

You mean a year after the proclamation? The slaves in the south were freed until after the war was over.

The Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to slaves in Southern slave-holding states.

[Rebel]

If I recall correctly, they were given appropriate notice to leave.........

doc

Yeah, and then they were given a more direct and formal notice to vacate that came from a mortar on Battery Row.

[Rebel]

Hey, question DAT, do you believe the South had the right to secede?

[USA4ME]

Zenlitened

What's the trouble, lurking right-winger assholes? Truth hurts?

First of all, you're saying things behind the safety of your computer you wouldn't say in person, so that makes what you say automatically irrelevant.

Second, it's not the truth, so it doesn't hurt.  Conservatives always matter; we have more money than the left, we're much more intelligent, better looking, and we actually have jobs. 

.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Hey, question DAT, do you believe the South had the right to secede?

Interesting question, my own personal opinion on it is that the Framers left the issue so wide open that either side of the question could justify its claim later when it came to crunch time.  For all the genius embodied in the Constitution, they pretty much screwed the pooch on that point, leading to rivers of blood when the issue was settled by a trial of arms in the middle of the next century.  I would have to say the war decided the question which had been left unresolved in the original, proving that sometimes fighting does settle things in a definitive way.  If I had lived in the South in 1850-1860 or in the Northeast during the Embargo Act, I would certainly not have dismissed it out of hand as impossible under the Constitution as it existed then.  Whether it was a sound idea economically and politically is a whole different question, of course.