American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Ok....A few comments:

Article I. Section 8. US Constitution:

<b>To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And</b>

The answer will lay in whether or not South Carolina gave the Union the property or not, or whether it was purchased etc...I will try to find the answer.

<b>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
</b>

This will be important below.

Section 10. Article I. US Constitution:

<b>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.</b>

<b>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.</b>

<b>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.</b>


Article VI. US Constitution:

<b>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.</b>

Section 1. Article I. US Constitution:

<b>Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''</b>

By signing the Constitution the States agreed to uphold these laws and by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI.) the Constitution and Federal Authority override any State Law that may conflict. By taking the Oath of Office (Section 1. Atricle I.) Lincoln and every other President vowed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The preservation of in that no States shall make any Unconstitutional Actions based on Section 10. Article I. and in violation of the of the fact that each State ratified the document and thus forth subjected itself to the authority of it. Whether or not sucession is legal is unclear but the fact that they may have fired on a Federal Institution is the key of their mistake. But in my eyes by ratifying it, they agreed to it and such any violation of it regardless of sucession or not is ground for surpression of the rebellion. If anything this power is derived from the Supremacy Clause which is what binds sucession illegal on the fact that they are acting in a way that contradicts the Law of the US as Supreme and within that the Constiution is apart so any raising of troops, entrance into a Confederation, Agreement, Coinage, Foreign Relations, Naval Operations etc, all performed by the CSA is all invalid as the States passed laws that were in violation of their ratifying or agreeing to the document, and also by firing of a Federal Institution (in which I will try to prove was Federal property and not that of South Carolina or subject to it's laws or authority) solidified their fate.

Another important fact to recall which is overlooked by most 'Lost Causers' is that the South controlled the government, in particular the Congress for many of the years prior to the election of 1860 and that they simply decided to leave when that power was taken from them in a legal election instead of participating in the basic principles of democratic/republican System government of collective bargain and compromise and did so without evidence that Lincoln would 'violate' their rights and in such that the Fugitive Slave Laws were still be enforced and were not totally abandoned. So not only did they violate the principles of the US and its government but also the basic principles of an open republic system. [:D]

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<b>The answer will lay in whether or not South Carolina gave the Union the property or not, or whether it was purchased etc...I will try to find the answer.</b>

Answer found. From NPS:

Work began on the Fort Sumter project in 1829 on a shoal, or "land" that was perpetually under water, in Charleston Harbor. In 1834 work was interrupted by a claim to land that included that shoal. The state of South Carolina declared the claim invalid in 1837 but then investigated whether or not the site in question was legally state property. In 1840 the state officially ceded the property to the United States, and work resumed in 1841.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Ludwig</i>
<br /><b>The answer will lay in whether or not South Carolina gave the Union the property or not, or whether it was purchased etc...I will try to find the answer.</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would think that wouldn't matter. The USA can't purchase land in another country and then place military weapons there unless they have a Treaty allowing it. I would think that merely owning the property would only give them the same rights as any other citizen of the State of South Carolina. For one thing since it is located within SC territorial waters they couldn't use the US Navy to resupply it which they did and triggered the firing.

But given the times it didn't matter eventually something would trigger the war and Sumter was a better excuse for the Lincoln administration than using the army to deliver the mail[:D].

Someone wrote a book on this subject but I never got around to reading it. Anyone know what the premise was used in "The South Was Right"?

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

My apologies men . . . . I only have a minute or 2 to reply, so this'll be brief. [:p]

Two questions.

Scott . . . Just whose side are YOU on Maaaaaan? [:D] [:o)]

And secondly . . . . .

In your excellent reply Scott . . . You describe a State's ratification of the US Constitution, as a Contract between the State and the US. There is NO "Get Out Clause".

Well . . . to my way of thinking, such a contract between individuals or Companies is Fair Game - BUT . . . .

