$2T with a huge portion of it porked up? How long are you willing to stay bent over without complaining or doing something about it?
How Much Of A Porking Are You Willing To Take?
4,911 Views |
68 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Canada2017
What exactly are our options?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
To arms to arms
Not sure what Thee wants done. I disagree with a lot of the stimulus bill, but the thing passed unanimously in the Senate, which tells me it was gonna go through even if it said we had to wear pink t shirts and sing Broadway songs to get rid of the virus.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
To arms to arms
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Not happy but what are you going to do.
Civil War
This is from The only thing that could save the north was war.
Major Robert Anderson, Union commander inside Fort Sumter, emphatically blames Lincoln for starting the war Lincoln had to have to save the North. Lincoln needed to start the war as fast as he could before Southerners completed trade and military alliances with England and other European countries, which they had been pursuing with great enthusiasm for months. With every second that went by, the South got stronger and the North got weaker. Lincoln knew there was no advantage, whatsoever, to waiting.
He also worried greatly about free states joining the South. The Confederate Constitution allowed it. Slavery was not required. Slavery was up to an individual state, and Southerners anticipated that many free states with economic ties to the South, especially along the Mississippi and in the West, would join the Confederacy.
The Boston Transcript saw what was happening and realized that the protection to slavery that the North was quite willing to give was not what the South wanted:
Northern panic and Southern jubilation grew steadily until they reached a crescendo on April 12, 1861, and the orchestra wore gray in the forts and batteries encircling Charleston Harbor, and it wore blue inside Fort Sumter, led by Union Major Robert Anderson.
Anderson saw the events of the day clearly and put the blame squarely on Abraham Lincoln for starting the war that Lincoln had to have to save the Union and the North. Lincoln and Secretary of War Simon Cameron wrote to Anderson and informed him that warships and a military mission to reinforce him were en route.
Anderson and the Southerners in Charleston were standing face to face, each with a cocked gun on a hair-trigger aimed at the other's head. It had been this way for weeks, but Lincoln couldn't wait any longer. He was anxious to get a blockade set up around the ports of the South that would slow the European rush to military and trade treaties with the South. This was a critical thing for Lincoln or suddenly it would have been like the French in the American Revolution who came to the aid of the Colonists and helped mightily to secure American independence.
Once Lincoln got the war started, he could throw up his blockade and force Europeans to take a wait-and-see attitude. Lincoln knew that sending his warships and soldiers to Charleston during the most critical hour in American history would start the war. That's why it was well publicized nationally, so everybody could get ready. He hoped the Confederates would fire first. Everything he did was designed to get that result. See Charles W. Ramsdell's famous treatise, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," Part III of this book, for proof that Lincoln started the war.
Anderson was at ground zero on April 12, 1861 and could judge both sides and pass judgment on who started the war, and he clearly blames Lincoln. This is what he writes in his response to Lincoln and Cameron:
Northern greed, hatred and terrorism drove the South out of the Union and cost the North its huge captive manufacturing market in the South. It also cost the North unfettered access to bountiful Southern commodities needed in manufacturing.
More Northern greed in the form of the Morrill Tariff threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry and send Northern ship captains South where protective tariffs were unconstitutional. The Morrill Tariff guaranteed that the Northern economy would not recover.
Northern leaders knew that they were headed for an unimaginable disaster and at the same time would have to face the South as a major competitor owning most of the trade of the United States, strongly backed militarily and financially by Europe, and with control of the most demanded commodity on the planet: cotton.
Abraham Lincoln, the first sectional president in American history, was president of the North and the North was clamoring for war. There was gloom, despair and extreme agitation in the North. Hundreds of thousands were unemployed, angry, in the street. The "clangor of arms" had been heard. Every day that went by the South got stronger and the North got weaker. There was no advantage whatsoever to waiting a second longer, so, after agonizing for weeks, Lincoln saw a way to get the war started without appearing to be the aggressor, and he took it. This was the view of several Northern newspapers as Charles W. Ramsdell points out in Part III in "Lincoln and Fort Sumter."
The threatened annihilation of the Northern economy and the rise of the South are what drove all actions in that fateful spring of 1861. Certainly not any mythical desire on the part of the North to end slavery.
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic hell and mob rule, or fight.
