So if the south are traitors during the civil war...

[Keep cool-idge]

Well okay i have seen tons of people say that Robert E Lee is hitler and is a traitor to the country but what everyone fails to mention is that the north during the war of 1812 talked about leaving the union but I'm going to take it one step further here we go

In November 1860 Stephen A. Douglas wins a close election promising to end slavery in new states but pledging to keep it in the south so at this point December 1860 Massachusetts Ohio and Maine reveal they are leaving the union January 1861 Vermont Michigan New Hampshire and Pennsylvania also do the same march 1861 Connecticut Rhode Island New York and New Jersey and finally April 1861 Illinois Wisconsin and Minnesota vote to leave iowa almost does but barely votes it down.

So now you have civil war the northern states of America with president Abe Lincoln and general grant in charge of the northern states of America army.

So if that would have happened would Abe Lincoln had been a traitor to the country if the north left because they wanted to ban slavery would they have been worse then ISIS or the 911 highjackers ?

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

[Virginiá]

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

no

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is no scenario where a Douglas victory leads to northern secession.

The only possible equivalent would be a Breckinridge presidency where he declares owning slaves a human right and vows to bring it back to the North. If he attempted to impose it on the north and forcibly enslave the free blacks living there, that would be a casus belli in its own right. There was no such equivalent event in the South - especially as Lincoln hadn't even taken office yet when they seceded.

[Ye We Can]

Well okay i have seen tons of people say that Robert E Lee is hitler and is a traitor to the country but what everyone fails to mention is that the north during the war of 1812 talked about leaving the union but I'm going to take it one step further here we go

In November 1860 Stephen A. Douglas wins a close election promising to end slavery in new states but pledging to keep it in the south so at this point December 1860 Massachusetts Ohio and Maine reveal they are leaving the union January 1861 Vermont Michigan New Hampshire and Pennsylvania also do the same march 1861 Connecticut Rhode Island New York and New Jersey and finally April 1861 Illinois Wisconsin and Minnesota vote to leave iowa almost does but barely votes it down.

So now you have civil war the northern states of America with president Abe Lincoln and general grant in charge of the northern states of America army.

So if that would have happened would Abe Lincoln had been a traitor to the country if the north left because they wanted to ban slavery would they have been worse then ISIS or the 911 highjackers ?

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

LOL at this thread

Just lol

[Dr. Arch]

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

no

[Keep cool-idge]

Okay IF it did happen would support the northern states of America or America
And would general grant be a traitor?

[GeorgiaModerate]

How about moving this to the Alternative History forum?

[Ye We Can]

Okay IF it did happen would support the northern states of America or America
And would general grant be a traitor?

It isn't going to happen, because your scenario doesn't make any sense in the context of the political situation in 1860 or the characters involved.

[Keep cool-idge]

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

no

Dang he really sounds like a racist

Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. In 1855, he was instrumental in the organization of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up." The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".

[Keep cool-idge]

Okay IF it did happen would support the northern states of America or America
And would general grant be a traitor?

It isn't going to happen, because your scenario doesn't make any sense in the context of the political situation in 1860 or the characters involved.

I'm saying IF it happened fine let's say Jefferson Davis is elected president of America would you support America or the northern states of America?

[ProudModerate2]

And what if the Volcans attacked the Rumulans, does that mean they are traitors to the United Federation of Planets ?
And if so, can we or can we not have statues of Spock ?
But remember and take into consideration, that the Klingon Empire enslaved the people of the Romulan Star Empire. And the the Borg ate the little babies of the Dominion.
And the people of the Cardassian Union, enjoyed eating at McDonalds.

Honestly, what a ridiculous thread !
If you can follow my post, then you can also understand the OP.

[Ye We Can]

Okay IF it did happen would support the northern states of America or America
And would general grant be a traitor?

It isn't going to happen, because your scenario doesn't make any sense in the context of the political situation in 1860 or the characters involved.

I'm saying IF it happened fine let's say Jefferson Davis is elected president of America would support America or the northern states of America?

Again almost impossible in 1860, but obviously the North, as such a conflict that you describe would only come about through radical fire eaters in the government pushing slavery, but ya know it isn't going to happen.

[Keep cool-idge]

And what if the Volcans attacked the Rumulans, does that mean they are traitors to the United Federation of Planets ?
And if so, can we or can we not have statues of Spock ?
But remember and take into consideration, that the Klingon Empire enslaved the people of the Romulan Star Empire. And the the Borg ate the little babies of the Dominion.
And the people of the Cardassian Union, enjoyed eating at McDonalds.

Honestly, what a ridiculous thread !
If you can follow my post, then you can also understand the OP.

What are you talking about I know you hate the southern generals but still that's to far.

[Keep cool-idge]

Okay IF it did happen would support the northern states of America or America
And would general grant be a traitor?

It isn't going to happen, because your scenario doesn't make any sense in the context of the political situation in 1860 or the characters involved.

