The Great Emancipator

Gonz said:
The confederacy attempted to destroy the USA. The President & his army stopped them, rightfully & legally so.


No, my dear man, they did not. They attempted to be free. They attempted a peaceful exercise of leaving something they no longer wanted anything to do with. Seems simple enough to me. The first shots of the war were fired by Union troops. On civilians.

No destruction of anything was planned by the Confederacy. We just wanted out. Peacefully. Some of us wouldn't oppose it today in fact.

Read something besides government approved 10th grade history books for a change. You might be surprised how bad you've been lied to.
 
But how would the USA be destroyed? Certainly the Northern states would have remained. Would have been just two countries is all. And not to mention the fact that the North was destroying the country long before, when New England threatened secession.
 
Source

At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession). "Nine out of ten people of the North," Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, "were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

So...why couldn't they just separate?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
No, my dear man, they did not. They attempted to be free.


Which is the line in which we shall never reconcile. I don't buy your version & you don't buy mine.
 
Then read the documents. It's right in front of you. Not my fault if you refuse to see what really happened. If a life of delusion is your choice, so be it. The rest of us will know better.

Show me one hostile act committed by the Confederacy before they were attacked, in their process of secession. One. One act of destruction, hostility, aggression. Just one.
 
I see a unified union...I travel said union daily...I like what I see. Federalism is a needed demon, especially given our physical size & population. Take the US & make it USA1 & USA2 & we'd have been torn apart, individually. Let us unite & remain united & power is ours. The Civil War saved the United States. If you can't see that, you're blinders are on too tight.
 
February 1861

When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

April 1861...an attack on Fort Sumter
 
Who Started the War?



The standard textbook answer to this question is that the South obviously started the war because it “fired the first shot” by attacking Fort Sumter, which was located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Most textbooks don’t mention several facts that put the attack in proper perspective. For example, after the Fort Sumter incident, the Confederacy continued to express its desire for peaceful relations with the North. Not a single federal soldier was killed in the attack. The Confederates allowed the federal troops at the fort to return to the North in peace after they surrendered. South Carolina and then the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for the fort. Lincoln later admitted he deliberately provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for an invasion. The Confederates only attacked the fort after they learned that Lincoln had sent an armed naval convoy to resupply the federal garrison at the fort. The sending of the convoy violated the repeated promises of Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Seward, that the fort would be evacuated. Seward continued to promise the Confederacy that the fort would be evacuated even after he knew that Lincoln had decided to send the convoy. Major John Anderson, the Union officer who commanded the federal garrison at the fort, opposed the sending of the convoy, because he felt it would violate the assurances that the fort would be evacuated, because he knew it would be viewed as a hostile act, and because he did not want war. Several weeks before the Fort Sumter incident, Lincoln virtually declared war on the South in his inaugural address, even though he knew the Confederacy wanted peaceful relations.

In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff) and/or if they didn’t allow the federal government to occupy and maintain all federal installations within their borders. Imagine what the American colonists would have thought if the British had said to them, “We want peace. But, we’re going to invade you if you don’t keep paying our tariff and/or if you don’t allow us to occupy and maintain all British installations within your borders.” The colonists would have rightly regarded this as a virtual declaration of war. Of course, in effect, the British did say this to the colonies. This was the same position that Lincoln presented to the Confederate states weeks before the Fort Sumter attack. Furthermore, five months earlier, some Republicans in Congress publicly swore “by everything in the heavens above and the earth beneath” that they would convert the seceded states “into a wilderness” (James McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, New York: Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 251).

Jefferson Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense:

"The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them “fire the first gun” would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one’s breast, until he has actually fired." After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary. (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971, reprint of original edition, p. 154, original emphasis)

Davis had a valid point. The naval convoy that Lincoln sent to Fort Sumter was no innocent “relief” flotilla. It included warships and over one thousand troops. It was being sent to Charleston against the wishes of South Carolina and the Confederacy, and in violation of the repeated high-level assurances that the fort would be evacuated. Any country on earth would view the sending of an unwanted armed naval convoy into one of its major ports as an act of aggression. The Confederates were well aware that Lincoln had already threatened to invade the Confederate states if they did not in effect give up their independence, and that some congressional Republicans had already sworn to turn the Deep South states “into a wilderness.” When all the facts are considered, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter can be viewed as a justified defensive reaction to the impending arrival of an unwanted naval force.

If Lincoln had desired peace, he knew all he had to do was evacuate Fort Sumter, as his own secretary of state had been promising would be done for weeks. When the Confederate authorities were told the fort was going to be evacuated, Confederate forces stopped building up the defenses around the harbor and celebrated. Across the harbor, Major Anderson was grateful the fort would be evacuated and that therefore North and South would separate peacefully:

Confidently, he [Seward] told Supreme Court Justice John Campbell that Sumter was to be evacuated in three days. Campbell relayed this to the commissioners [the Confederate peace commissioners] and they promptly informed President Davis. The news of Anderson’s imminent departure was believed in the South. Troops stopped work on the Charleston batteries and fired salutes in celebration. The major [Major Anderson] too assumed it was true and thanked God that “the separation which has been inevitable for months, will be consummated without the shedding of one droop of blood.” Since war was thus avoided he hoped that the departed states “may at some future time be won back by conciliation and justice.” (Cisco, Taking A Stand, pp. 105-106)