If they fought, because of their overwhelming advantages at that point in history (4 to 1 in native manpower plus unlimited immigration - 25% of the Yankee army ended up being immigrants while close to 100% of the Confederate army were native-born Southerners - perhaps 200 to 1 in weapon manufacturing, an army, navy, etc.), they knew they had an excellent chance of winning everything and gaining total control of the country.
If they didn't fight, the South would surely ascend to predominance.
Of course they were going to fight and use their advantages before they lost them. Lincoln figured the North would win easily but First Manassas proved him wrong, thus we had the bloodiest war in American history with 600,000 to 800,000 deaths and over a million wounded. The South was invaded and destroyed but fought until it was utterly exhausted before it was all over. It had nothing left to give or the war would certainly have continued on.
It was World War II, seventy-five years later, before the South began to recover from the destruction, but it is a certainty that if 1861 rolled around again and Southerners had the opportunity to fight for independence, they would. To the South, 1861 was 1776 all over. They believed the Founding Fathers had bequeathed to them by the Declaration of Independence, the right of self-government, and they would pay any price to achieve it.
Basil Gildersleeve, still known today as the greatest American classical scholar of all time, was a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina. He sums it up nicely in The Creed of the Old South, published 27 years after the war:
This is from The only thing that could save the north was war.
Major Robert Anderson, Union commander inside Fort Sumter, emphatically blames Lincoln for starting the war Lincoln had to have to save the North. Lincoln needed to start the war as fast as he could before Southerners completed trade and military alliances with England and other European countries, which they had been pursuing with great enthusiasm for months. With every second that went by, the South got stronger and the North got weaker. Lincoln knew there was no advantage, whatsoever, to waiting.
He also worried greatly about free states joining the South. The Confederate Constitution allowed it. Slavery was not required. Slavery was up to an individual state, and Southerners anticipated that many free states with economic ties to the South, especially along the Mississippi and in the West, would join the Confederacy.
The Boston Transcript saw what was happening and realized that the protection to slavery that the North was quite willing to give was not what the South wanted:
The South wanted to be INDEPENDENT just as the Colonists had wanted to be independent in 1776. The South wanted freedom and self-government. It was tired of the confiscation of its hard-earned money by the North and the federal government. It was tired of 10 years of Northern hatred and terrorism.Quote:
[T]he mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade.
Northern panic and Southern jubilation grew steadily until they reached a crescendo on April 12, 1861, and the orchestra wore gray in the forts and batteries encircling Charleston Harbor, and it wore blue inside Fort Sumter, led by Union Major Robert Anderson.
Anderson saw the events of the day clearly and put the blame squarely on Abraham Lincoln for starting the war that Lincoln had to have to save the Union and the North. Lincoln and Secretary of War Simon Cameron wrote to Anderson and informed him that warships and a military mission to reinforce him were en route.
Anderson and the Southerners in Charleston were standing face to face, each with a cocked gun on a hair-trigger aimed at the other's head. It had been this way for weeks, but Lincoln couldn't wait any longer. He was anxious to get a blockade set up around the ports of the South that would slow the European rush to military and trade treaties with the South. This was a critical thing for Lincoln or suddenly it would have been like the French in the American Revolution who came to the aid of the Colonists and helped mightily to secure American independence.
Once Lincoln got the war started, he could throw up his blockade and force Europeans to take a wait-and-see attitude. Lincoln knew that sending his warships and soldiers to Charleston during the most critical hour in American history would start the war. That's why it was well publicized nationally, so everybody could get ready. He hoped the Confederates would fire first. Everything he did was designed to get that result. See Charles W. Ramsdell's famous treatise, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," Part III of this book, for proof that Lincoln started the war.
Anderson was at ground zero on April 12, 1861 and could judge both sides and pass judgment on who started the war, and he clearly blames Lincoln. This is what he writes in his response to Lincoln and Cameron:
Anderson sees that the war "is to be thus commenced" by Abraham Lincoln, who had to hurry up and get it started or soon the South with European trade and military alliances would be unbeatable.Quote:
. . . a movement made now when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. . . . We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. . . .
Northern greed, hatred and terrorism drove the South out of the Union and cost the North its huge captive manufacturing market in the South. It also cost the North unfettered access to bountiful Southern commodities needed in manufacturing.
More Northern greed in the form of the Morrill Tariff threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry and send Northern ship captains South where protective tariffs were unconstitutional. The Morrill Tariff guaranteed that the Northern economy would not recover.