I'm saying IF it happened fine let's say Jefferson Davis is elected president of America would support America or the northern states of America?

Again almost impossible in 1860, but obviously the North, as such a conflict that you describe would only come about through radical fire eaters in the government pushing slavery, but ya know it isn't going to happen.

Again what the fact that North had talked about leaving the union again though if the north left the union would they be traitors to the country?

[Kingpoleon]

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

no

Dang he really sounds like a racist

Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. In 1855, he was instrumental in the organization of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up." The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".

You think describing the "ignorant African race" means that the slave owners who said that were... um... remotely objective?

I don't know why everyone's obsessed with treason and traitors, but yes, the Free States of America would be traitors, and the remaining USA would not have conquered them or put up statues to them. Of course, treason in the name of abolition and treason in the name of slavery and greatly expanding slavery are not both morally the same from any objective point of view.

[Keep cool-idge]

So everyone please stop trashing Robert E Lee and Stonewall  Jackson.

no

Dang he really sounds like a racist

Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. In 1855, he was instrumental in the organization of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up." The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".

You think describing the "ignorant African race" means that the slave owners who said that were... um... remotely objective?

I don't know why everyone's obsessed with treason and traitors, but yes, the Free States of America would be traitors, and the remaining USA would not have conquered them or put up statues to them. Of course, treason in the name of abolition and treason in the name of slavery and greatly expanding slavery are not both morally the same from any objective point of view.

Did you miss the part where he wanted to teach them about god with opening up a Sunday school and the part where is called a black mans friend?

[Cashew]

You got trolled if you are taking the treason argument that seriously. Most people who use that line of attack are just trying to shut up hypocritical "patriots", not argue that treason is bad because of it's very nature. Instead of trying to hide behind technicalities, the motives behind secession are what merit discussion.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The north did not secede so that point is moot.

[Wakie77]

This is a very stretched what if.  The nearest anyone in the north came to secession was New York City wherein some wanted to have a "free city".

[Keep cool-idge]

The north did not secede so that point is moot.

All I'm saying is if had been the north that caused the civil war the history books would praise the north besides you all realize that Abe Lincoln could care less about slaves right heck his whole plan was to free them and send them back to Africa or South America Lincoln even said a whole bunch that the war was not about slavery you want to know where I'm getting my info from
The ken burns civil war series he made.

[Keep cool-idge]

Here
http://radioboston.legacy.wbur.org/2012/06/15/new-england-succession
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

[Sumner 1868]

Here
http://radioboston.legacy.wbur.org/2012/06/15/new-england-succession
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

A small faction of Essex Juneau Federalists, who didn't even represent the majority in the party, yet nonetheless lead the Federalists to be punished with electoral annihilation by the voters. Meaning even when such secessionist sentiment peaked it was still very fringe. Regardless, arguing what things would have been like if x was y is almost always a bad way to make an argument.

The north did not secede so that point is moot.

All I'm saying is if had been the north that caused the civil war the history books would praise the north besides you all realize that Abe Lincoln could care less about slaves right heck his whole plan was to free them and send them back to Africa or South America Lincoln even said a whole bunch that the war was not about slavery you want to know where I'm getting my info from
The ken burns civil war series he made.

Fortunately, Lincoln had little to do with shaping the character of the war given he didn't start it (remember it wasn't the Union that fired at Fort Sumter), so the Radical Republicans largely stepped in. Regardless, Burns "Civil War" is known to be full of numerous historical errors.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

But what if Winston Churchill started World War II? ? ? ? ? ?

[Kingpoleon]

But what if Winston Churchill started World War II? ? ? ? ? ?

Wow! I guess the Nazis weren't so bad!

[Wakie77]

The north did not secede so that point is moot.

All I'm saying is if had been the north that caused the civil war the history books would praise the north besides you all realize that Abe Lincoln could care less about slaves right heck his whole plan was to free them and send them back to Africa or South America Lincoln even said a whole bunch that the war was not about slavery you want to know where I'm getting my info from
The ken burns civil war series he made.

You are being very selective in your usage of the Burns material.  Yes, Lincoln did advocate the "back to Africa" movement.  And yes, there are some historians in the documentary who are very critical of him.  But you are forgetting the numerous individuals throughout who point out that Lincoln was a master politician operating within the limitations of his time.  Lincoln's writings and speeches leading up to his election clearly indicate he was anti-slavery but he had no intention of ending it, just preventing its spread.

Yes, history is written by the victor, but in the case of the Civil War the South did rebel.  Their leadership did so because they were afraid of losing financial and political power which the institution of slavery afforded them.  The lower classes in the South did it because, quite honestly, the upper classes told them the North was trying to destroy their way of life.  In short, advancing technology and social attitudes scared them so they wanted to make the South "great again".

You may have an argument that the South had a legal right to secede, but morality was not on their side.