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: 
 
Old 11-16-2009, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Rome, Georgia
2,258 posts, read 1,828,481 times
Reputation: 1382

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
I've been to Georgia. I've been to Massachusetts. I don't think people in Georgia have to worry about a mass migration into their state.
Georgia ranks 2nd in the nation in emmigration. I see you always get your "facts" from the same place. Straight out of your Angus.

Special Report: Georgia's Dilemma

The only states higher in population increase represent immigration.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...iles/map01.pdf

Glad you like MA better though. Good for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2009, 10:13 AM
 
216 posts, read 199,254 times
Reputation: 117
The Republic Of Texas was a independent nation once NO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 10:25 AM
 
27,076 posts, read 22,493,386 times
Reputation: 7601
I hear alot of stuff about the Civil War, why the South wanted to secede, and other stuff, but this is what I found out. The only reason ever publically articulated in public for secession was so that the Southern states could keep slaves. I have the proof right here:WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War. The sources are also listed, so don't even try to say it had nothing to do with slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 9,133,408 times
Reputation: 3056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Well yeah Rhett, attacking Fort Sumter was certainly an act of war. And by the Rebels unilaterally declaring their secession it was inevitable that the Federal government would interpret secession as rebellion and any responsible government is going to attempt to suppress rebellion. And suppression of rebellion often means war. It would've been unreasonable of the Rebels to think they could simply declare their independence and just walk away without expecting war. And indeed events proved that the Rebels expected war and were quite willing to fight one to attain their goal.
Actually because of how vague the Constitution was on this matter I see no reason why they would have necessarily assumed what you say here.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
I wonder what would've happened if the rebelling states had sued for secession in the courts rather than just declaring themselves independant?
I wonder as well, but again I argue that asking for permission from the federal government to secede sort of undermines the whole thing about declaring yourself as "independent" in the first place. I think it's pretty clear that the two concepts don't really jive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
For one thing it would've avoided (or postponed) the attack on Fort Sumter and for another had they won their case they wouldn't have been rebels.
Again, it took two to tango at Sumter. Lincoln knew what re-supplying the fort meant. Logistically there is no way the Confederacy could allow the resupply of the fort while trying to claim they were independent.

And, had the "Rebels" won the war they wouldn't have been "rebels" either. Funny how history works that way.... Continentals are "patriots" and Confederates are "traitors"... The perception alters pretty drastically based on the outcome of the subsequent war it seems...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 12:53 PM
 
Location: BOY-see
4,339 posts, read 6,885,059 times
Reputation: 4708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Again, it took two to tango at Sumter. Lincoln knew what re-supplying the fort meant. Logistically there is no way the Confederacy could allow the resupply of the fort while trying to claim they were independent.
Ah, but they could have done just that. Resupplying the fort is a far less warlike act than shelling it. If the Confederacy's sole goal was to achieve independence and be left alone, absolutely it could allow resupply of a single fort by sea. Even the basic declaration of secession is far greater grounds for military action than moving some hogsheads of supplies into territory you already control without conflict, be it Fort Sumter or Fort Monroe (in a similar status).

One could also argue that the Confederate demand for the fort's surrender was grounds for invasion by the Union, if one is crediting nonviolent pretexts that are fundamentally escalatory. I think provoking a fight over Fort Sumter was an act of pure pugnacity. My read of the era is that the 'Cotton is King!' Confederate leaders were so breathtakingly arrogant and confident about their prospects that they were eager to get the war started so it could be finished soon and they could continue to maintain their preferred antebellum way of life: a few genteel rich people on top growing cash crops, a whole bunch of poor whites and slaves eking out livings as hewers of wood, drawers of water, fixers of horseshoe and pickers of cotton, and virtually no one in between to question their power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 9,133,408 times
Reputation: 3056
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Ah, but they could have done just that. Resupplying the fort is a far less warlike act than shelling it. If the Confederacy's sole goal was to achieve independence and be left alone, absolutely it could allow resupply of a single fort by sea. Even the basic declaration of secession is far greater grounds for military action than moving some hogsheads of supplies into territory you already control without conflict, be it Fort Sumter or Fort Monroe (in a similar status).
One could just as easily state that the Confederacy had given the Federal govt PLENTY of time to make a decision as to the disposition of the fort. Throw in Seward's assurances that, not only would the fort NOT be resupplied, but would be abandoned and I don't think there's much of a question on where the anger might have come from.... The resupply of the fort announced Federal intent to stay...