Is there not something intrinsically Immoral and Undemocratic, in a Contract between the State and The US, which is then used to govern the populace of the said State and where it is impossible for the Populace to extricate themselves from that contract, if they democratically choose to do so? [?][?][?][?]

Just a thought in passing . . . . I'll be back when time is freer.

Oh BTW . . . what about Abe using the Secessionist argument when it was politically expedient for him to do so - earlier in his career? (See earlier Post.) I'll hunt down my source and quite it soon.

Until then, [8D]

Pat.


Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
II Corps, Commanding.
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia,
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />My apologies men . . . . I only have a minute or 2 to reply, so this'll be brief. [:p]

Two questions.

Scott . . . Just whose side are YOU on Maaaaaan? [:D] [:o)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Like I said before, I am a Yankee at heart and believe in the power of the basic principles of democracy and am I moederate in politics as both extremes are hazardous to to an open society such as a democratic/republican system. It is fun to be the rebs, it is always fun to be the underdog and my siding with them is based solely on the war and the officers that I like in it and not of the politics of it. I can easily wake up tomorrow and apply for comission in the Union and almost did last year, but I can't leave now, I'm in charge of an Army and see it is my duty to serve as such and to serve the folks of this club, my commanders, and my men. If I was a brigade commander it may be different. Besides my respect for the ANV is as deep as the ocean and would not serve anywhere else. To think that I represent in legacy the like of Lee and those men is an honorable thing regardless of what they fought the war for, and ideals that no one really gets today. These men that we honor by being in this club are some of the pinnacle examples of legends of history and historical warfare and what they did and went through I doubt few would be able to do today, even with the best military in the world (not to discredit any current or past servicemen, what they do is incredible in istelf and today's time) but some of the experiences are not the same. As if of course with any part of history. I am sure you can go back then and find people who would say the same about warfare in the Middle Ages. But remembering their legacy is important irregardless of how anyone feels on the issues, for once it is forgotten the ghosts of the past will reach out and touch us again with such dire consequences, as it seems to happen more and more today with the decline of general historical knowledge and respect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />And secondly . . . . .

In your excellent reply Scott . . . You describe a State's ratification of the US Constitution, as a Contract between the State and the US. There is NO "Get Out Clause".

Well . . . to my way of thinking, such a contract between individuals or Companies is Fair Game - BUT . . . .

Is there not something intrinsically Immoral and Undemocratic, in a Contract between the State and The US, which is then used to govern the populace of the said State and where it is impossible for the Populace to extricate themselves from that contract, if they democratically choose to do so? [?][?][?][?]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Were do you draw the line?? How far do you break it down, do we go back to millions of city-states 10 miles big, killing and destroying each other. How would you feel if Ireland decided to break up into 40 different countries with all sorts of laws and restrictions about each other. Were not talking about a business deal where it effects money and stuff, were speaking of the basic ideas of a deomcracy and the enforcement of such has to be drawn somewhere before total social meltdown happens. The only thing that could be argued is in Locke's Theory that "if a government no longer adequately protects the basic rights of man, life, liberty, and property/happiness then they have the right to alter or change that government." Of course how can the South argue justification based on this principle as none were in violation. They simply refused to co-operate in the process after controlling it for almost 40 years prior.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Just a thought in passing . . . . I'll be back when time is freer.

