The "Civil War" and "Revolutionary War"... were not.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    This should be a lively discussion...

    The "Civil War" was not a civil war... and the "Revolutionary War" was not a revolution.

    "Civil War" - War between the United States and the Confederate States
    "Revolutionary War" - War between the United States and Britain

    civil war - a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
    revolution - an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

    The "Civil War" was a slow and simmering revolution culminating in an semi-organized secession of individual self governing states from membership in, and the central authority of, the United States government. These now independent states formed a new central government, which was met by a major 5 year long open war between the remnants of the "United States" and the "Confederate States of America" (both separate and independent nations).

    The "Revolutionary War" was a short but true civil war among British subjects (residing in 13 British Colonies), followed by a declaration of independence and establishment of an independent government (the actual revolution). Then came 7 years of another true civil war (within the United States) between Americans loyal to Britain and those loyal to the United States... and a near world war as Britain Empire and it's allies sought to invade and reclaim their former colonies from United States government and it's allies.


    In short...

    The only reason we can call the "Civil War" a "civil war" is our United States government never recognized the CSA's revolt... and we won.

    The only reason we can can call the "Revolutionary War" a "revolutionary war" is we revolted in the middle of two civil wars... and we won.

    ...

    Do you agree or not?
     
    Last edited:

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    Wrong on the first one, right on the second one.

    Secession was illegal and, therefore, there was no war against a separate entity. There was a "civil" war or a war to put down an insurrection.
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    Wrong on the first one, right on the second one.

    Secession was illegal and, therefore, there was no war against a separate entity.

    While the CSA was never "officially recognized" by any major world powers, for 5 years the CSA operated, negotiated and traded wholly independent of the USA.

    Kind of like how China thinks Taiwan is still China. If China ever invades and conquere Taiwan, it will always have been part of China... that is if we want to keep them happy and trading with us.

    Also, no significant operations (excluding military forts) of the US government remained in the CSA after secession... Unlike in the Revolutionary War where large areas and even whole cities within the boundaries of the United States remained controlled and even loyal to the now foreign British Empire.
     
    Last edited:

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Wrong on the first one, right on the second one.

    Secession was illegal and, therefore, there was no war against a separate entity. There was a "civil" war or a war to put down an insurrection.

    Please show me where, in the Constitution of the united States, the ordinance of secession adopted by South Carolina in 1860 was prohibited and illegal.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    To me the civil war was one we could have avoided, it was the result of really bad leadership on both sides of the issue. Winfield Scott knew what the war would be like and made his views known, nobody was listening.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    Please show me where, in the Constitution of the united States, the ordinance of secession adopted by South Carolina in 1860 was prohibited and illegal.

    Simple. All the colonies, then states willingly adopted a Constitution that made them a single nation, the United States of America. The Constitution has specific provisions on how to become a state. There is no provision on how to leave the Union. This means, that having joined the union, there is no way to leave the union as it now (and then) stands.

    The Constitution could be amended to allow for secession- it never was. The other states and federal government could choose to allow a state to leave whether or not there is a mechanism for it. They did not. The Constitution is explicit that a state that becomes a state is a member of the union, the United States. That’s right there. Show me the language that allows exit....and important clauses that go to the heart of the Constitution are not left “understood”.

    There is no doubt that South Carolina willingly joined the union and ratified the Constitution that contained no provision to leave. That was their choice. The ONLY way out was (is) to wage war, which is not legal, but extra-legal. In other words, it’s illegality is irrelevant if you win the war (as it was when the United States was formed), but it is no less illegal.

    Oh...and there is Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.
     
    Last edited:

    Lex Concord

    Not so well-known member
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Dec 4, 2008
    4,479
    83
    Morgan County
    Simple. All the colonies, then states willingly adopted a Constitution that made them a single nation, the United States of America. The Constitution has specific provisions on how to become a state. There is no provision on how to leave the Union. This means, that having joined the union, there is no way to leave the union as it now (and then) stands.

    The Constitution could be amended to allow for secession- it never was. The other states and federal government could choose to allow a state to leave whether or not there is a mechanism for it. They did not. The Constitution is explicit that a state that becomes a state is a member of the union, the United States. That’s right there. Show me the language that allows exit....and important clauses that go to the heart of the Constitution are not left “understood”.

    There is no doubt that South Carolina willingly joined the union and ratified the Constitution that contained no provision to leave. That was their choice. The ONLY way out was (is) to wage war, which is not legal, but extra-legal. In other words, it’s illegality is irrelevant if you win the war (as it was when the United States was formed), but it is no less illegal.

    Oh...and there is Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

    That reads a lot like "the power to prevent voluntary dissolution of said agency is implicitly vested in the federal government, the Tenth Amendment and that power's absence from the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding".

    Amendment Ten: "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."

    The Bill of Rights, though ratified several year after the Constitution, was created a mere 8 days after the Constitution (and before the Constitution was officially presented).

    I have a hard time reconciling the suicide pact mindset considering those facts.