Northern leaders knew that they were headed for an unimaginable disaster and at the same time would have to face the South as a major competitor owning most of the trade of the United States, strongly backed militarily and financially by Europe, and with control of the most demanded commodity on the planet: cotton.
Abraham Lincoln, the first sectional president in American history, was president of the North and the North was clamoring for war. There was gloom, despair and extreme agitation in the North. Hundreds of thousands were unemployed, angry, in the street. The "clangor of arms" had been heard. Every day that went by the South got stronger and the North got weaker. There was no advantage whatsoever to waiting a second longer, so, after agonizing for weeks, Lincoln saw a way to get the war started without appearing to be the aggressor, and he took it. This was the view of several Northern newspapers as Charles W. Ramsdell points out in Part III in "Lincoln and Fort Sumter."
The threatened annihilation of the Northern economy and the rise of the South are what drove all actions in that fateful spring of 1861. Certainly not any mythical desire on the part of the North to end slavery.
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic hell and mob rule, or fight.
If they fought, because of their overwhelming advantages at that point in history (4 to 1 in native manpower plus unlimited immigration - 25% of the Yankee army ended up being immigrants while close to 100% of the Confederate army were native-born Southerners - perhaps 200 to 1 in weapon manufacturing, an army, navy, etc.), they knew they had an excellent chance of winning everything and gaining total control of the country.
If they didn't fight, the South would surely ascend to predominance.
Of course they were going to fight and use their advantages before they lost them. Lincoln figured the North would win easily but First Manassas proved him wrong, thus we had the bloodiest war in American history with 600,000 to 800,000 deaths and over a million wounded. The South was invaded and destroyed but fought until it was utterly exhausted before it was all over. It had nothing left to give or the war would certainly have continued on.
It was World War II, seventy-five years later, before the South began to recover from the destruction, but it is a certainty that if 1861 rolled around again and Southerners had the opportunity to fight for independence, they would. To the South, 1861 was 1776 all over. They believed the Founding Fathers had bequeathed to them by the Declaration of Independence, the right of self-government, and they would pay any price to achieve it.
Basil Gildersleeve, still known today as the greatest American classical scholar of all time, was a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina. He sums it up nicely in The Creed of the Old South, published 27 years after the war:
Quote:
All that I vouch for is the feeling; . . . there was no lurking suspicion of any moral weakness in our cause. Nothing could be holier than the cause, nothing more imperative than the duty of upholding it. There were those in the South who, when they saw the issue of the war, gave up their faith in God, but not their faith in the cause.iii
Michael Beschloss is a respected presidential historian who just published "Presidents of War" which explores how each war time president took the nation to war. Anderson plays a huge role in the Lincoln/Civil War portion of the book. Anderson's views and actions are much more complex than the post pretends them to be.
Lincoln certainly did not want the war to begin at Sumter.
Lincoln certainly did not want the war to begin at Sumter.
Incorrect
Lincoln absolutely wanted the war to begin at Fort Sumner .
Several border states were waiving in their support of the union. Lincoln needed to frame the South as the aggressor. So Lincoln created a situation ( by sending reinforcements sailing to Fort Sumner ) effectively forcing South Carolina troops to attack .
Very clever politician that Lincoln.
Lincoln absolutely wanted the war to begin at Fort Sumner .
Several border states were waiving in their support of the union. Lincoln needed to frame the South as the aggressor. So Lincoln created a situation ( by sending reinforcements sailing to Fort Sumner ) effectively forcing South Carolina troops to attack .
Very clever politician that Lincoln.
Where did you learn this?Canada2017 said:
Incorrect
Lincoln absolutely wanted the war to begin at Fort Sumner .
Several border states were waiving in their support of the union. Lincoln needed to frame the South as the aggressor. So Lincoln created a situation ( by sending reinforcements sailing to Fort Sumner ) effectively forcing South Carolina troops to attack .
Very clever politician that Lincoln
Beschloss' book is heavily researched and he disagrees with you.
I don't think this is true, not based on any civil war history I've studied.Canada2017 said:
Incorrect
Lincoln absolutely wanted the war to begin at Fort Sumner .
Several border states were waiving in their support of the union. Lincoln needed to frame the South as the aggressor. So Lincoln created a situation ( by sending reinforcements sailing to Fort Sumner ) effectively forcing South Carolina troops to attack .
Very clever politician that Lincoln.