I think it comes down to a tit-for-tat escalation really... The fort became a symbol for the legitimacy of secession. If the North concedes, they are in effect legitimizing secession. If the South allows Federal troops to remain, it is in effect making a case against the legitimacy of it's own secession...

In fact Francis Blair's advice to Lincoln (while Winfield Scott was suggesting abandoning the fort) was that surrender of the fort was ""virtually a surrender of the Union,"... I think it was clear for both sides what the stakes were at Sumter.

I also think your "Cotton is King!" sumation is only partially correct. There are MANY examples of wealthy Confederate leaders who weren't stupid enough to think that war was the way to go (or even disunion for that matter)... Plenty of hot-heads on both sides that wanted war.

Here's a pretty good summation of the escalation at Sumter and Fort Pickens...

Crisis at Fort Sumter

You can go in to each segment and examine what happened on the individual dates. If you're honest with yourself, you can see actions from both sides that mark a missed opportunity to avert war...

Ultimately I think one's attitude towards it all comes down to one's belief in the Constitutionality of secession in 1861... If you think it was Unconstitutional then you agree with the Union's actions as their "right" in defending their property..... If you think it WAS Constitutional, then you agree more with the actions of the South and wouldn't think it necessary for them to wait for the Union to say it was "okay" for them to leave the Union and thus it was within their rights to claim the property within their borders....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 02:20 PM
 
216 posts, read 199,254 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte View Post
I hear alot of stuff about the Civil War, why the South wanted to secede, and other stuff, but this is what I found out. The only reason ever publically articulated in public for secession was so that the Southern states could keep slaves. I have the proof right here:WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War. The sources are also listed, so don't even try to say it had nothing to do with slavery.
Abe hated the slaves try looking at some facts not tossed out by the north .Just a few daily Chicago Times Dec. 10 1860 New Orleans Daily C resent Jan 21 1861

The North was in a big recession had bunches of new people with no work the bankers pushed Abe to start the war . History repeating again

Cornell University has on line some copy's of the original war journals Think maybe Carl Max and Abe were buddies

Try this there was over 65,000 Blacks fought for the South Grant owned slaves also try this book Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kenn This is just a start . At least one guy here ask about the Jewish folks for the South .All ways Follow the money .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 02:58 PM
 
8,538 posts, read 9,857,063 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
I don't know, did the North profit from slavery? How? And if so I assume not so much as the southern slaveowners did.

Child labor wasn't slavery. Better to be poor than to be property, wouldn't you agree?
Slavery in New Jersey
by Nancy Shakir

Early History

It is 1610. Against the gentle slap of water on creaking wood and strain of rope against metal pulleys of the caravel, are the sounds of gruff men, giving and taking orders.

The Dutch, who first settled New Netherlands, as New Jersey and New York were known at that time, were deeply involved in the African slave trade. Most probably, although there are no written records, they brought Africans to New Jersey in the early 1600s to help build these outposts,


http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/hist..._es_jersey.htm

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York.

Slavery in the North


Slavery in the Northern states
Sep 16, 2008 8:16 AM
Report Abuse
The Northern states had slavery for up to 150 years. States like MA, NH, NY, CN, RI, PA, NJ and VT.

Slavery in the Northern states in Wars in History Channel


There wasn't even a SOUTH in 1610
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 11,705,333 times
Reputation: 7417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post

I wonder as well, but again I argue that asking for permission from the federal government to secede sort of undermines the whole thing about declaring yourself as "independent" in the first place. I think it's pretty clear that the two concepts don't really jive.
Indeed, but if the point is averting war then the Rebels could have tried the courts. One can't at the same time unilaterally declare independence AND say that war should be averted.


Yes, one must win one's rebellion to avoid being branded traitor and rebel. That is the nature of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 03:03 PM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 11,705,333 times
Reputation: 7417
Houston, I'm sure that all of us here are aware that slavery once existed in several northern colonies and states. We're also aware that this had little or nothing to do with the political situation in 1860-61
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 07:25 PM.

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