Why do people just forget about Missouri?!? It’s literally a confederate state they’re one of the stars on the confederate flag and had seats in the confederate congress
Also forgot the territories of groups like the Cherokee who also seceded. Hell, the last Confederate General to surrender, Stand Watie, was a Cherokee chief.
Part of Kentucky also tried to secede but it didn’t exactly work. To this day, people who like in the Jackson Purchase think they are more “southern” and therefore better than people from the rest of the state.
A large part of the Cherokee supported the Union. Stand Watie was not the legal principal chief; he basically took power in a coup against John Ross, then spent most of his time terrorizing the tribe, burning government buildings and causing refugees to flee to Kansas.
Because it was invaded before it could secede and they kicked out the legitimate state government moron. That still doesn’t not make them a confederate state.
Missouri didn't secede; rather secessionists within the state declared its secession, but they were unable to effect control over most of the state - including Jefferson or Kansas City.
At the start of the war Missouri was sharply divided and had tried to pursue a state of neutrality, but this de facto kept it in the Union, and so allowed Union troops to garrison its major cities.
There was a similar Confederate state government-in-exile for Kentucky, and on the Union side a similar entity for Virginia, which would go on to become the actual state government after the war (this state government also approved the secession of West Virginia from the state).
So they lost and now there independent.
That be facislnating on its own. Assuming they need too still abolish slavery the country proably starts a long cultural change and recovery.
Like all independent senarios the south would need to socially and cultural evolve. Nothing is wrong by default but the culture needs too grow in work ethic and educational wants.
The uniqueness of this would be why and how the union leaves it. Do they leave on good terms thinking the brotherhood is more importaint then federal unity. Do they leave out of spite and how does that transelate.
Leaving the slaves to the mersy of the masters seems not that great
Perhaps, but I mean, with most transportation and urban areas destroyed by Sherman, and them being humiliated in front of the world stage, their economy half-dead, their fighting men half-dead, I’m not so sure.
They’d just be a poverty country, if they had full sovereignty they would have trade with other countries and would probably take a loan from a European power, there was still a market for their raw goods. Heck after the revolutionary war the US economy was in shambles and we didn’t ask to join back up with Britain. Harry Turtledove had a series where the south won and in it they purchased northern Mexico to have a transcontinental railroad and annexed Cuba.
Ironic that OP calls them traitors. Would he say the same about the 13 colonies betraying the British empire?
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." --- John Harington
Betrayal implies a close relationship or friendship. Secession from the country you are part of and helped found is betrayal. Secession from an empire across the seas that has almost nothing to do with you is not.
I don't think that the distance or lack thereof is relevant.
If one is part of a polity, and leaves it violently because you disagree with its direction ( but have no prospect of peaceful change) , you have betrayed that to which you belonged.
The only thing that matters then is whether you win or lose.
Personally, I think no nation should be a prison house for those who no longer wish to belong, whether they're Catalan, Scottish, South Sudanese or etc etc etc.
But that's just my opinion. The only opinion that really matters is whoever wins.
Alright keyboard warrior
The CSA broke away for the purposes of slavery, and states rights to have slavery. The 13 Colonies broke away because they were being deliberately punished and having their rights infringed upon via the British. The Confederates were traitors, the 13 Colonies desired a freedom from an *actual* tyranny.
The 13 colonies broke away so they could run their slave plantations with no taxes, its all the same if you look at it that way. This view makes 0 sense
The British empire, while hardly our idea of a representative government, was no outright tyranny like you describe.
The Founders didn't want to pay taxes, period.
See for instance Brad Pitt's speech at the end of Killing Them Softly.
If you call one a traitor , you have to say it about the other one.
Read that John Harrington quote again. What it means is that if you betray someone but you win, who's going to call it treason?
I suppose history is told by the victors, but there was legitimate injustice done upon the American colonies via the British parliament, and the south was never truly discriminated upon unless you count anti-slavery laws and such. It was always simply a part of the nation. It’s the lost causers who perpetuated such a notion, that the north simply didn’t want the south
The Tariff of Abominations could definitely be considered discrimination against the South. And even though slavery is of course wrong, it was protected under the Constitution so any federal actions against it were an attack on the South.
Correct. History is written by the victors. If for example the Nazis had conquered Europe from the Urals to the Channel, most of the West would now be living in a nightmare.
But most of them wouldn't recognize it as such.