Oh BTW . . . what about Abe using the Secessionist argument when it was politically expedient for him to do so - earlier in his career? (See earlier Post.) I'll hunt down my source and quite it soon.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's all politics and things are realized as the process happens. He said he wouldn't free the slaves and would protect it in the current areas where it existed, but Northern outrage after Antietam and Shiloh and such demanded that such change take place to make the death meaningful, so he espoused to a higher meaning and sought to find the better angels of our nature in the twofold process of justifying the war in the ending fo slavery and healing the wounds of the nation with malice towards none. Keep in mind Lincoln is a free soiler in that no expansion of slavery, not an abolitionist. Of course the half wit Booth had to kill him and any chance at a meaningful closure to the war and instead we get half hearted reconstruction, failure to rebuild the South for over 100 years and generations of racial and sectional hatred to this day. The Civil War was the last battle of the American Revolution, the last battle of the Civil War has yet to be fought. Of course many of the veterans had healed the scars in the joint experience and harbored no ill will, but there were those who did.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Ludwig</i>
<br /><b>The answer will lay in whether or not South Carolina gave the Union the property or not, or whether it was purchased etc...I will try to find the answer.</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would think that wouldn't matter. The USA can't purchase land in another country and then place military weapons there unless they have a Treaty allowing it. I would think that merely owning the property would only give them the same rights as any other citizen of the State of South Carolina. For one thing since it is located within SC territorial waters they couldn't use the US Navy to resupply it which they did and triggered the firing.

But given the times it didn't matter eventually something would trigger the war and Sumter was a better excuse for the Lincoln administration than using the army to deliver the mail[:D].

Someone wrote a book on this subject but I never got around to reading it. Anyone know what the premise was used in "The South Was Right"?

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ah, but Kennon the South Carolinian's tried that before and in 1841 they ceded all claims to the land to the Federal Government whom has further extension of their rights beyond being a basic citizen of South Carolina and in which who's laws override that of the States that may contradict based on the Supremacy Clause. By such the South Carolinian's made fault by firing on Federal Property and such the government was clearly right in defending what was clearly it's own.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

I believe the argument that the South violated the US constitution is only valid to the point when the individual states seceeded.....Once they had done so, they were then free to make alliances as they chose, hence the Confederacy. Remember there was no "Perpetual Union" language in the Constitution as there was in the Articles of Confederation. In spite of that language, all the states seceeded from that Union and formed the new one....I did not hear them saying that was illegal, yet a better argument could be made for the former act being illegal than the South's secession. I guess it all boils down to who won the conflict.....my personal belief is that we of the South are indeed actually an occupied nation....I don't see that it much matters now though...I don't see us rising again......

The legality of secession is a problem. It was not settled before the war and it was the war itself that settled it, regardless of how much I try to pull from the Constitution, it just isn't clear.

I hardly consider the South as an occupied land, seeing that they control the ability to influence the presidency if not occupy it half the time, secondly if you were occupied you would not enjoy the rights and privledges as a citizen, you would be a colony and at the whim of others and have no representation, much similar to the case as the Colonists did. You would have not been ushered back into the Union as quick as you were, and your governments would not be in power less than 30 years after the end of the war. Oh and you would still be occupied by Northern troops.

I think maybe it may be time for the Mods to move the post to the Smoking Room...can we have this done?? [:)]

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

Hi Scott!

Whilst Your points about occupation may appear correct on the surface, representation has alway been a tool of an occupying force. It's cheaper than maintaining a Military presence.

The Romans extended citizenship to their conquered neighbours after a period of occupation. These people were allowed to send candidates to the Senate but, the Senate was carefully weighted to ensure that Rome held the reigns of power AND there was the ultimate sanction of the Emperor - Senate could agree on a Law, but it was not Law until the Emperor signed it. If he refused to and they often did - the Law sank without a trace, regardless of who would benefit from it.

Ireland had it's own Parliament under the British. Under dubious circumstances, it voted for the Act of Union in 1801 . . . in effect voting itself out of existence and Ireland was granted a limited number of seats at Westminster. It was the suspension of an Act for the duration of WW1, under which Ireland would have a new "devolved" Parliament, that was the final straw for a lot of Irish Leaders. The Act was due to be Law in 1916 - and once the suspension of same was confirmed the 1916 rebellion was inevitable.

The British Troops garrisoned within Ireland, were Occupying Troops to Nationalists and "Our" Troops to Loyalist, Unionists and the preferred Government spin. They were there to "Protect" citizens - not hold them in Line. Yet, at the first whiff of Independently intended action and self-determination . . . they arrive in force to demolish the centre of Dublin . . . in order to kill off an Uprising of a cupple hunnerd "Dissatisfied Citizens."