I also don't agree with the long diatribe up above. The South was indisputably not getting "stronger". Did various European powers want to form an alliance? Maybe, to get cheaper cotton and to annoy the Federal government, but the idea the Union states or those with Union sympathies were scared and wanted to war to start is unfounded.
Contrary to what is shown that wonderful fantasy, Gone With The Wind, most wealthy southerns knew all to well of the advantages the North had in terms of population, manufacturing and railroad lines . Many rich southerners had business and social connections in the North or had sent their children to Northern universities. They knew that unless England or France came to the aid of the south .....a long war was going to be extremely difficult to win .
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Nice cut and paste Thee. This is Gene Kizer's chapter 7 of The Only Thing That Could Save the North Was War for those that want to read more.
Fck Lincoln
Fck Lincoln
Canada2017 said:
Contrary to what is shown that wonderful fantasy, Gone With The Wind, most wealthy southerns knew all to well of the advantages the North had in terms of population, manufacturing and railroad lines . Many rich southerners had business and social connections in the North or had sent their children to Northern universities. They knew that unless England or France came to the aid of the south .....a long war was going to be extremely difficult to win .
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Wanting to preserve the union and wanting to start a war are different things. As usual in our conversations, you have no real basis for what you say.
Booray said:Canada2017 said:
Contrary to what is shown that wonderful fantasy, Gone With The Wind, most wealthy southerns knew all to well of the advantages the North had in terms of population, manufacturing and railroad lines . Many rich southerners had business and social connections in the North or had sent their children to Northern universities. They knew that unless England or France came to the aid of the south .....a long war was going to be extremely difficult to win .
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Wanting to preserve the union and wanting to start a war are different things. As usual in our conversations, you have no real basis for what you say.
History minor as an undergraduate ( easy A's to bolster the GPA when I thought I wanted to go to medical school ) and studied all aspects of the Civil War off and on for 10-12 years for the pure fun of it . Even traveled to a dozen battlefields.
As usual you just lash out at anyone who's views you don't agree with .
Canada2017 said:Booray said:Canada2017 said:
Contrary to what is shown that wonderful fantasy, Gone With The Wind, most wealthy southerns knew all to well of the advantages the North had in terms of population, manufacturing and railroad lines . Many rich southerners had business and social connections in the North or had sent their children to Northern universities. They knew that unless England or France came to the aid of the south .....a long war was going to be extremely difficult to win .
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Wanting to preserve the union and wanting to start a war are different things. As usual in our conversations, you have no real basis for what you say.
History minor as an undergraduate ( easy A's to bolster the GPA when I thought I wanted to go to medical school ) and studied all aspects of the Civil War off and on for 10-12 years for the pure fun of it . Even traveled to a dozen battlefields.
As usual you just lash out at anyone who's views you don't agree with .
I would have thought that in those history classes some prof would have mentioned that most historians cite sources other than themselves.
Booray said:Canada2017 said:Booray said:Canada2017 said:
Contrary to what is shown that wonderful fantasy, Gone With The Wind, most wealthy southerns knew all to well of the advantages the North had in terms of population, manufacturing and railroad lines . Many rich southerners had business and social connections in the North or had sent their children to Northern universities. They knew that unless England or France came to the aid of the south .....a long war was going to be extremely difficult to win .
Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to the Senate practically begged his former senators to let the southern states ' go in peace ' . A West Point graduate and a legitimate hero of the Mexican American war...Jefferson Davis knew the south was looking at long odds .
But Lincoln was far too smart to allow the southern states to secede without a fight .
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Wanting to preserve the union and wanting to start a war are different things. As usual in our conversations, you have no real basis for what you say.
History minor as an undergraduate ( easy A's to bolster the GPA when I thought I wanted to go to medical school ) and studied all aspects of the Civil War off and on for 10-12 years for the pure fun of it . Even traveled to a dozen battlefields.
As usual you just lash out at anyone who's views you don't agree with .
I would have thought that in those history classes some prof would have mentioned that most historians cite sources other than themselves.
If you think I'm going to spend the time required to look up sources for you or anyone else on this message board .....
knowing full well there is a 99% chance they will be ignored anyway ......
chuckle
Bingo!Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
Any US history book produced by a New York publishing house is going to take a predictable position.Thee University said:Bingo!Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Thee University said:
$2T with a huge portion of it porked up? How long are you willing to stay bent over without complaining or doing something about it?
