Is the American civil war really over??

[Blue]

Yeah, but did you notice it costs $50...in US currency to join?;)

Well hell! I didn't get that far. I guess I don't want to screw up any chances of gettin some of that fine low-cost health care comin my way by being an expat!

Just stay on track for Panama I guess.

[Station 22]

If you look up the definition of civil war, the American Civil War fits the definition.

Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

civil war - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Best I understand it, it was a war between two sovereign nations.

Also, the occupation was sparse, with the numbers being very small within 18 months of Appomattox.

An occupation is a still an occupation.

I'm not sure whether you're being totally tongue-in-cheek or not, so my answer is as if you're not.

The Civil War (or as in the Official Records - "The War of Rebellion") started when Fort Sumter was fired upon by Confederates.

Would you want a military installation from a foreign country inside the borders of our country? That is what Fort Sumter was. Repeatedly, the CSA had requested that the fort be vacated and when it was not, PGT Beaurgard and Co. took actions to make it happen.

By action, this contradicts the title of "The War of Northern Aggression." "The Second American Revolution" and "The War of Southern Independence" both invoke language associated with the Declaration of Independence, which is morally at odds with the reasons for Southern secession.

The CSA did not invade the USA and precipiate the Battle of Manassas in July 1861, the USA did. A foreign army vilolating the national borders of another country is showing aggression. Morally or not, when a part of a country seeks to seperate itself from the governing body, it is seeking independence.

Main Entry: rev·o·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌre-və-ˈlü-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English revolucioun, from Middle French revolution, from Late Latin revolution-, revolutio, from Latin revolvere to revolve
Date: 14th century
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/REVOLUTION

I believe the definitions fit, as described by me in my attempt at humor.

Interestingly, in the debate in Congress over how to title the ACW, it appears that the two choices were the "Civil War" and "The War Between the States." The portion of debate between the gentleman from the South and the gentleman from the North was quite interesting and civil (pun not intended). Obviously, "Civil War" was the choice that won out.

Civil War or War Between the States?

Majority always rules and you need not guess who had the majority.

I would have preferred the South not seceded, the war had not been fought, slavery ended and my part of this great country not been ravaged by a marauding, theiving, burn everything in sight army, but it happened. If nothing more, the war, whatever name you choose to call it, and loss by the South prevented further bloodshed on the North American continent that surely would have occured as both nations pushed Westward.

[Officer of Engineers]

Ok, I am Canadian, and therefore, British heritiaged, but did not the US fought as a whole in both the War of 1812 and and the American-Mexican War? Not as allied countries against both the British Empire and against Spain?

[zraver]

Best I understand it, it was a war between two sovereign nations.

The south was never a sovereign nation, not even for a single day. One reason the South wanted foreign recognition is for the legitimacy this would have given their cause. Being a sovereign nation requires legitimacy on the world stage, without at another nation willing to extend recognition the South was just a bunch of rebellious separatist.

An occupation is a still an occupation.

The yoke was much lighter than the planter class levied on the slaves and then freedmen. And for that part of the South freed from bondage it was not an occupation.

Would you want a military installation from a foreign country inside the borders of our country? That is what Fort Sumter was. Repeatedly, the CSA had requested that the fort be vacated and when it was not, PGT Beaurgard and Co. took actions to make it happen.

It was not a foreign country because the South was not independent. secondly, the South fired the first shot ergo war of Southern Aggression.

The CSA did not invade the USA and precipiate the Battle of Manassas in July 1861, the USA did.

The US Army has the right to go any where the President sends them inside the USA.

A foreign army vilolating the national borders of another country is showing aggression.

I absolutely agree if that nation was not first attacked. However since during the ACW there was only 1 nation your point fails.

Morally or not, when a part of a country seeks to seperate itself from the governing body, it is seeking independence.

And until it wins it, it is not a sovereign nation.

I would have preferred the South not seceded, the war had not been fought, slavery ended and my part of this great country not been ravaged by a marauding, theiving, burn everything in sight army,

Karma for the rape of Africa and the blood of millions. No one in American history raped more, killed more or stole more than the planter class of the South.

