Jefferson Davis' CSA Half

Probably because the greatest purported cause of the war has never been settled. The real reason may have been slavery and its abolition, (the reason my ancestor, a Quaker, joined the Army to assist in the Quartermaster Corp even though Quakers have long avoided military service), but the purported issue was states rights. That issue is just as relevant today as in 1860, especially with Washington's current demands overstepping their Constitutional authority.

I, like my ancestors, have served in the military to defend against evils of which slavery of course was one. However, in the cause of States Rights, I am with my southern friends and believe in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you George Corell and Jlogan.

 

My ancestors served on both sides of said conflict. Growing up with strong sectional southern opinion, having done much research in my family history and history in general my opinion is much more balanced. One of my ancestors that served in the CSA army denied his service after the war and told a story that he actually served in the GAR - this persisted in family lore until I found out otherwise in genealogy research in the 1990s. And then it all made sense why he couldn't collect his military pension.

 

States rights as concerns the constitution, past and current interpretations, is a

POLITICAL subject.
Do not continue in this area as it is against the rules. There are plenty of heated discussions in other forums(websites), including Peter's specifically for the purpose of off subject discussions in prohibited subjects.

 

Understood Jim. I was trying to dance around the issue, not "discuss" it but rather point out its still a fundamental difference between the two sections of the country, but may have crossed over. Sorry about that.

 

On a historical concept this was not the first time secession was seriously contemplated. Look up the Hartford convention. Timothy Pickering Aaron Burr and the rest of the federalists wanted to make a separate country of New England in 1814-5

 

I have a friend from Georgia who says most people there are still PO'd about Shermans march and would secede again in a heartbeat.

 

I know, and appreciate your effort. It is easier to limit things now than after someone with extreme views really ignites a flameup.

 

I was stationed in Charleston S.C in 1976. The locals didn't really care about U.S Grant or even Abe Lincoln. But don't even say William Sherman unless you wanted to fight someone.

 

I guess Hamilton couldn't make it.

There was also Shay's Rebellion before that. Funny how one insurrection is called a rebellion but another is called a a civil war. The CSA wasn't fighting for control over the government; they were fighting to get away from the control just as Daniel Shay was.

 

Yeah even here in Missouri people avoid talking about him. In middle school American history they compared Sherman and his troops to the Nazis.

 

Yup and it's funny Hamilton is on the $10 and Burr is thought of by many to be a traitor or nearly so. Funny how history is remembered after the fact.

 

I've spent a lot of time in the south especially va and tn and there's still people fighting the war of northern aggression as they call it

 

Interesting that you felt the need to wear your top hat (opps.. I meant "mod hat") to single out one aspect of a discussion that in other ways could be viewed as having taken a political turn.

 

881k I was hoping it would get more than that.

http://www.coinweek.com/auctions-news/partrick-coin-collection-part-realizes-25-93-million-fun/

 

I've got to stick my beak in on this one. While the Emancipation Proclamation made the war politically about slavery and was a hands off gesture to France and England neither country was going to get involved with troops on the ground. Now materials maybe, but John Slidell the CSA Ambassador to France was loathed beyond all belief because of his crude behavior and blunt speech. France only agreed that they might buy cotton from the CSA if the CSA ever managed to break the blockade of the North and if England agreed to buy as well, which France suspected would never happen and did never happen because the British had long rejected any kind of intervention. Besides France was busy using the North's occupation with the Civil War to intervene in Mexico in 1862 and 1863 and wanted nothing more than a prolonged fight between the two countries so they had time to solidify their hold on Mexico through Maximilian.

 

Interesting, I did not know about this.

The Hartford Convention was a series of meetings from December 15, 1814 – January 5, 1815 in Hartford, Connecticut, United States, in which New England Federalists met to discuss their grievances concerning the ongoing War of 1812 and the political problems arising from the federal government's increasing power. Despite radical outcries among Federalists for New England secession and a separate peace with Great Britain, moderates outnumbered them and extreme proposals were not a major focus of the debate.[1]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention
Interesting, very interesting

 

Honestly if New England had wanted to secede they probably would have been successful as we controlled the majority of the shipping and naval trade. And had there been a New England secession there likely would have been a civil war between northern New England and the flatlanders

 

For geographic surprises, how about Clarksburg becoming part of West Virginia? It's amazing Stonewall Jackson's head didn't explode when he found out his home town was now back in the union.