2.2T today and another 1T in 60 days.
Those numbers could be wrong. 300B goes to the people. That's the pork. The $1.9T to corporate ain't pork.
Secede!
Go ahead, have fun.Thee University said:
Secede!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
This is an exception to the rule. The South's propaganda has been publicized so much that the genre has a name "Lost Cause" history. There have been thousands of books written portraying the war and its causes from the Southern point of view.Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
But its pretty simple. The South wanted to leave so it could continue to practice slavery. Lincoln believed in the Union above all else and would not let the South go.
If he had let the South go, we wouldn't be America today; the idea of American exceptionalism and this country as the greatest force for liberty and the advancement of the human condition the world has never known would vanish. Fly your Stars and Bars all you want, but when you do remember you are rejecting the Star Spangled Banner.
No thanks. We tried once already. They killed several of my great great great uncles at Shiloh. I will pass this time.Thee University said:
Secede!
Sorry for your loss, LIQR. Most of my male ancestors were wiped out at Gettysburg, the rest killed or maimed to the point they could not work their farms and lost them, by 1864.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:No thanks. We tried once already. They killed several of my great great great uncles at Shiloh. I will pass this time.Thee University said:
Secede!
Very few people have a good idea of what a civil war would cost,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Booray said:This is an exception to the rule. The South's propaganda has been publicized so much that the genre has a name "Lost Cause" history. There have been thousands of books written portraying the war and its causes from the Southern point of view.Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
But its pretty simple. The South wanted to leave so it could continue to practice slavery. Lincoln believed in the Union above all else and would not let the South go.
If he had let the South go, we wouldn't be America today; the idea of American exceptionalism and this country as the greatest force for liberty and the advancement of the human condition the world has never known would vanish. Fly your Stars and Bars all you want, but when you do remember you are rejecting the Star Spangled Banner.
Chuckle
It's anything but 'simple'.
The north wanted to end slavery....all well and good. Slavery was an evil institution.
However a healthy male slave was worth up to a 1000 dollars .
In a time when a white skilled carpenter was paid 4 dollars a day .
Slaves were extremely valuable and expensive . As a result most southerners didn't own any .
So right or wrong a tremendous amount of capital was tied up in slaves . To merely 'free' them without compensation would have economically destroyed the South ( which the war did anyway ).
Great Britain compensated their slave owners via the 1837 with the Slave Compensation Act .
But northern abolitionists were not just interested in freeing the slaves...they wanted southerners economically 'punished'.
And they were....for almost 50 years .
Neither the North nor the South were monoliths with unanimous ideas or intentions. But our discussion was about Lincoln's alleged intent to use Fort Sumter to begin a war, supposedly supported by Anderson's position. He had no such intent and Anderson's writings do not say otherwise. Again, I will tell you that the Beschloss book makes ample use of those writings and it is impossible to draw the conclusion the OP does from those writings.Canada2017 said:Booray said:This is an exception to the rule. The South's propaganda has been publicized so much that the genre has a name "Lost Cause" history. There have been thousands of books written portraying the war and its causes from the Southern point of view.Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
But its pretty simple. The South wanted to leave so it could continue to practice slavery. Lincoln believed in the Union above all else and would not let the South go.
If he had let the South go, we wouldn't be America today; the idea of American exceptionalism and this country as the greatest force for liberty and the advancement of the human condition the world has never known would vanish. Fly your Stars and Bars all you want, but when you do remember you are rejecting the Star Spangled Banner.
Chuckle
It's anything but 'simple'.
The north wanted to end slavery....all well and good. Slavery was an evil institution.
However a healthy male slave was worth up to 1000 dollars .
In a time when a skilled carpenter was paid 4 dollars a day .
Slaves were extremely valuable and expensive . As a result most southerners didn't own any .
So right or wrong a tremendous amount of capital was tied up in slaves . To merely 'free' them without compensation would have economically destroyed the South ( which the war did anyway ).
Great Britain compensated their slave owners via the 1837 with the Slave Compensation Act .
But northern abolitionists were not just interested in freeing the slaves...they wanted southerners economically 'punished'.
And they were....for almost 50 years .
And talk about chuckle. The idea that the South would have given up slavery and resolved it differences with the North if the slave owners had been compensated for their lost "property" is a pipe dream. Show me one legitimate historical reference that suggests there was ever any material Southern support for such an idea.
