U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:18 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,583,572 times
Reputation: 14472

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Very well put..... Some find it hard to believe that a person can have the utmost respect for the Confederacy and most who fought for it without being a champion of slavery...
Sort of like the argument put forth by Wehrmacht officers arguing that fighting for Germany during WWII shouldn't be considered the same as supporting the Nazi party.

I get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:37 AM
 
216 posts, read 201,204 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Sort of like the argument put forth by Wehrmacht officers arguing that fighting for Germany during WWII shouldn't be considered the same as supporting the Nazi party.

I get it.
Naw you don't get it would say you don't know one thing about Southern culture or what the South did or does stand for . Still a bunch of carpetbaggers showing up trying to bring their liberal PC crap down South .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:43 AM
 
29,233 posts, read 11,847,352 times
Reputation: 7748
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Especially if your method of averting war is to start shooting. Hate to see their method of instigating war, if that was the method of averting it.
There are some subtle points here that are being missed.

One, Lincoln didn't want secession to go to the courts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had already indicated that he thought secession was legal since it was not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

Two, Lincoln chose to re-supply Ft Sumter at a time when Congress was out of session. He chose deliberately to provoke the South at a time when his actions could not be stopped by Congress.

Three, the South opened fire, and yet didn't kill a single Union soldier. The South held that they were simply trying to prevent the fort from being re-supplied, and the fact that the killed no one tends to support that contention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: BOY-see
4,358 posts, read 6,999,718 times
Reputation: 4734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Sort of like the argument put forth by Wehrmacht officers arguing that fighting for Germany during WWII shouldn't be considered the same as supporting the Nazi party.

I get it.
Very much like that, if you consider the properly analogous period from 1943-45 (when Germany was on the strategic defensive for the most part). Or, for example, like a son of persecuted Revolutionary War Loyalists answering the militia call during the War of 1812. It's possible for someone to sign up to try and keep his country from being invaded even if that person disagrees greatly with his government.

I am probably the person you know who has the very least faith in the United States and its government. If the Chinese invaded, I would fight against them. That shouldn't be considered the same as supporting either of our major political parties, which in my mind are profanities in the mouths of honest men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:48 AM
 
Location: BOY-see
4,358 posts, read 6,999,718 times
Reputation: 4734
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
There are some subtle points here that are being missed.

One, Lincoln didn't want secession to go to the courts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had already indicated that he thought secession was legal since it was not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

Two, Lincoln chose to re-supply Ft Sumter at a time when Congress was out of session. He chose deliberately to provoke the South at a time when his actions could not be stopped by Congress.

Three, the South opened fire, and yet didn't kill a single Union soldier. The South held that they were simply trying to prevent the fort from being re-supplied, and the fact that the killed no one tends to support that contention.
Be that all as it may, it all changes when you open fire with live ammunition--no matter how lousy your marksmanship. As provocative as sending in some supplies to an insignificant island fort might be, the South Carolinians didn't have to start shelling it. Doing so must be considered far more escalatory than bringing in supplies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 9,223,130 times
Reputation: 3057
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Very much like that, if you consider the properly analogous period from 1943-45 (when Germany was on the strategic defensive for the most part). Or, for example, like a son of persecuted Revolutionary War Loyalists answering the militia call during the War of 1812. It's possible for someone to sign up to try and keep his country from being invaded even if that person disagrees greatly with his government.

I am probably the person you know who has the very least faith in the United States and its government. If the Chinese invaded, I would fight against them. That shouldn't be considered the same as supporting either of our major political parties, which in my mind are profanities in the mouths of honest men.
This is actually a very sane response to a comment that, knowing the poster, was meant as inflammatory...

There are some marked differences in the situations of course. One big one being that Germany was the aggressor in WWII. Hard to take an "analogous period" like 1943-1945 out of the context of WHY Germany was being invaded in the first place.

Let's remember first and foremost in both instances who was trying to enforce their will on whom.

I mean this is why it's inflammatory to suggest that a region declaring it's independence is in some way comparable to a country trying to subjugate a continent and create a master race through extermination... Though the comparison of the motives of the foot-soldiers as laid down here is pretty accurate I'd say...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 9,223,130 times
Reputation: 3057
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Be that all as it may, it all changes when you open fire with live ammunition--no matter how lousy your marksmanship. As provocative as sending in some supplies to an insignificant island fort might be, the South Carolinians didn't have to start shelling it. Doing so must be considered far more escalatory than bringing in supplies.
Well you've now made your biased quite clear. "Insignificant"? I cannot fathom how you can imagine back to that period of time with all we know about the politics of that specific time frame and reduce it to this...

The conflict, the disagreement, the regionalism, the political discord ALL came down to and was focused on Sumter...

(Of course we could always play that card in reverse I guess..... If it was SO insignificant, why didn't Lincoln withdraw the troops as requested?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 11:07 AM
 
216 posts, read 201,204 times
Reputation: 117
If the South would of cut the money off to Dc they would of attacked the South anyway .

Another thing they were afraid of was the South pulling enough votes to wreck their play house of robbing tax from the South an spending it in the north . See how many Abe imported to Kansas .

The Souths code cost them dearly if they had 100 like William Quantrell and Bill Anderson the South may of wrote the history books . Abe got more people killed than all other presidents but remember our current presidents count isn't yet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Location: BOY-see
4,358 posts, read 6,999,718 times
Reputation: 4734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Well you've now made your biased quite clear. "Insignificant"? I cannot fathom how you can imagine back to that period of time with all we know about the politics of that specific time frame and reduce it to this...

The conflict, the disagreement, the regionalism, the political discord ALL came down to and was focused on Sumter...

(Of course we could always play that card in reverse I guess..... If it was SO insignificant, why didn't Lincoln withdraw the troops as requested?)
I meant militarily quite insignificant, Rhett. Richmond was militarily significant. Vicksburg was militarily significant. Cairo was militarily significant. Fort Sumter? Losing it or gaining it would hardly shift the overall tide of any war. It never occurred to me that any regulars would not understand what I meant by this, so I didn't qualify the term. But if I must, very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 11:18 AM
 
Location: BOY-see
4,358 posts, read 6,999,718 times
Reputation: 4734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawmill Jim View Post
If the South would of cut the money off to Dc they would of attacked the South anyway .

Another thing they were afraid of was the South pulling enough votes to wreck their play house of robbing tax from the South an spending it in the north . See how many Abe imported to Kansas .

The Souths code cost them dearly if they had 100 like William Quantrell and Bill Anderson the South may of wrote the history books . Abe got more people killed than all other presidents but remember our current presidents count isn't yet
Here we go. Liberal elite blah blah blah, Carpetbaggers blah blah blah, poor persecuted South blah blah blah. If you must post despite a demonstrated lack of understanding, you should refrain from conflating your modern political biases with a topic where they are hardly germane. And if the South had more like Quantrill and Anderson, the history books you would have been writing would have had to play apologist for a lot of war crimes. So if those are your heroes, wonderful. You would understand, then, if some people admired John Brown, Charles Jennison and William T. Sherman?

Oh, wait. That's right. Your guys were saints, their guys were demons.

Got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:59 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top