All of the dumb American Civil War shitposting threads has made me want to post this. How should southern unionists be viewed for the period? There was about as many southern unionists in the Union Army as there were blacks. It caused Virginia to divide into two states and some states like Tennessee had major unionist strongholds. Many of them didn't get along with the southern aristocrats or were southern aristocrats themselves who valued the union over the ideals of the CSA yet many also weren't Republicans or Lincoln supporters. After the war some played a major role in trying to pick up the pieces and many showed a lot of leniency for their secessionist brothers in the goal of reunifying the south and yet their legacy seems to be mostly forgotten and most northerners and southerners think all southerners served the Confederacy. It's like they're the black sheep since they're not yanks but they weren't rebs either plus they weren't built the monuments that northern unionists or southern rebels got. Even Grant in his memoirs noted how much he admired their bravery to stand for their ideals.
All of the dumb American Civil War shitposting threads has made me want to post this...
>How should southern unionists be viewed for the period?
Loyal, good and ideal citizens from states in active and illegal rebellion
Texas' darkest hour is when we turned our backs on our Founding Father. Kicking Sam Houston out of office is a shame we will carry for generations more.
If it makes it any better unionism versus secession divided most of the Confederate states, not just Texas. South Carolina was the only state not to have a unionist regiment.
Mississippi too. Mississippi's loyalist US Army personnel were in the double digits.
Sherman should have marched there
Mississippi had one lone unionist regiment called the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles but it was a really small regiment I believe and was mostly used to guard Memphis and police Mississippi.
>illegal rebellion
>tfw user knows better than men present at the constitutional convention
>implying any of the framers were secessionists
Antifederalists are traitors
>Antifederalists are traitors
Most federalists held that it was legal. Calhoun did not believe in it until he went to Yale college and imbibed it from the chief of the ct federalist party
...
Wrong
>every principle of secession or states' rights which Calhoun ever voiced can be traced right back to the thinking of intellectual New England ... Not the South, not slavery, but Yale College and Litchfield Law School made Calhoun a nullifier ... Dwight, Reeve, and Gould could not convince the young patriot from South Carolina as to the desirability of secession, but they left no doubts in his mind as to its legality
What c*nfederate garbage did you get that from
>What c*nfederate garbage did you get that from
Secession is contradicted by the supremacy clause of Article 6 of the Constitution
That's nullification
contradicts, nullifies, your splitting hairs
...
It only forbids nullification
It strips the states of sovereignty which means they do not have the authority to secede
>It strips the states of sovereignty
It merely states that the federal government has the final say under the constitution.
Exactly. Which is to say the federal government has greater authority than the state governments. Which means the state governments don't have the authority to dissolve the Union.
>Which is to say the federal government has greater authority than the state governments
So long as those state governments are under the authority of the constitution
>Which means the state governments don't have the authority to dissolve the Union.
Huge leap of logic
Can a general fire the commander-in-chief? No. Why? Because he has less authority than the commander-in-chief. He is subordinate, the commander is supreme. The same applies to the states and the Union.
...
Lol
Sam Houston was a Knight of the Golden Circle.
There were quite a few Unionists who thought it was only possible under one flag.