    While the attack on Fort Sumter may have rendered any discussion about peaceful means of secession moot in the direct context of "The Civil War", it seems illogical that the intent of the framers was to ensure their progeny must experience the same bloody fate they had so recently endured if, yet again, human events made it "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another".

    Almost forgot. Happy "Successful Secession from Tyrannical Rule" Day! :):
     
    Last edited:

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,919
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Simple. All the colonies, then states willingly adopted a Constitution that made them a single nation, the United States of America. The Constitution has specific provisions on how to become a state. There is no provision on how to leave the Union. This means, that having joined the union, there is no way to leave the union as it now (and then) stands.

    The Constitution could be amended to allow for secession- it never was. The other states and federal government could choose to allow a state to leave whether or not there is a mechanism for it. They did not. The Constitution is explicit that a state that becomes a state is a member of the union, the United States. That’s right there. Show me the language that allows exit....and important clauses that go to the heart of the Constitution are not left “understood”.

    There is no doubt that South Carolina willingly joined the union and ratified the Constitution that contained no provision to leave. That was their choice. The ONLY way out was (is) to wage war, which is not legal, but extra-legal. In other words, it’s illegality is irrelevant if you win the war (as it was when the United States was formed), but it is no less illegal.

    Oh...and there is Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

    I'll simply add to Lex Concord's notes that Article 1, Section 10 is a foolish defense at best.

    As of December 1860, South Carolina had properly exercised its rights under the Tenth Amendment, withdrew its consent, and was no longer bound by the united states Constitution.

    South Carolina did not join a confederacy until February 1861.

    South Carolina's actions were not prohibited and / or illegal under the constitution of the united States.


    By the way, a Blessed Secession Day to you and yours.
     

    JeepHammer

    SHOOTER
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 2, 2018
    1,904
    83
    SW Indiana
    I think you misspelled "The War to Continue Slavery and Dehumanize an Entire Race of People."

    Save your time/effort, no point in trying to get through some of these guys...

    154 years down the road, so it's a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing,
    Wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    While a 'White Man' couldn't be a 'Slave' there was plenty of 'Indentured Servitude'.
    When I see these guys rant about 'White Power' I often wonder how many would be indentured servants in the fields right along slaves if the 'Civil War' had not happened...

    With the industrial revloution in full swing, and the coming machine age, slavery would have burned itself out in another 30-40 years tops anyway, but once you hold power over another people, no one gives it up willingly.
    Look at any powers given to Congress or president, once granted they hang on to it tooth & nail.

    There are other examples going on right now, but to doesn't pertain directly to the subject matter.

    ---------

    Just for the record, there is nothing 'Civil' about any war, and internal wars are the worst since everyone with a grudge will try to use the war cover for getting 'Even', on top of the killing in ranks...
    The guys that think there will be another 'Civil' war would do well to remember that since I'm sure anyone exposing such an idiotic idea has pissed plenty of people off!
     
    Last edited:

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    While a 'White Man' couldn't be a 'Slave' there was plenty of 'Indentured Servitude'.

    Indentured servitude was nothing close to chattel slavery. It's a false equivalence that is repeated by those who try to downplay the evil of slavery.

    Indentured servitude had an end. Chattel slavery was both for life and generational.
    Indentured servants (mostly) chose to enter that life. Slaves did not.
    Indentured servants maintained most human rights and bodily autonomy. Slaves did not.
     

    JeepHammer

    SHOOTER
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 2, 2018
    1,904
    83
    SW Indiana
    Indentured servitude was nothing close to chattel slavery. It's a false equivalence that is repeated by those who try to downplay the evil of slavery.

    Indentured servitude had an end. Chattel slavery was both for life and generational.
    Indentured servants (mostly) chose to enter that life. Slaves did not.
    Indentured servants maintained most human rights and bodily autonomy. Slaves did not.

    You are correct, and I wasn't trying to down play slavery, I simply didn't take into account the generational aspect.
    And,
    Indentured servants usually would up there by their own actions.

    Still, I wonder how many of the 'White Trash' class that like to run around with the Confederate battle flag waving would have wound up in the fields?

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

    The earliest ancestor in the US (then British colonies) was dragged over by the church, sold into servitude and escaped.
    The family name we carry is from the church, we don't actually know the European family name.
    Either he didn't know (too young), or didn't record it.
     

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    You are correct, and I wasn't trying to down play slavery, I simply didn't take into account the generational aspect.
    And,
    Indentured servants usually would up there by their own actions.

    Still, I wonder how many of the 'White Trash' class that like to run around with the Confederate battle flag waving would have wound up in the fields?

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

    The earliest ancestor in the US (then British colonies) was dragged over by the church, sold into servitude and escaped.
    The family name we carry is from the church, we don't actually know the European family name.
    Either he didn't know (too young), or didn't record it.

    From reading your whole post, I figured that we were pretty much on the same page, but I wanted to make sure those parts were stated explicitly.

    :ingo:
     
    Top Bottom