The Federal Garrisons dotted around the South are Troops serving the USA. The USA were the Northern side in the ACW. The CSA never officially dissolved NOR Surrendered. (Armies surrendered NOT the Executive.)

As You have stated - seccession is legal/illegal depending on Yer viewpoint. Therefore - IMHO . . if it is a valid point that the US Government is legitimately excercising power over the South . . . then the CSA was/is equally legitimate and therefore, the Stance taken that the CS States are currently under occupation by the Northern States also stands.

The fact that limited State autonomy was returned to these States within 30 years of the War, does not negate the Fact that, one of the Tenets of US Legislation is " Government for the People, of the People and <i> by the People</i>.

Self -determination - in other words. the Seccesionist states decided to leave the Union and determine their own Affairs.

They were not allowed to leave.

The Abolition of Slavery, was cynically used by the Lincoln Administration to mask their true Intentions . . the subjugation and Domination of the Southern States to their Will. Why?

One reason could be Greed and the easy access to the Frontier to the West. What untold Riches lay over there? Lincoln's cronies felt that Ye couldn't find out . . if Ye had to spend some of Your resources, looking over Your shoulder for Competition from CS Citizens, p'raps? [?]

I read somewhere, that were it to have remained Independent - the CS would be the 5th largest World Economy today. I wish I could remember where I read it . . . 'twould be inneresting to see where the US rated! [;)]

But then again Scott . . . Am I just an Irishman lookin' fer a Bloody Nose? [:D][:I][:o)][B)][xx(]

Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
II Corps, Commanding.
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia,
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Hi Scott!

Whilst Your points about occupation may appear correct on the surface, representation has alway been a tool of an occupying force. It's cheaper than maintaining a Military presence.

The Romans extended citizenship to their conquered neighbours after a period of occupation. These people were allowed to send candidates to the Senate but, the Senate was carefully weighted to ensure that Rome held the reigns of power AND there was the ultimate sanction of the Emperor - Senate could agree on a Law, but it was not Law until the Emperor signed it. If he refused to and they often did - the Law sank without a trace, regardless of who would benefit from it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So how come the South's power base continues to grow as the North's has declined over the past 50 years?? Of course we do have the veto override, but when you control both houses of the Congress and the Presidency you can pass your agenda rather easily.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Ireland had it's own Parliament under the British. Under dubious circumstances, it voted for the Act of Union in 1801 . . . in effect voting itself out of existence and Ireland was granted a limited number of seats at Westminster. It was the suspension of an Act for the duration of WW1, under which Ireland would have a new "devolved" Parliament, that was the final straw for a lot of Irish Leaders. The Act was due to be Law in 1916 - and once the suspension of same was confirmed the 1916 rebellion was inevitable.

The British Troops garrisoned within Ireland, were Occupying Troops to Nationalists and "Our" Troops to Loyalist, Unionists and the preferred Government spin. They were there to "Protect" citizens - not hold them in Line. Yet, at the first whiff of Independently intended action and self-determination . . . they arrive in force to demolish the centre of Dublin . . . in order to kill off an Uprising of a cupple hunnerd "Dissatisfied Citizens."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again pointless to the argument except for another comparision as it is clear after 1880 the South has its own self-determination in place, especially in the supression of the African-Americans.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />The Federal Garrisons dotted around the South are Troops serving the USA. The USA were the Northern side in the ACW. The CSA never officially dissolved NOR Surrendered. (Armies surrendered NOT the Executive.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The current government in control is of Southern origin. This is the exact sectionalism garbage that drives this nation a part. Irregardless of whether it surrendered or not, it lost the war, but of course they cry of how they are under control of others, yet they enjoy the freedom of control over the government. Typical of the Lost Cause...they controlled it for some 35 years leading up to the Civil War and control it today, but cry victim.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />As You have stated - seccession is legal/illegal depending on Yer viewpoint. Therefore - IMHO . . if it is a valid point that the US Government is legitimately excercising power over the South . . . then the CSA was/is equally legitimate and therefore, the Stance taken that the CS States are currently under occupation by the Northern States also stands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can you clarify what you are saying??