Booray said:Neither the North nor the South were monoliths with unanimous ideas or intentions. But our discussion was about Lincoln's alleged intent to use Fort Sumter to begin a war, supposedly supported by Anderson's position. He had no such intent and Anderson's writings do not say otherwise. Again, I will tell you that the Beschloss book makes ample use of those writings and it is impossible to draw the conclusion the OP does from those writings.Canada2017 said:Booray said:This is an exception to the rule. The South's propaganda has been publicized so much that the genre has a name "Lost Cause" history. There have been thousands of books written portraying the war and its causes from the Southern point of view.Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
But its pretty simple. The South wanted to leave so it could continue to practice slavery. Lincoln believed in the Union above all else and would not let the South go.
If he had let the South go, we wouldn't be America today; the idea of American exceptionalism and this country as the greatest force for liberty and the advancement of the human condition the world has never known would vanish. Fly your Stars and Bars all you want, but when you do remember you are rejecting the Star Spangled Banner.
Chuckle
It's anything but 'simple'.
The north wanted to end slavery....all well and good. Slavery was an evil institution.
However a healthy male slave was worth up to 1000 dollars .
In a time when a skilled carpenter was paid 4 dollars a day .
Slaves were extremely valuable and expensive . As a result most southerners didn't own any .
So right or wrong a tremendous amount of capital was tied up in slaves . To merely 'free' them without compensation would have economically destroyed the South ( which the war did anyway ).
Great Britain compensated their slave owners via the 1837 with the Slave Compensation Act .
But northern abolitionists were not just interested in freeing the slaves...they wanted southerners economically 'punished'.
And they were....for almost 50 years .
And talk about chuckle. The idea that the South would have given up slavery and resolved it differences with the North if the slave owners had been compensated for their lost "property" is a pipe dream. Show me one legitimate historical reference that suggests there was ever any material Southern support for such an idea.
Hardly a pipe dream.
Cotton, rice and tobacco prices fluctuated greatly and slavery would have eventually become less and less profitable. A buy out would have been welcomed by many .
Northerners were already utilizing a far cheaper labor source than black slaves.........the Irish .
BTW I've never drawn any conclusion regarding any aspect of American history from only one or two sources .
As my late father in law ( a very proud German American ) always said " Who wrote that book anyway " ?
For example ...everyone has heard of the horrors involved with the Andersonville Prison Camp . Thousands of union prisoners of war died of malnutrition and disease.
But it wasn't until I went to the Vicksburg National Battlefield did I learn that the north also had horrible prison camps with thousands of dead confederate prisoners of war .
Prison camps on both sides were overfull because Lincoln had stopped POW exchanges after correctly concluding the South needed the freed soldiers far more than the North .
Winners write the history books .
Canada2017 said:Booray said:Neither the North nor the South were monoliths with unanimous ideas or intentions. But our discussion was about Lincoln's alleged intent to use Fort Sumter to begin a war, supposedly supported by Anderson's position. He had no such intent and Anderson's writings do not say otherwise. Again, I will tell you that the Beschloss book makes ample use of those writings and it is impossible to draw the conclusion the OP does from those writings.Canada2017 said:Booray said:This is an exception to the rule. The South's propaganda has been publicized so much that the genre has a name "Lost Cause" history. There have been thousands of books written portraying the war and its causes from the Southern point of view.Canada2017 said:
However winners write the history books . And in our current social climate few publishers are going to make any money legitimizing the Confederacy.
But its pretty simple. The South wanted to leave so it could continue to practice slavery. Lincoln believed in the Union above all else and would not let the South go.
If he had let the South go, we wouldn't be America today; the idea of American exceptionalism and this country as the greatest force for liberty and the advancement of the human condition the world has never known would vanish. Fly your Stars and Bars all you want, but when you do remember you are rejecting the Star Spangled Banner.
Chuckle
It's anything but 'simple'.
The north wanted to end slavery....all well and good. Slavery was an evil institution.
However a healthy male slave was worth up to 1000 dollars .
In a time when a skilled carpenter was paid 4 dollars a day .
Slaves were extremely valuable and expensive . As a result most southerners didn't own any .
So right or wrong a tremendous amount of capital was tied up in slaves . To merely 'free' them without compensation would have economically destroyed the South ( which the war did anyway ).
Great Britain compensated their slave owners via the 1837 with the Slave Compensation Act .
But northern abolitionists were not just interested in freeing the slaves...they wanted southerners economically 'punished'.
