Why was the CSA called the "Confederacy" when it wasn't confederal?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Here are the (slight) differences listed between the CSA Constitution and the U.S. one: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Even though I wish the CSA had won, because the Union was the aggressor, I think the CSA kind of deserved to lose for two reasons. First, it was stupid as shit to invade Gettysburg, and the 2nd, because they didn't base their government on the Articles of Confederation, even though they wanted states' rights and were opposed to taxation and even though their victory would've been secured if they had fought like the Revolutionaries did (i.e., decentralized, guerilla warfare, and not invading the enemy's territory).

All in all, the CSA Constitution was only marginally better. It still sucked though.

The thing I don't get away with is how the CSA gets away with having the name it does, because it's not confederate. That's ultimately the so-called CSA's biggest crime (other than being intellectually dishonest about states' rights).
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Because there is no ICANN for country names. They didn't get away with it. The Northern states were so outraged that they dared name themselves Confederate they waged 4 years of bloody war to change it.
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
does it matter? really?? honestly does it matter? Opps I am feeding the troll...
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,366
8,478
126
Bananawaffle.jpg
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
They wouldnt have won. Back then wars were fought scorched earth style, so-called guerrilla warfare does not survive that. As Mao said you drain the lake to get the fish and Sherman did.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
They wouldnt have won. Back then wars were fought scorched earth style, so-called guerrilla warfare does not survive that. As Mao said you drain the lake to get the fish and Sherman did.

Not really. The only real hope they had however was the same hope that the original USA had when fighting the British in that geopolitical considerations would ultimately work out to the benefit of the south. Britain could have completely crushed the American Revolution if they had been able to throw their full military might into fighting it. France and Spain made that impossible and eventually it was either end it or fight France as well. Had the French or British recognized the CSA things could well have been entirely different.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,998
51,493
136
Here are the (slight) differences listed between the CSA Constitution and the U.S. one: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Even though I wish the CSA had won, because the Union was the aggressor, I think the CSA kind of deserved to lose for two reasons. First, it was stupid as shit to invade Gettysburg, and the 2nd, because they didn't base their government on the Articles of Confederation, even though they wanted states' rights and were opposed to taxation and even though their victory would've been secured if they had fought like the Revolutionaries did (i.e., decentralized, guerilla warfare, and not invading the enemy's territory).

All in all, the CSA Constitution was only marginally better. It still sucked though.

The thing I don't get away with is how the CSA gets away with having the name it does, because it's not confederate. That's ultimately the so-called CSA's biggest crime (other than being intellectually dishonest about states' rights).

They didn't fight guerrilla war style because they were fighting to protect their property in slaves. Even if this wasn't initially the stated objective of the Union, that's why the Confederacy seceded, and that's what THEY were fighting for. If you let the Union occupy all your plantations, you lose all your slaves.

Christ you're stupid.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The North was industrialized; the South built on agriculture.
The South had less resources and was subject to a war of attrition.
they could not replace the materials or manpower like the North was able to.

While the South had the better military leadership; they could not press the advantage home when ahead. Again, lack of resources.

Gettysburg was to show that they were able to take the war to the North; that the south would not always be on the defensive.

Mananas/Bull Run was where they had the opportunity to cleanup Washington; but they did not do so.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
They didn't fight guerrilla war style because they were fighting to protect their property in slaves. Even if this wasn't initially the stated objective of the Union, that's why the Confederacy seceded, and that's what THEY were fighting for. If you let the Union occupy all your plantations, you lose all your slaves.

Christ you're stupid.

That explains at most 33% of the Confederate army, how do you explain the 67% non-slave owing portion of it?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
con&#183;fed&#183;er&#183;a&#183;tion/k&#601;n&#716;fed&#601;&#712;r&#257;SH&#601;n/Noun

1. Alliance, association, or league in which independent entities retain their distinction and sovereignty but delegate some powers and rights to a central body (such as a central or federal government) which remains subordinate to the entities. Also called confederacy. See also federation.


They are called the "Confederated States" because they were a confederation.

/thread
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,254
30,241
146
They did not invade Gettysburg.

some dudes went looking for some new shoes, and a fight broke out.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
That explains at most 33&#37; of the Confederate army, how do you explain the 67% non-slave owing portion of it?