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />The fact that limited State autonomy was returned to these States within 30 years of the War,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They had full autonomy and had started the process of disenfranchisemnt of the African-Americans and started the enforcement of Segergation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />does not negate the Fact that, one of the Tenets of US Legislation is " Government for the People, of the People and <i> by the People</i>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This fact was not realized until two points...once when women had the right to vote and then when African-Americans could actually practice their right to vote. Also it was in the Gettysburg address and is not legislation and the quote is "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Again they clearly can participate in the election system, they can influence elections and set agendas for their states affairs.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br /> Self -determination - in other words. the Seccesionist states decided to leave the Union and determine their own Affairs.

They were not allowed to leave.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is there a point??

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />The Abolition of Slavery, was cynically used by the Lincoln Administration to mask their true Intentions . . the subjugation and Domination of the Southern States to their Will. Why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The abolition of slavery came out of the fact that the casualties were so ghastly in the war and that Northern outcry had forced Lincoln to move from preservation of the Union to freeing of the slaves as to have all the deaths made meaingful. To fight the war and then let the South walk back in slaves and all would be an abomination to the deaths of thousands of troops.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />One reason could be Greed and the easy access to the Frontier to the West. What untold Riches lay over there? Lincoln's cronies felt that Ye couldn't find out . . if Ye had to spend some of Your resources, looking over Your shoulder for Competition from CS Citizens, p'raps? [?]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So the South wanting to maintain a system in which a vast protion of the population is enslaved, have no free will, have no self-determenation, have no say in their lives, exsistence, and government all for the ability to make money, a profit, and live in a world of privlidge and plantations isn't?? Of course most of the South did not live this way, but the people who controlled it down there did for the most part. Besides most of the activites out West were taking place as the war happened. I doubt they were concerned about it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />I read somewhere, that were it to have remained Independent - the CS would be the 5th largest World Economy today. I wish I could remember where I read it . . . 'twould be inneresting to see where the US rated! [;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again most likely the whole world would be different and this appears to be more fun Lost Causer myths.

Something tells me you will continue on as, I believe you are taking enjoyment out of this. No problem, I enjoy it too.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

Scott,
I was speaking strictly in technical terms when I stated that we are an occupied country.....I do not believe that we would leave at this point given a choice, or that we do not presently enjoy full rights in the present government....that does not change what happened.


"As You have stated - seccession is legal/illegal depending on Yer viewpoint. Therefore - IMHO . . if it is a valid point that the US Government is legitimately excercising power over the South . . . then the CSA was/is equally legitimate and therefore, the Stance taken that the CS States are currently under occupation by the Northern States also stands."

"Can you clarify what you are saying??"

Patrick was, in my opinion very clearly stating that the South is technically and always will be (as there is little need, nor way to resolve it at this point), an occupied country. I don't think many Southerns would have a problem understanding his statement, however I do see why the Northern culture would choose to need clarification.

"Self -determination - in other words. the Seccesionist states decided to leave the Union and determine their own Affairs.

They were not allowed to leave."

Yes!!!!! That is the point! The fact that you choose to ignore it, does not make it go away....

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to leave at this point, but I can look at the situation as it occured and not simply give the federal government a rubber stamp as if they were in the right.....I do accept the fact that they did win though. And I do find it interesting to see time and time again, that our cultures and ideas are still to this day so very different. Maybe it worked out for the best, perhaps it did not......we shall never know.....and not even that really matters, because reality is that it worked out the way it did, and nothing can change the past....So we go on from here!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is there a point??

Like Porky Pig says:

Bewle...bewle..bwle...that's all folks!!" [;)]

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>