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.
Then lets be practical and quit with nonsense. They where all United States. The Southern States united too, against the Northern States. Want me to use your silly fact and say "The United States" fought against Northern Invaders?
Except that the Southern states were violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, whereas the Northern ones were protecting its sanctity. Of course, this wasn't confirmed by the Supreme Court until after the Civil War, but it's certainly settled now.
And this is all semantics anyway. All that matters is that the South was weak and the North was strong. The outcome was never in doubt from the first moment of hostilities, and history books are always written by the victors.
Except that the Southern states were violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, whereas the Northern ones were protecting its sanctity. Of course, this wasn't confirmed by the Supreme Court until after the Civil War, but it's certainly settled now.
And this is all semantics anyway. All that matters is that the South was weak and the North was strong. The outcome was never in doubt from the first moment of hostilities, and history books are always written by the victors.
The south was in no way weak. The north had over twice the population and all of the manufacturing plants which gave them the greatest advantage, and with all of that it took them over 4 years to win the war. If the south had the advantages the north had the war would not have lasted 2 years. More union soldiers lost their lives that confederate soldiers. Also, the north could replace the lost soldiers where the south could not. saying the south was weak is so ridiculous. Study the victories of the south in the battles. The first 2 years of the war the south was winning. Inevitably superior manpower and resources just had to win out.
Last edited by Scotty011; 05-08-2015 at 05:57 PM..
I suppose if you define an American as an inhabitant of either the southern or northern continents and a patriot as being loyal to either part of it, but if you are referring to Americans, as in, citizens of the United States your statement is patently absurd. By definition, you cannot be a patriot of the United States if your objective is to disunite it!
The Southern states were not trying to disband the Union. After secession, the Union was still very much in existence, albeit not as large or as populous as it had been prior to secession.
The slave trade was outlawed in 1808 which effectively shut down northern participation in the north Atlantic slave trade.
But it did not result in the emancipation of northern slaves, it merely slowed the import of new slaves. Northern slaves remained in bondage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that slavery was universal aspect of the United States prior to the Civil War.
No it wasn't.
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.
