A civil war is one in which two or more factions try to take control of the same seat of government.
Such as the “puritan Round Heads and the Royals in England in the 1600s.
In America in the 1860s, Southern countries called states legally seceded from the American Revolutionaries Volunteer Union when they saw the closet queer atheist Marxist manic depressive rabidly racist against blacks
shyster rail road lawyer trying to turn into a Mandatory Marxist Soviet styled Military Dictatorship.
There were African slaves in yankeeland AFTER the South was defeated by yankee terrorism against women, little children and old men.
It was not till December of 1861 the 13th amendment took ownership of yankee African slaves and transferred ownership to Lincolns
US “history” text books should be filed under F for Fiction in libraries.
I will add, I am a Texican.
The fruit of the poison tree is poison.
Applied to the illegally occupied militarily in a continuing war crime by the Marxist Lincoln’s Mandatory military Dictatorship, Republic of Texas, this means for 158 years and counting Real Texicans have not been allowed their own military, their own courts, and their own governments.
This then means ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS’ which is a sub corporation of the US Corporation
can NEVER be a legal government of the illegally occupied militarily Republic of Texas.
‘THE STATE OF TEXAS’ is the poison fruit of the US/DC poison tree, and can NEVER be made nonpoisonous.
The US/DC has NEVER removed their Illegal occupation troops from the Occupied Illegally in a 158 year long continuing War Crime, Republic of Texas.
Talk of ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS’
“seceding” from their US parent Corporation is but a mind F##K to try to continue the illegal occupation once the US Corporation hits the wall.
The Ole Dog!
Understanding the Illegal US Criminal Invasion Of the Confederate States Of America, Lyingly Called a “Civil War”
Paul Craig Roberts– Before I answer the questions it needs to be clearly stated that my answers are not merely my opinion, but hard facts supported in the historical record. Like John Maynard Keynes, I like to keep my views in accordance with the facts. In the case of what is called “the Civil War,” the facts are clear enough.
Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the 2 March 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union. On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.
“On 2 March 1861, in a futile attempt to prevent the secession of the slaveholding states, Congress proposed, and sent to the states for ratification, a constitutional amendment designed to protect slavery in the states where it existed.”
If the Republicans invaded the South to overthrow slavery, why did they pass a constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery forever? If the South went to war in defense of slavery, why did the South not ratify the Corwin Amendment and remain in the Union?
These questions have been evaded by dishonest historians ever since the end of the war.
The war was a bloody business. The Union generals Sherman and Sheridan targeted not only Southern armies but civilians and their shelter and food supplies. As the war came to an end the devastated condition of the South was creating northern sympathy, something the extreme Republicans pushing more punishment and humiliation under their Reconstruction policy did not want. The Republicans saw the need to turn the explanation of the war into a moral project to free the slaves from the iniquity of white Southerners. Reconstruction went beyond the South’s defeat and inflicted brutal humiliation. This required creation of an immoral image of the South fighting to keep people in slavery.