The same way you explain the poor and middle class in this country wanting lower taxes for the rich-- they believed they would someday be slaveowners. They were also desperately afraid of free blacks. Can you imagine what they'd do to white women with those enormous penises??
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
So let me get your logic straight here.

You think the Confederacy deserved to lose the war because they didn't adopt the Articles of the Confederation?

...The tried-and-failed constitution from 80 years prior?

...Which had a completely different political situation compared to the civil war era?

...Which was designed the balance the disparate desires of the original 13 colonies, not a bunch of southern states which all had roughly the same interests?

...Which completely failed due to a small local rebellion?

...During a war with a much larger and more powerful and industrialized northern union?


Are you kidding?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,998
51,493
136
That explains at most 33% of the Confederate army, how do you explain the 67% non-slave owing portion of it?

Huh? Individual soldiers rallied to defend their homes and their way of life. (that just so happened to be a horrific, racist, slave empire) The leadership who chose to secede to begin with and who were in charge of the planning and execution of the war explicitly, by their own words, left the union to protect the institution of slavery.

If you don't believe me, go read the declarations of secession that the states themselves ratified.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
So let me get your logic straight here.

You think the Confederacy deserved to lose the war because they didn't adopt the Articles of the Confederation?

...The tried-and-failed constitution from 80 years prior?

...Which had a completely different political situation compared to the civil war era?

...Which was designed the balance the disparate desires of the original 13 colonies, not a bunch of southern states which all had roughly the same interests?

...Which completely failed due to a small local rebellion?

...During a war with a much larger and more powerful and industrialized northern union?


Are you kidding?
The Articles of Confederation didn't fail (it was illegally replaced at the request of NE merchants), and I wasn't kidding in the least:)

Industrialization and high-tech weaponary doesn't mean much when it's fighting guerilla warfare. A $1k RPG can take out a $6m M1A1 tank.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,998
51,493
136
The Articles of Confederation didn't fail (it was illegally replaced at the request of NE merchants), and I wasn't kidding in the least:)

Yes it did fail, and no it wasn't illegally replaced. The easiest way to see that it failed was that eventually 100% of the states that adopted it decided to do something else.

As for the illegality, if the Constitution was illegal then so was the Declaration of Independence and any government it spawned. (ie: the Articles of Confederation themselves)

Don't you ever get tired of saying stupid things?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
The Articles of Confederation were replaced in 1788, with the last state ratifying the the Constitution in 1790.

Contrary to Anarchist's assertions - Not only was the debate which initiated the change started by the SOUTH (SC Congressman Charles Pinckney), but also the VIRGINIA Legislature had invited all of the states to revise the articles in what was later called the Constitutional Convention (May 14 through Sept 17, 1787)

In the end, they decided they couldn't make the original Articles satisfy their needs (indeed, some delegates intended on starting over before the Convention began), so the delegates wrote the Constitution.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Huh? Individual soldiers rallied to defend their homes and their way of life. (that just so happened to be a horrific, racist, slave empire) The leadership who chose to secede to begin with and who were in charge of the planning and execution of the war explicitly, by their own words, left the union to protect the institution of slavery.

If you don't believe me, go read the declarations of secession that the states themselves ratified.

Only problem with that is that there was 0 chance of slavery ending by force in any of the states that formed the Confederacy if not for the Civil War. Lincoln himself was on record as saying that it would not be affected in any current slave holding state. I am not one that claims that the Civil War was not about slavery because in the end slavery was the issue that exposed the fractures that led to it. The secessionists were really driven by a vision of dwindling power in the Federal government and Lincoln was certainly opposed to the further expansion of slavery and that was the driving force behind the secessionist movement. And even that is really over simplification of what was a very complex set of issues that led to states that didn't even necessarily have the same interests other than permitting slavery to band together in a confederation. In the end the weakness of the central government of that confederation contributed to it's ultimate defeat which is what is so humorous about the OP's contention that the Confederacy was no different than the Federal system of the US.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
This thread somewhat ignores another main factor, and the fact the whole Southern Strategy was based on with holding American Cotton from World Markets. And if the CSA could last long enough, the cotton mills of England would shut down for lack of raw materials. So England would intervene on the side of the South, and the CSA would be saved.

But as we all know, no nation was willing to intervene to save the CSA, leaving the CSA in a long and losing battle of attrition.