The real reason why y'all lost the war was because Jeff Davis was an idiot and wouldn't let Lee do what he wanted to.
You got that right.
Uh-huh. Without the Southern rebellion, no lives would have been lost. States' rights do not extend to enslaving human beings.
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
God has punished those who use His word to justify their evil acts. So the outcome of the war was Good. The slaves were freed, that was a good outcome.
So the ends justify the means, then?
The "Right of the People" does not include only the Southern people. It was unlawful to unilaterally secede.
By the way, has anyone bought that design off CafePress that says "Orthodox by Faith, Southern by the Grace of God!"??
Oh, you got me started on that one...ugh...what an ugly design -- I know that might offend if the designer reads this forum, but...really...wow -- The 3-Bar Cross is the 3-Bar Cross. The St. Andrew's Cross is the St. Andrew's Cross. Let's not warp either design by attempting to merge them somehow.
The War Between the States was about the expansion of slavery into the western territories and new states entering the union. The South did not accept Lincoln's ammendment proposal because it would have preserved slavery only where it already existed.
And so, in the footsteps of many other marginalized, powerless congressional groups throughout the almost 85 years of American history prior to 1860, the southern states exercised their right to leave a Union that no longer represented them yet still wanted to tax them. Heavily. (Boston Tea Party, anyone?)
Granted there were other issues and grievances with the Federal government; but it came down to, the "Peculiar Institution."
This needs to be extrapolated: it came down to the fact that the Federal Government wanted to end something, unilaterally, that it had no right to force states to accept. As I showed above, it was understood that slaves and laborers were constitutionally the property of their masters under the laws of whatever sovereign state they lived in.
Do I delight in the fact that slaves were bought, sold, and abused under this rule? No, of course not. But neither do I think that an illegal invasion meant to force free men back into a Union that they had no desire nor obligation to support--and at the point of a bayonet, no less!--is any kind of solution to the problem. Not only did Sherman and the like run roughshod over the South, but they did a "heckuva job" in providing those forty acres and a mule, yessiree...
Lincoln was not a racist.
I disagree. He met with Fredrick Douglass and several other prominent black leaders of his day in order to attempt to reach a sort of...well, not a "Back to Africa" movement, but a "Back to the Caribbean" movement, as he said it was better for the races to be separate. He also stated in his first inaugural address (as well as a stump speech in '58) that he had no intention of ending slavery or bringing about the equality of the black man with the white man.
In weighing the actions of Sherman et al, one must weigh the cost of several more years of war and the death and destruction that would have caused vs. a swift and terrible end to a terrible conflict. Sherman also wanted to make sure that no one would ever be tempted again to withdraw from the federal union, so there was the aspect of making an example.
Well, he certainly did that. No one's attempted to exercise that constitutional right since.
William Bennet's History of the US states that Sherman's troups were very disciplined and although they cut their swath to the Atlantic, they did not rape and pillage and did not harm women, children and non-combatant males.
I'd be interested in hearing what GreekChef's primary sources have to say about that. I know I've met some descendants of that era who would beg to differ....
Also, every Confederate apologist states with such certainty that slavery would have ended eventually.
Well, what if it hadn't? Or what if the Confederacy had become South Africa on North American soil?
How could slavery not have ended with the South needing both England's and France's recognition of the CSA as a separate nation? Both nations were VERY abolitionist at the time--they'd already cut off trade with Brazil because of the latter's slave status--so even if they DID side with the Confederacy in order to weaken an American superpower (which undoubtedly would have been to their liking), there's no WAY they would have continued to allow this new ally to continue receiving their help if slavery were allowed to continue. It just would not have happened.
Finally, had the Union not prevailed, what would the history of the 20th century looked like? The Allies likely would not have won WWI or WWII. Either that or they would have had to revert to nukes in Europe as well as Japan in WWII. The United States and the Confederate States, even had their been some rapproachment, would not have been the same formidable foe in both world wars as the one United States of America was.
This I do agree with. However, using events that happened later to retroactively justify wrongs committed in the past is like, well, trying to justify attacking someone because they "might" come after you. Doesn't work. In spite of the fact that good HAS come out of a forced Union, we need to remember how this country was originally set up--as a loose confederacy of states. Losing that sense of sovereignty (and, thus, freedom) is what those who founded the colonies wanted to avoid at all costs. I fear, though, that our forced habit of commitment to the federal juggernaut is too hard a habit to break. These flags are some of the symbols that (should) help us remember how it was before.