Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wars are fought between nations. The Confederate States of America were never recognized as a nation by any country. Therefore, it was a rebellion. The Civil "War" was not technically a war. It was rebellion that was put down by US Army under General Ulysses Grant.
And it's technically not a civil war. A civil war is a war between groups within a nation for a particular type of government or ideology to rule the nation. For example, the British Civil War in the mid 17th century. Or, the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. In both, some regions of each nations (mostly) favored one side over the other, but each side wanted to control the entire nation not split it into two.
I'll still go with the Civil War as any other name sounds like you're attaching a political statement (for example, War Between the States while maybe accurate, almost always implies a pro-Confederate viewpoint).
How many times does the Confederate Constitution mention Slavery?
It was the cornerstone of the Secession.
Sounds like someone needs to go read the Confederate Constitution.
There are quite a few differences regarding the regulation of commerce and other items as well...
What the Confederate Constitution actually does regarding slavery is it fails to repeat the same mistakes that were made with the US Constitution in that it directly addresses slavery... But in some ways that people like yourself would probably find surprising...
-CSA Constitution outlaws the foreign slave trade
-CSA Constitution outlaws the introduction of new slaves from NON-slaveholding states.
-CSA Constitution addresses or reiterates the 3/5 compromise.
-CSA Constitution addresses issues brought up in Dred Scott case (Slave holder maintains property rights over slaves when travelling outside his state)
-CSA addresses issue of slavery in any new states that might join... Slavery is legal.
Whereas you might see this as proof positive that this was all about slavery (again, commerce sections suggest that there are several other issues that the Confederacy differed on from their Northern counterparts), it can just as easily be looked upon as not wishing to make the same mistake a second time by dodging the question of slavery.... It is legal in the CSA and here are the laws regarding it.
Sounds like someone needs to go read the Confederate Constitution.
There are quite a few differences regarding the regulation of commerce and other items as well...
What the Confederate Constitution actually does regarding slavery is it fails to repeat the same mistakes that were made with the US Constitution in that it directly addresses slavery... But in some ways that people like yourself would probably find surprising...
-CSA Constitution outlaws the foreign slave trade
-CSA Constitution outlaws the introduction of new slaves from NON-slaveholding states.
-CSA Constitution addresses or reiterates the 3/5 compromise.
-CSA Constitution addresses issues brought up in Dred Scott case (Slave holder maintains property rights over slaves when travelling outside his state)
-CSA addresses issue of slavery in any new states that might join... Slavery is legal.
Whereas you might see this as proof positive that this was all about slavery (again, commerce sections suggest that there are several other issues that the Confederacy differed on from their Northern counterparts), it can just as easily be looked upon as not wishing to make the same mistake a second time by dodging the question of slavery.... It is legal in the CSA and here are the laws regarding it.
Yes, but you need to read the secession charters for the various Confederate states. Most of them explicitly name slavery as the primary motivation for breaking ties with the Union.
Yes, but you need to read the secession charters for the various Confederate states. Most of them explicitly name slavery as the primary motivation for breaking ties with the Union.
As I mentioned years ago in this very thread (), Deep South yes.... Upper South, no... Though even the Deep South Charters can easily be read as, "The northern states are attempting to enfringe upon our state's rights."... But the right that is most clearly being "enfringed upon" in their eyes is their ability to maintain slavery...
So yeah, I do agree that without the issue of slavery there is no war, but take exception to the suggestion that the Confederate Constitution is dripping all over with references to slavery (Boompa's comment).
It isn't anymore than one would imagine and there are certainly plenty of non-slavery related differences between it and the US Constitution... That was more my point.
I think that the proper name for the Civil War was settled around the time that Lee surrendered at Appomattox.
In the United States, "Civil War" is the most common term for the conflict; it has been used by the overwhelming majority of reference books, scholarly journals, dictionaries, encyclopedias, popular histories, and mass media in the United States since the early 20th century.[2] The National Park Service, the government organization entrusted by the United States Congress to preserve the battlefields of the war, uses this term.[3] It is also the oldest term for the war. Writings of prominent men such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, P.G.T. Beauregard, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Judah P. Benjamin used the term "Civil War" both before and during the conflict. Abraham Lincoln used it on multiple occasions.[4][5][6] In 1862, the United States Supreme Court used the terms "the present civil war between the United States and the so called Confederate States," as well as "the civil war such as that now waged between the Northern and Southern States."[7]
As I mentioned years ago in this very thread (), Deep South yes.... Upper South, no... Though even the Deep South Charters can easily be read as, "The northern states are attempting to enfringe upon our state's rights."... But the right that is most clearly being "enfringed upon" in their eyes is their ability to maintain slavery...
So yeah, I do agree that without the issue of slavery there is no war, but take exception to the suggestion that the Confederate Constitution is dripping all over with references to slavery (Boompa's comment).
It isn't anymore than one would imagine and there are certainly plenty of non-slavery related differences between it and the US Constitution... That was more my point.
But if it was spoken rather than written, then the Southerners were protecting their "rats"
Dammmed Northern exterminators.
How about "The War to protect Southern Rats?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Delusions of grandeur, perhaps...? 
), Deep South yes.... Upper South, no... Though even the Deep South Charters can easily be read as, "The northern states are attempting to enfringe upon our state's rights."... But the right that is most clearly being "enfringed upon" in their eyes is their ability to maintain slavery... 