[Station 22]

The south was never a sovereign nation, not even for a single day. One reason the South wanted foreign recognition is for the legitimacy this would have given their cause. Being a sovereign nation requires legitimacy on the world stage, without at another nation willing to extend recognition the South was just a bunch of rebellious separatist.

So, by your definition, the PRC was not a sovereign nation until 1969? Your one reason is correct, and there were many more, all related to stabilizing the economy of the South.

The yoke was much lighter than the planter class levied on the slaves and then freedmen. And for that part of the South freed from bondage it was not an occupation.

True, and the occupation affected them all, some more than others, black slaveowners as well as white.

It was not a foreign country because the South was not independent. secondly, the South fired the first shot ergo war of Southern Aggression.

We'll have to disagree on the status of the independent South.

The US Army has the right to go any where the President sends them inside the USA.

Trite, and quite accurate, as far as the definition of the USA at the time is concerned. Again our understanding of the CSA as a independent, sorvereign nation differs.

I absolutely agree if that nation was not first attacked. However since during the ACW there was only 1 nation your point fails.

And until it wins it, it is not a sovereign nation.

see above

Karma for the rape of Africa and the blood of millions. No one in American history raped more, killed more or stole more than the planter class of the South.

You'll need to validate that claim.
Let's not forget the Yankee shippers and merchants who transported them here. What was the common number of the human cargo who died in transit? Be careful with that broad brush your using, you'll get paint in places you didn't intend to.

[zraver]

So, by your definition, the PRC was not a sovereign nation until 1969? Your one reason is correct, and there were many more, all related to stabilizing the economy of the South.

The PRC had diplomatic recognition from a number of countries, the South had none.

True, and the occupation affected them all, some more than others, black slaveowners as well as white.

Boo hiss... The number of black slave owners was infinitesimal compared to whites and its usually brought up by people tryign to lessen the stain of racism behind African slavery.

We'll have to disagree on the status of the independent South.

Dissagreement won't change the facts.

Trite, and quite accurate, as far as the definition of the USA at the time is concerned. Again our understanding of the CSA as a independent, sovereign nation differs.

True, one of us is right and your not.

You'll need to validate that claim.
Let's not forget the Yankee shippers and merchants who transported them here. What was the common number of the human cargo who died in transit? Be careful with that broad brush your using, you'll get paint in places you didn't intend to.

Who created the demand and kept the market going.

[Station 22]

The PRC had diplomatic recognition from a number of countries, the South had none.

And PRC didn't have a foreign country engaged in an active war with them while they were obtaining this vaunted foreign recognition.

Boo hiss... The number of black slave owners was infinitesimal compared to whites and its usually brought up by people tryign to lessen the stain of racism behind African slavery.

And ignored by those who seek to absolve their ancestors of any complicity.

Dissagreement won't change the facts.
True, one of us is right and your not.

The word you are looking for is "you're". Your "facts" are like statistics, they can be viewed anyway you like.

Who created the demand and kept the market going.

See my statement above concerning complicity. So, for the traders, it was simply a matter of supply and demand? They really didn't mean any harm in what they were doing?


We can rehash this as long as you want, but I've said my peace. You may have the last word, for what it is worth.

[Shek]

And PRC didn't have a foreign country engaged in an active war with them while they were obtaining this vaunted foreign recognition.

The PRC demonstrated the ability to maintain a monopoly on the use of force within its borders, which is the essence of sovereignty. They gained this through a civil war with Chaing Kai-Shek's government. Once they defeated his government, controlled the territory of China, and maintained the monopoly on the use of force within territorial China, they were then recognized by multiple governments, to include the UK within months.

In contrast, the CSA never maintained a monopoly on the use of force within its borders and was never recognized, and therefore, was never sovereign. They did accomplish some independence within the territory they did control, although this independence faded across the course of the four years of the rebellion.

And ignored by those who seek to absolve their ancestors of any complicity.

He didn't ignore it. He pointed out the statistical fact that it was infinitesimally small compared to white slave ownership. It's a red herring.

The word you are looking for is "you're". Your "facts" are like statistics, they can be viewed anyway you like.

The fact is that the political science definition of sovereignty is pretty clear. The CSA didn't meet the criteria for sovereignty.

