Rebel States citizen's rights.

[alexjack]

In view of the fact that part of the Federal government's stance on the War was that the Southern states were not and never would be a 'foreign' nation but would always be a part of the Union and therefore those State's citizens were American citizens, was it wrong to allow the Union army to destroy so much of these citizen's property, Atlanta for example? Were citizens of States formally in rebellion allowed any Federal compensation after the War and does anyone think they were entitled to it?

 

[General Lee]

In view of the fact that part of the Federal government's stance on the War was that the Southern states were not and never would be a 'foreign' nation but would always be a part of the Union and therefore those State's citizens were American citizens, was it wrong to allow the Union army to destroy so much of these citizen's property, Atlanta for example? Were citizens of States formally in rebellion allowed any Federal compensation after the War and does anyone think they were entitled to it?

Well saying that they were never independent is almost like saying from the British perspective we were never independent either. As Lee put it "I never thought I'd see the day when the president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country.”

 

[Matt McKeon]

From the British perspective, we were rebellious colonists, and if they had won, would remain part of the Empire. They committed a vast amount of damage fighting the war vs. the Patriots. I think that's what happens in a war.

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

big difference the guys in grey LOST

 

[diane]

In view of the fact that part of the Federal government's stance on the War was that the Southern states were not and never would be a 'foreign' nation but would always be a part of the Union and therefore those State's citizens were American citizens, was it wrong to allow the Union army to destroy so much of these citizen's property, Atlanta for example? Were citizens of States formally in rebellion allowed any Federal compensation after the War and does anyone think they were entitled to it?

There was a lot of legal wrangling after the war over just that matter. For example, Greenwood LeFlore was chief of the Choctaw and ran a very prosperous plantation but was staunchly Unionist. His next door neighbor was Col Aaron Forrest...who decidedly was not. There was a case filed for compensation after the war against Aaron Forrest for burning LeFlore's plantation up...not a lot of resolution, especially since both the Confederacy and Aaron Forrest were dead. Then there was the matter of British claims, such as the burning of cotton consigned to their merchants when Columbia was burned. (Judge more or less said everybody did it and the British claim was void.)

You mention an intriguing point - many of the rebels believed they were upholding true American principles and the Union was mistaken. But they were Americans, not rebels! It seems strange but people who had fought so vigorously against the government felt they should simply go back to how things were and get a little help picking up around the place. Family squabble, that's all!

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

In view of the fact that part of the Federal government's stance on the War was that the Southern states were not and never would be a 'foreign' nation but would always be a part of the Union and therefore those State's citizens were American citizens, was it wrong to allow the Union army to destroy so much of these citizen's property, Atlanta for example? Were citizens of States formally in rebellion allowed any Federal compensation after the War and does anyone think they were entitled to it?

No they were not. Post ACW Congress set up the Southern Claims Commission which allowed only loyal Southeners to file claims and for this they needed an attroney hired on a contingency basis. A claimant did well to receive two thirds of actual damages. The book" Loyalty and miss the ight of Alabama's Unionists" Margret Storey goes into great detail about the Southern Claims Commission.
Per the US Supreme Court decision Dow v.Johnson
neither Union or Confedrate soldiers are to be held liable for any damage down to property.
Kirk's Raiders

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

Well saying that they were never independent is almost like saying from the British perspective we were never independent either. As Lee put it "I never thought I'd see the day when the president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country.”

Lee was not a legal scholar. A nation can not invade itself. US troops have the right to suppress an insurgency just has President Washington led troops in to Pennsylvania to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
Kirk's Raiders

 

[General Lee]

Lee was not a legal scholar. A nation can not invade itself. US troops have the right to suppress an insurgency just has President Washington led troops in to Pennsylvania to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
Kirk's Raiders

He was a legal soldier and knew that the invasion of Virginia was wrong.

 

[Jim Klag]

He was a legal soldier and knew that the invasion of Virginia was wrong.

Actually he was a soldier in the US Army who violated his officer's oath and took up arms against the USA. From the time he entered West Point until the day he turned coat and went south, he never drew a breath that wasn't paid for by the US government which he had sworn an oath to defend.

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

He was a legal soldier and knew that the invasion of Virginia was wrong.

Many of Lee's peers such General Thomas also from Virginia and a legal soldier had no problems surpressing a Rebellion.
The US Supreme Court which is composed of legal experts had no problems with US military conduct during the ACW in particular the decisions Texas v.White and Dow v.Johnson.
Kirk's Raiders

 

[diane]

That's certainly true...but his name was Lee! Perhaps he would have stayed with the Union if he had not been Lighthorse Harry's son, married to the daughter of the Child of Mt Vernon, or had so many close connections to the Revolution. Being a Virginia Lee, he was related to just about every major family in the Old Dominion. His sons had their inheritances in Virginia and would fight for them - he did not want to raise his hand against them. In the end, he chose Virginia over the Union. Fateful decision!

 

[General Lee]

Actually he was a soldier in the US Army who violated his officer's oath and took up arms against the USA. From the time he entered West Point until the day he turned coat and went south, he never drew a breath that wasn't paid for by the US government which he had sworn an oath to defend.

He left to defend his home from being invaded. What could be a better cause in the war than that ?

 

[Jim Klag]

He left to defend his home from being invaded. What could be a better cause in the war than that ?

Almost everything else is better than betraying your country.

 

[General Lee]

Almost everything else is better than betraying your country.

The same country that was in the hands of the government that was going to invade your homeland.

 

[Jim Klag]

The same country that was in the hands of the government that was going to invade your homeland.

Typical neo-con statement. THE WHOLE DAMN THING WAS THE USA. NONE OF IT WAS A FOREIGN COUNTRY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO GO INTO VIRGINIA TO PUT DOWN REBELLION, IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO. THE CRIME WAS TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - THAT CRIME IS IN BLACK AND WHITE, NOT SOMEONE'S INCORRECT OPINION.

 

[Matt McKeon]

In view of the fact that part of the Federal government's stance on the War was that the Southern states were not and never would be a 'foreign' nation but would always be a part of the Union and therefore those State's citizens were American citizens, was it wrong to allow the Union army to destroy so much of these citizen's property, Atlanta for example? Were citizens of States formally in rebellion allowed any Federal compensation after the War and does anyone think they were entitled to it?

The main economic damage the South took was losing several billion dollars worth of human flesh. So the slave owners forment a rebellion, cause a major war with hundreds of thousands of dead, then at the end of it, they get a government check as well? Ahhhhh...no.

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

The main economic damage the South took was losing several billion dollars worth of human flesh. So the slave owners forment a rebellion, cause a major war with hundreds of thousands of dead, then at the end of it, they get a government check as well? Ahhhhh...no.

Well actually since at least the end of WWII almost all Southern states which for some reason not Alabama receive more in federal revenue then they pay in taxes. Southern states also pay tremendous subsidies to out of state and foreign companies to relocate or build factories in their states. So we will call it delayed financial satisfaction.
Kirk's Raiders

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

The same country that was in the hands of the government that was going to invade your homeland.

just to remember who fired ad Fort S? and did all that seizing and threatenings before?

or in short started that war?


hint the did wear the same uniform coulours that Germany was used to wear (but obviously no Hugo Boss uniforms)

 

[jgoodguy]

He was a legal soldier and knew that the invasion of Virginia was wrong.

The winner in a war decides who is wrong.

The Union could have chosen the Spartacus option. Hang a rebel at every milepost.

 

[jgoodguy]

The same country that was in the hands of the government that was going to invade your homeland.

So what? Every rebel since the age of throwing stones has claimed where he was was his homeland.