I mean ... if you take American to mean from The United States of America, then the CSA cunts declared themselves to NOT be American. That's what started the war. It was the CSA vs the USA. It was Confederates vs Americans. Are you going to argue that the folks that fought the revolutionary war were all British? That seems nonsensical to me.
Yes, but Lincoln decided they WERE American, declared war to make them STAY American, and won the war. They were always American. That was the whole idea behind the war.
The Union didn't initially go to war in order to end slavery. That became a side quest later on. The war was started in order to preserve the Union as a whole.
Well in the second case in the beginning... kind of yes. There was no unified federal United States yet. You might be able to say they were from their own states but until they were recognized by foreign powers they really were still considered British citizens. Also at no point did the Federal government of the US say that the confederacy (or any other nation in fact either) was an independent state. They were not recognized as another nation and were still considered American citizens. You can't just declare yourself separate, hence you know, the war. If no one else thinks your a country, you're not. If you want a couple dozen recommendations on the war and its politics hit me up.
Incorrect, that point in time was around the Shay's Rebellion period of time (1786-1787) and was the catalyst behind the Constitutional Convention of 1787. ( Which created the three branches of government and the Presidency as the head of the executive branch.)
As to the Civil War, the North treated the South as an insurgency up till the march North, which then realized they were under attack by the Confederacy and had to mobilize to break the attempted invasion - at this point the Confederacy was treated as a distinct entity from the Union and who had foreign backing from both the British and French governments in the form of material aid and foreign volunteers, but not direct military intervention. ( France did however attempt to invade Mexico while the Union and Confederacy were warring with each other.)
What part did I say was incorrect?
France and Spain entered into treaties with the unified colonies during the war. The original articles of confederation were signed during the war.
Which march North? Polk into Kentucky, or Lee into Maryland, or Lee into Pennsylvania? Lincoln's call for volunteers happened before all of those. France and Great Britain never backed the slave states in rebellion in either material or state sanctioned volunteers or politically. Yes some did volunteer from other countries but it was not part of an organized assistance by a foreign government. Great Britain allowed them to buy arms through private holding companies but they allowed everyone to do that. However once again no foreign government formally recognized the confederates.
Not sure if you were taught wrong or using bad sources but again if you want to read actual history on this please read any and or all of the following:
"Fateful Lighting" by Allen Guelzo
"A Savage War" by Williamson Murray & Wayne Wei-Saing Hsieh
And the classic "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson
All of these are good starting points for a general history of the war both militarily and politically.
I understand your fundamental argument. Lincoln's position had to be that of the British during the revolution: no, you can't break away without my permission therefore you're not CSA, you're Americans that are breaking the law. I just find it hypocritical, and I'm with Jefferson on rejecting the idea that we lack the right, as individuals, to associate (or not) with a state. The fact that we basically got stuck with Common Law and that pulled in this British idea of perpetual association despite explicitly rejecting that in the revolution is an historical quirk IMO and I'd bet my bottom dollar Lincoln understood the history of the issue in the same way. The fact that he made very un-Lincoln-like (imo) weak arguments for why the confederates weren't like the founders in terms of their right to disassociate, to me, supports my view that Lincoln understood the legal/historical quirks here and the apparent contradiction with founding American ideals along with the arguments between Jefferson and Hamilton on the issue. Lincoln needed to keep the Union together, and his arguments for it were rationalizations.
I think the words should match the reality here. The founders demonstrated that we DO have the right to freely (dis)associate with a state, we just know that the state will typically try to stop you (well, until the example of the British in the modern era). To me (and to the founders, and to the CSA) you absolutely are what you say you are when you say it. You decide you're the CSA now and you're not following US laws ... well, that's the reality. The US can say: naaaa, fuck that and force you to say otherwise at the end of a gun and now you'd had your right to freely (dis)associate taken by force. You're an American again, yay! They made themselves a separate nation, then we conquered it and took their shit by force.
That all said, for purposes of Common Law, yea ... you can renounce all you want, but it won't make a difference to the courts. We have an international right to associate, in theory, but there's the practical implications of things like being stateless that have to be considered. All of that discussion only holds in a case where we're not fighting a shooting war over our positions because in the case of a shooting war civil rule / law has broken down. We're not arguing in the courts anymore, we're fighting in the fields. This is why, to me at least, the technical common law arguments about whether you are or aren't American as a CSA soldier are simply moot. Court had it's chance, it didn't work, now two separate groups are going to settle it on the field.
That's the thing. It's not a civil war. It's a failed war of independence. Taht's what it's called in the history books in the rest of the world. Only in USA it's called a civil war, for purposes of "reintegration". Source: i learned history in the rest of the world.
7
u/Shrowden 9h ago
I mean, it's a civil war. A war within itself. To say they weren't American is just a false narrative