But, sadly, Lincoln didn’t pursue peace with the Confederacy. For a while it seemed as though he was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter, in spite of his earlier statements to the contrary. Initially all but two of his cabinet members urged evacuation, as did his general-in-chief, General Winfield Scott. However, Radical Republicans and influential Northern business interests applied intense pressure on Lincoln and on his cabinet not to evacuate the fort. Radicals in the Senate threatened impeachment if the fort were evacuated (Catton and Catton, Two Roads to Sumter, p. 277). Once the low Confederate tariff was announced, powerful Northern business interests came out strongly opposed to peace with the Confederacy, and Lincoln’s cabinet quickly reversed its position evacuation. As the pressure for aggression mounted, Lincoln decided to provoke an attack on the fort in order to use the attack as a pretext for invasion and to whip up a majority of the Northern public into a war frenzy against the South. Some Northerners saw through Lincoln’s ploy. But in the heat of the moment many Northerners were fooled by it, while others were already so anti-Southern that they didn’t care. A number of Northern newspapers opined that Lincoln had provoked the attack in order to use it as an excuse to wage war on the South. Lincoln himself later admitted in two letters that he provoked the attack for that purpose (Francis Butler Simkins, A History of the South, Third Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963, pp. 213, 215-216; J. G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1960, p. 174).


So there you have it. No altruistic reasons. No regard for preserving the union. It was indutrialist profits and greed, plain and simple. Lincoln created him a war so the fatcat New England industrialists would get off his back. Some hero. More like the spineless coward he really was.
 
I'm prudy sure not all southerners are nutz!

How's this folks, how about the southwestern US attempting to cede,
perhaps not to Mess-co but into it's own sovereign Mess-kin nation?

C'Mon I'd grab the trusty ol M-16 to keep that silliness from happening.

The history of the world would be quite different if the US had busted up into some balkinized Yugoslavian kinda deal.

Oh and the civil war has been over for quite some time now and...







[size=+8]YOU LOST!!![/size]
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Who Started the War?

South Carolinas legislature.

For example, after the Fort Sumter incident

That one word says enough.

Imagine what the American colonists would have thought if the British had said to them, “We want peace. But, we’re going to invade you if you don’t keep paying our tariff

They did say that (well, the peace thing is a stretch) & we kicked their ass.
 
As you wish.

There are none so ignorant and those who will not learn.

And besides, seems to me like y'all would have wanted us to be gone. I mean, all I ever seem to see and hear about us is negative. Check any TV show, movie, or popular caricature you like. If we're so dumbass and backward, why not just cut us loose? You'd surely be far more collectively intelligent without us. :lloyd:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Check any TV show, movie, or popular caricature you like.

Excuse me? You're talking to people who (primarily) think that the Hollyweird elites need to be executed. Don't lump our (or my) refusal to accept that the south wasn't acting illegally as a slam against a culture.
 
If the majority of you folks down there think like that we
Americans might just have to come back down there and re-start the civil war up on your buttocks.

Tell you whut Homey

When you and I are to old to care the next generation might just have to start up another insurrection to regain the freedoms we've let slip away.

And it won't be north vs. south this time either.

Would you come out of the hermit hovel to fight for your country?
 
Lincoln? Not me. My paternals were in the SW before it was the SW. The maternal side is from Mississippi. I just happen to like federalism & a united America.
 
But if you were a Southerner in the united America of the 1850s, you'd want to separate, too.

Yeah, sure, in today's society, when you vote, you get represented. Your senators' choices count in Congress. But imagine living in a place where no one cares how you survive, and inhibit your ability to make a profit off of the only thing you're able to produce. Your vote doesn't count. Your region is not represented in Congress, in fact it's nothing but an area to feed money into the people who refuse to listen to you.

In that time, Federalism and a united America were null and void as far as the South was concerned.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
But if you were a Southerner in the united America of the 1850s, you'd want to separate, too.

Yeah, sure, in today's society, when you vote, you get represented. Your senators' choices count in Congress. But imagine living in a place where no one cares how you survive, and inhibit your ability to make a profit off of the only thing you're able to produce. Your vote doesn't count. Your region is not represented in Congress, in fact it's nothing but an area to feed money into the people who refuse to listen to you.

In that time, Federalism and a united America were null and void as far as the South was concerned.

Not necessarily. The secession vote wouldn't have been anywhere near 100%.

Imagine living in that place you've described. It falls between heaven & slavery. Pick one.

Federalism is the core of a United States. The states have independent rule but there has to be a central clearing house for that which affects all.
 
Gonz said:
Federalism is the core of a United States. The states have independent rule but there has to be a central clearing house for that which affects all.


Finally we agree on a point. But here's the nut.

When one region is paying the same taxes as another, that's fair, right? Right. No argument here.

When one region then does not gain from those dollars, it ceases being fair. Right? Right.

A simple economic analysis of the 1850s will make even you conclude what the primary beef was in these parts. Couple that with the unequal distribution of railroads to enable Southern farmers to get their crops to market in time to sell them, thus eating into their pocketbooks, while those same tax dollars are being yanked out of the same pocketbooks, and even you will concede that the deck was stacked.

If and when the federal government starts to impact your personal ability to earn a living, while your neighbors are unaffected, you'll holler too.
 
Back
Top