$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?
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
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.
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. . . .
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
Go ahead, have fun.Thee University said:
Secede!
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.
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!
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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 .
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.
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.
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.