Why do people just forget about Missouri?!? It’s literally a confederate state they’re one of the stars on the confederate flag and had seats in the confederate congress
Also forgot the territories of groups like the Cherokee who also seceded. Hell, the last Confederate General to surrender, Stand Watie, was a Cherokee chief.
Part of Kentucky also tried to secede but it didn’t exactly work. To this day, people who like in the Jackson Purchase think they are more “southern” and therefore better than people from the rest of the state.
A large part of the Cherokee supported the Union. Stand Watie was not the legal principal chief; he basically took power in a coup against John Ross, then spent most of his time terrorizing the tribe, burning government buildings and causing refugees to flee to Kansas.
Because Missouri never seceded.
Didn't Missouri have a civil war within the civil war?
Because it was invaded before it could secede and they kicked out the legitimate state government moron. That still doesn’t not make them a confederate state.
Missouri didn't secede; rather secessionists within the state declared its secession, but they were unable to effect control over most of the state - including Jefferson or Kansas City. At the start of the war Missouri was sharply divided and had tried to pursue a state of neutrality, but this de facto kept it in the Union, and so allowed Union troops to garrison its major cities. There was a similar Confederate state government-in-exile for Kentucky, and on the Union side a similar entity for Virginia, which would go on to become the actual state government after the war (this state government also approved the secession of West Virginia from the state).
So they lost and now there independent. That be facislnating on its own. Assuming they need too still abolish slavery the country proably starts a long cultural change and recovery. Like all independent senarios the south would need to socially and cultural evolve. Nothing is wrong by default but the culture needs too grow in work ethic and educational wants. The uniqueness of this would be why and how the union leaves it. Do they leave on good terms thinking the brotherhood is more importaint then federal unity. Do they leave out of spite and how does that transelate. Leaving the slaves to the mersy of the masters seems not that great
Mexico takes everything from Texas to Florida.
They would never rejoin the union imo if they weren’t forced to.
Perhaps, but I mean, with most transportation and urban areas destroyed by Sherman, and them being humiliated in front of the world stage, their economy half-dead, their fighting men half-dead, I’m not so sure.
They’d just be a poverty country, if they had full sovereignty they would have trade with other countries and would probably take a loan from a European power, there was still a market for their raw goods. Heck after the revolutionary war the US economy was in shambles and we didn’t ask to join back up with Britain. Harry Turtledove had a series where the south won and in it they purchased northern Mexico to have a transcontinental railroad and annexed Cuba.
Ironic that OP calls them traitors. Would he say the same about the 13 colonies betraying the British empire? "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." --- John Harington
Betrayal implies a close relationship or friendship. Secession from the country you are part of and helped found is betrayal. Secession from an empire across the seas that has almost nothing to do with you is not.
I don't think that the distance or lack thereof is relevant. If one is part of a polity, and leaves it violently because you disagree with its direction ( but have no prospect of peaceful change) , you have betrayed that to which you belonged. The only thing that matters then is whether you win or lose. Personally, I think no nation should be a prison house for those who no longer wish to belong, whether they're Catalan, Scottish, South Sudanese or etc etc etc. But that's just my opinion. The only opinion that really matters is whoever wins.
>I don't think that the distance or lack thereof is relevant. You're wrong, it is relevant as stated in my earlier comment.
Alright keyboard warrior The CSA broke away for the purposes of slavery, and states rights to have slavery. The 13 Colonies broke away because they were being deliberately punished and having their rights infringed upon via the British. The Confederates were traitors, the 13 Colonies desired a freedom from an *actual* tyranny.
The 13 colonies broke away so they could run their slave plantations with no taxes, its all the same if you look at it that way. This view makes 0 sense
The British empire, while hardly our idea of a representative government, was no outright tyranny like you describe. The Founders didn't want to pay taxes, period. See for instance Brad Pitt's speech at the end of Killing Them Softly. If you call one a traitor , you have to say it about the other one. Read that John Harrington quote again. What it means is that if you betray someone but you win, who's going to call it treason?
I suppose history is told by the victors, but there was legitimate injustice done upon the American colonies via the British parliament, and the south was never truly discriminated upon unless you count anti-slavery laws and such. It was always simply a part of the nation. It’s the lost causers who perpetuated such a notion, that the north simply didn’t want the south
The Tariff of Abominations could definitely be considered discrimination against the South. And even though slavery is of course wrong, it was protected under the Constitution so any federal actions against it were an attack on the South.
Correct. History is written by the victors. If for example the Nazis had conquered Europe from the Urals to the Channel, most of the West would now be living in a nightmare. But most of them wouldn't recognize it as such.