they were fighting for the right to secede..in order to protect their right to own people.
Nobody has argued that fighting against the American government is treason as he has said we/I have. His entire post is false.
People have in fact made that point here in the thread. So again, where was he wrong?
Can we legally build a US army fort in the middle of The People's Republic of China and then occupy it without their consent? Why weren't the Dutch, Spanish and British allowed to keep and occupy their forts within US territory after the US was formed and our boundaries established? Do you realize how absurd your argument here is?
Nice dodge. So, is your contention that the original intent of the Confederacy was to invade the Union? You sure you wanna go down this road? All you have offered thus far is "they probably didn't mean what they said because they were politicians......." or some such nonsense. I will provide many quotes from Confederate leaders and show where on at least four occasions, Davis attempted to send emissaries to Washington to negotiate a "peaceful separation" and said emissaries were turned away by Lincoln and the Union. I have historical, documented FACT on my side. What you got player? A bunch of unsubstantiated suspicions? Go home rookie................ you're not ready for the "A" game yet. :lol:
Thanks for the History lesson genius :lol: Could anyone argue that Cuba does not have the legal right to demand the return of its territory? Does any nation on the planet have the legal right to ask the US to abandon our embassies within their borders and leave? Are those foreign embassies legally/technically US property? Was our base in the Philippines legally/technically US property? Why did we abandon it? By the way, in case you haven't figured it out, these questions are rhetorical......please spare me another one of your enlightening history lessons.
I believe documented historical evidence, of which you have provided zilch. If you can produce some real evidence that shows that the CSA planned all along to invade the Union, then I will do what most Historians do......compare yours to mine and side with the most convincing. But, until that happens (and it won't) I'll go with Davis' and Lee's documented words over your unsubstantiated, prejudicial, and biased suspicions. :shrug:
The OP is making a point on a specific situation not general flag flying. Flying the US flag in immediate post Revolutionary War is a comparable situation where as general flag flying is not. The OP specified this later in the thread. And at 82 pages I don't blame you for not going through the whole thing. I semi-withdrew when my last post was followed by about 10 new pages before I could get back the next day.
FluffyNinja had the perfect response below.And as far as the northern point of view. Well, they had the point of view that their regions economic interests were more important than correctly applying the constitution towards trade, so I'm less than sympathetic to their particular thinking at the time.
How do you figure that the south was looking for a fight. The south declared intent to leave the union in writing. The south requested that Union troops leave southern territory after secession, which the north refused. Southern generals refused the idea of marching into the north in lieu of a defensive war. I've heard a few historians say that marching north may have actually turned the odds around in the war(though we'll never know). So no, the south wasn't looking for a fight, just to be left alone.