And they were....for almost 50 years .
And talk about chuckle. The idea that the South would have given up slavery and resolved it differences with the North if the slave owners had been compensated for their lost "property" is a pipe dream. Show me one legitimate historical reference that suggests there was ever any material Southern support for such an idea.
Hardly a pipe dream.
Cotton, rice and tobacco prices fluctuated greatly and slavery would have eventually become less and less profitable. A buy out would have been welcomed by many .
Northerners were already utilizing a far cheaper labor source than black slaves.........the Irish .
BTW I've never drawn any conclusion regarding any aspect of American history from only one or two sources .
As my late father in law ( a very proud German American ) always said " Who wrote that book anyway " ?
For example ...everyone has heard of the horrors involved with the Andersonville Prison Camp . Thousands of union prisoners of war died of malnutrition and disease.
But it wasn't until I went to the Vicksburg National Battlefield did I learn that the north also had horrible prison camps with thousands of dead confederate prisoners of war .
Prison camps on both sides were overfull because Lincoln had stopped POW exchanges after correctly concluding the South needed the freed soldiers far more than the North .
Winners write the history books .
Giving up slaves for compensation was a pipe dream at the time the South seceded. Your original argument was that Lincoln was looking for war at Fort Sumter instead of a peaceable resolution I pointed out that secession was not acceptable to Lincoln and you responded that the South might not have seceded if there was a compensation system. I replied that there was no evidence the South would have accepted compensation and you said while "they eventually would have." Even if that was true, it didn't help Lincoln. The trigger for the bloodshed was not anything Lincoln did but the South's secession. In other words Lincoln did not want a war but he wanted a Union more.
The reason I keep harping on the Beschloss book is because of its extensive use of Anderson's writings. The point is that Anderson's own words refute the motives the motives and intentions attributed to Anderson in the OP. I am just telling you where you can find those words.
Its a good book anyway and I think you would enjoy it.
Finally. you just ignored my point about Lost Cause literature. Saying that the Southern point of view is not well represented in Civil War writings is just not true.
https://civil-war-journeys.org/the_lost_cause.htm
Would be great if we could sell California to Mexico and New York to Canada. Not real sure what to do with Illinois.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .
Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .
When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.
Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .
Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .
When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.
Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .
You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.Canada2017 said:
The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .
Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .
When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.
Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .
People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.
As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.
Let's not forget that Lincoln's election was a precipitating factor itself. IIRC, there were a lot of rumors in the South that if elected, Lincoln would end Slavery. The secession made the fear self-fulfilling.Booray said:You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.Canada2017 said:
The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .
Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .
When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.
Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .
People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.
As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Finally!RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Would be great if we could sell California to Mexico and New York to Canada. Not real sure what to do with Illinois.
Someone who gets it.
And he even lives in Seguin!
There does not have to be a true, violent Civil War. California wants out or split into 2 to 6 states anyway. Let them go. You know 99% of the Californians will not pick up a gun and fire a shot at anyone or anything.
Residents of more rural parts of many states want to secede, because those states are dominated by the residents of large urban centers who know little and care less about the lives of people out in the country.
When Americans start believing that they are being treated badly and callously by rulers over whom they have little or no influence, it is ripe for sucession. It's not just "taxation without representation," but also "regulation without representation." And a general sense of being held in contempt.
Residents of more rural parts of many states want to secede, because those states are dominated by the residents of large urban centers who know little and care less about the lives of people out in the country.
When Americans start believing that they are being treated badly and callously by rulers over whom they have little or no influence, it is ripe for sucession. It's not just "taxation without representation," but also "regulation without representation." And a general sense of being held in contempt.
Booray said:You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.Canada2017 said:
The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .
Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .
When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.
Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .
People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.
As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.
The abolitionists weren't wrong ...but they definitely inflamed the paranoia commonly found in the South .
Years of abolitionists rhetoric ( Uncles Toms Cabin ) Bloody Kansas , new 'free' states entering the Union increasing the political power of the north, John Browns raid and finally Lincoln's election.....the South panicked.
Remember Lincoln had several weeks to remove those Federal troops from Fort Sumner peacefully . South Carolina offered safe passage ( just as Texas gave safe passage to far more troops from their Comanche frontier ).
But Lincoln finally chose to send a squadron of Union ships loaded with reinforcements instead .
Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing .
It was a brilliant political move .