[Dreadnought]

We are actually argueing over if the North and the South were two different countries during the Civil War? They most certainly were not.

Jefferson Davis was both a US Senator (United States) and twice a United States Congressmen until he withdrew from the Senate in 1861. The very same year Mississippi susseeded from the Union. Afterwhich he was named provisional president by the provisional Congress of the Confederation and an unlawful one at that. In other words Davis himself believed in the rule of government of the land by one entity. The very same United States government in which he took part in for 15 years. There was no other government in the land except the US government. And Davis was inugurated into the Confederacy in Virgina. One of the original 13 colonies that fought against the British in the Revolutionary War and became the United States which ofcoarse was controlled by the democratically elected US government. In other words it was an insurrection in lands already controlled and governed by the US government.

In other words this country was one nation before the Civil War and after the Civil War. If some moonbats decide that X amount of states equal a country within a country after said country had already been founded with a legitimate government and after winning a war against the Brits to remove the British Crown authority among other wars to come later.Then said moonbat and company is indeed guilty of treason against the United States government.

The North and the South were never two different nations or even countries. The South was trying to create a government were one recognized by the people and democratically elected already existed. So the thought of them being different countries or nations is a farce.

You cannot create a nation or country where one already existed in the first place wether you agree with it or not unless you go to war, and the Southern states lost that war. The End. And the end of the Confederacy.

[Shek]

Would you want a military installation from a foreign country inside the borders of our country? That is what Fort Sumter was. Repeatedly, the CSA had requested that the fort be vacated and when it was not, PGT Beaurgard and Co. took actions to make it happen.

Are you claiming that this was justified? If so, then would Cuba be justified in firing on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? Would the East Germans have been justified in firing on American and German soldiers in West Berlin?

[Station 22]

Are you claiming that this was justified?

No, I've claimed no justification for anything, only giving you the motivation at the time, for what occurred.

Before you all hang me for my comments, please reread the last lines of post 137.

[Station 22]

You cannot create a nation or country where one already existed in the first place wether you agree with it or not unless you go to war, and the Southern states lost that war. The End. And the end of the Confederacy.

The Velvet Revolution, Czechoslovakia 1993.

[zraver]

And PRC didn't have a foreign country engaged in an active war with them while they were obtaining this vaunted foreign recognition.

No but East Timor did, Bangladesh did etc, they still got recognition the South never did.

And ignored by those who seek to absolve their ancestors of any complicity.

Can you stop with the racist comments? While some of the few black slave owners did indeed come from the same tribes as the rest of the population, the large number sof peoples hunted vs the small number if black slave owners means there was little chance of a link to the wider population. Not to mention that traditional African slavery is not plantation chattel slavery.

You'd not more modern Germans for the actions of their ancestors in creating the Irish potato famine so why such blanket statements dealing with blacks?

Your "facts" are like statistics, they can be viewed anyway you like.

Very true, you can accept them or ignore/twist them

See my statement above concerning complicity. So, for the traders, it was simply a matter of supply and demand? They really didn't mean any harm in what they were doing?

man is always ready to profit from another mans misfortune but the scale of profiteerign weighs heavily on the Southern side. For a slave trader each slave was a 1x transaction valued at X. The Planter class was obviously not buying slaves to work at a loss so the real value realized in the fields or in service was Y. It was also not a 1x transaction but a period lasting from purchase to sale or death and included with it any offspring born. Finally an individual slave trader might make X number of trips during his career, but the planter class rolled over the course of generations.

We can rehash this as long as you want, but I've said my peace. You may have the last word, for what it is worth.

I didn't reply until you did.

[zraver]

The Velvet Revolution, Czechoslovakia 1993.

Two peoples decided to go their own way amicably recognizing they were not one people with two different views, but two peoples. That cannot be said about the North and South since both have the exact same creation story, the exact same founding fathers and from the exact same time and place. They were and are one people.

[Dreadnought]

The Velvet Revolution, Czechoslovakia 1993.

Thats your reply? And exactly what would that have to do with the US. Nothing they do politically in the former soviet union and satellites is inline with US doctrine and never has been. Wrong hemisphere. Not too mention the South lost.