Historical Polls

[Tali]

I don't believe I ever mentioned civilians. I said 'people'.

Wait, you telling me, a General, in wartime, gave order to kill people?

Well, color me surprised.

[TheBoberton]

There's no need for the sarcasm. I was correcting his erroneous assumption that I was referring to civilians alone. When I asked him whether he'd be willing to kill people without caring to learn of their cause, he replied, quite oddly, that Sherman did not slaughter civilians; which had nothing to do with what I was asking, besides his stating he'd emulate the general's actions.

[DeoVindice61]

You haven't answered my question, nor did you touch on any issue in my post. Do you, or do you not view the United States as an entity worth killing for, regardless of what cause potential rebels may be fighting for?

I stated Sherman action because that's what you implied to me when you said i would be willing to kill without a cause when I spoke of marching though Georgia with Sherman because that sound like a typical southern man who deny and he who hate Sherman would say. But now I see what you clarifying what you're asking. I apologize.

"He'd be willing to kill people without caring to learn of their cause."

I wont be willing to kill "people" without caring to learn of their cause.


Still don't understand what you're trying to say though? Are you imply the Union or Sherman are killing "people" without caring to know their cause or?

[TheBoberton]

I wont be willing to kill "people" without caring to learn of their cause.

Then don't say you would.

Still don't understand what you're trying to say though? Are you imply the Union or Sherman are killing "people" without caring to know their cause or?

I was merely inquiring as to your own intent. My questions had nothing to do with the history of the nation.

[DeoVindice61]

Oh, can you please quote me where did i imply that I would kill people without caring about their cause please? Because I don't recall saying that at all.

[TheBoberton]

Sure.

I'm heavily interested in Confederate History but would I stand by a 2nd Confederate Uprising? Lel no, I would don my blue sack coat and burn Georgia once again.

[DeoVindice61]

Sure.

I'm heavily interested in Confederate History but would I stand by a 2nd Confederate Uprising? Lel no, I would don my blue sack coat and burn Georgia once again.

Ahh I see why you could say that, but that's not what I meant though. I meant if the the cause and issue  still apply from the original cause in 1861. I started commenting this thread coming as may have appeared pro-confederate stuck in lost cause thoughts. I just wanted to clear it up that despite how much i admire the history and culture, I would still stand with the Union. Never thought it as a brand new different cause when I typed that. I apologize for my unclear comment. 

[TheBoberton]

You don't need to apologize; I just want people to think a bit before they say something like that, because it can mean ten different things.

And I dunno how well an uprising about slavery would go today. The entire civilized world - including many people who have positive views of the Confederacy - would be opposing them.

[Spearing]

There is absolutely no clause in the constitution that says "Oh, and by the way, you can leave the Union after this such and such...."

Sorry, doesn't exist.

When the state signed the dotted line, they're in it, good, bad, or ugly. The Union does not have an escape button.


That also being said: the confederacy was not a government, it was a group of armed rebels who took over state legislatures and were holding states as territories to be quelled by Federal troops. That statement will cause people's raeglvls to reach new heights, but I'm sorry, I don't, and never will, recognize the "Confederate States of America" as an actual country.


Also: I look at the south like this~

Virginia had one of the largest pulls on American politics as a whole thanks to a combination of it's already massive *It had the largest population by the constitution of 1798* population of free, voting men, and it's slave population, which gave unto it's 3/5th's compromise. The states that profited from this clause lost it due to the non-slave owning population *which turned out o be a lot* moved north to factories and places of industry where jobs were plentiful. It's not our fault that you lost your population due to a shittily-planned, slave-based economy that only profits those born into money, and had a hissy fit over it.... or at least that's what I'd say back then if I was around...

[Augy]

The founding fathers were exactly the same.  typical case of victor writes the history.

[TheBoberton]

There is absolutely no clause in the constitution that says "Oh, and by the way, you can leave the Union after this such and such...." - Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sorry, doesn't exist.

When the state signed the dotted line, they're in it, good, bad, or ugly. The Union does not have an escape button.

Actually..
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As secession is not mentioned in the Constitution..

That also being said: the confederacy was not a government, it was a group of armed rebels who took over state legislatures and were holding states as territories to be quelled by Federal troops. That statement will cause people's raeglvls to reach new heights, but I'm sorry, I don't, and never will, recognize the "Confederate States of America" as an actual country.

It doesn't matter what your views on the issue are. The Confederate States of America seceded through what they viewed as a legitimate method, and established a government -with the approval of the majority- within the states that seceded.

[Tali]

-with the approval of the majority- within the states that seceded.

West Virginia seceeded from Virginia in favor of remaining with the North, and Confederate troops were sent to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to prevent them from swinging to the Union.

There was no clear conensus as you seem to propose.

[TheBoberton]

I never claimed there wasn't dissent; Just that the majority were in favour of the secession.

Come on people, I'm only using English here.

[Tali]

I never claimed there wasn't dissent. Just that the majority were in favour of the secession.

And the majority of Germans supported World War two in 1940. Majority doens't mean what they did was justified.

[Duuring]

Aaaaaaand we just went Godson.