U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-12-2010, 08:44 AM
 
6,543 posts, read 12,425,297 times
Reputation: 3143

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
You have no idea what my political leanings are. Your analogy is valid only as to the comparison between Saddam's Iraq and Jeff Davis' Confederacy. It ends there.
And in the post before....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
I'd be much happier in a nation rid of the right wing, bible-thumping, anti-government sentiment so prevalent in the south, and I'm sure they'd be a lot happier.
Yeah, you're just a closed book, shrouded in mystery...

Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 01-12-2010 at 09:20 AM..

 
Old 01-12-2010, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,155 posts, read 3,844,044 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
And in the post before....



Yeah, you're just a closed book, shrouded in mystery...
Don't take him too seriously Rhett, in my Confederate flag thread he regurgitated alot of the same rhetoric as he does here in this one. Trying to get him to see our side and view of the civil war is impossible (which he calls southern revisionism, but from my experience southern revisionism means the total denial of slavery as a cause) and slavery was definately a big cause, but NOT the only one.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 226,797 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
You keep ducking the point.

The point of this thread is set forth in the original post:



In other words, the reason both that the South attempted to secede, and that the South started the war by firing on a U.S. military installation, was slavery.


From the Baltimore Exchange, 23d ult. (i.e. April 23, 1861)
Interview between Messengers of Peace and Mr. Lincoln

The Baltimore Sun has the following in relation to the interview between the President and a committee of the "Young Men’s Christian Association of Baltimore," it says:

We learn that a delegation from five of the Young Men's Christian Associations of Baltimore, consisting of six members of each, yesterday proceeded to Washington for an interview with the President, the purpose being to intercede with him in behalf a peaceful policy, and to entreat him not to pass troops through Baltimore or Maryland. The Rev. Dr. Fuller, of the Baptist church, accompanied the party, by invitation, as chairman, and the conversation was conducted mainly between him and Mr. Lincoln, and was not heard entire by all the members of the Convention.

Our informant, however, vouches for what we now write. He states that upon the introduction, they were received very cordially by Mr. Lincoln?aa sort of rude familiarity of manner ? and the conversation opened by Dr. Fulller seeking to impress upon Mr. Lincoln the vast responsibility of the position he occupied, and that upon him depended the issues, of peace or war?on one hand aa terrible, fratricidal conflict, and on the other peace.
“But” said Mr. Lincoln, what am I to do?”

“Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a Government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may he averted.” “AND WHAT SHALL BECOME OF THE REVENUE? I SHALL HAVE NO GOVERNMENT?NO RESOURCES?”

Dr. Fuller expressed the opinion that the Northern States would constitute an imposing government and furnish revenue, but our informant could not follow the exact terms of the remark.

(Reprinted in the Memphis Daily Avalanche May 8th 1861, pg.1, col. 4.)
 
Old 01-12-2010, 09:08 AM
 
38,429 posts, read 22,404,648 times
Reputation: 11848
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
You keep ducking the point.

The point of this thread is set forth in the original post:



In other words, the reason both that the South attempted to secede, and that the South started the war by firing on a U.S. military installation, was slavery.
You miss the point. The reason the South seceded was because they were facing a political black hole. The North had more people, and would therefore control the federal government.

Lincoln deliberately provoked the South into firing on Fort Sumter. You don't believe me? Google, "The plan succeeded. They fired on Fort Sumter."
 
Old 01-12-2010, 09:20 AM
 
6,543 posts, read 12,425,297 times
Reputation: 3143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
You keep ducking the point.

The point of this thread is set forth in the original post.
I'm not ducking anything. Was the war caused by slavery? Loaded question IMO with no simple answer.

Was SECESSION brought about because of slavery? Primarily it was IMO....

The war, however, was ADMITTEDLY fought by the Union to "Preserve the Union" (ie... It was challenging the South's right to secede). If the Union didn't challenge the right of secession, there is no war....

My thought is that the North had as much of a profit-motive to prevent secession as the South did in doing it. It wasn't some moral crusade, nor was it because they just liked the South and would miss them or something. They fought on the principle that secession was illegal, and their motivation for feeling that way was economic.... (again, to me, their motivations are irrelevent, but....)

Now people like Angus see that as me wishing to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the North. Problem with that is that I understand that based on their point of view regarding secession, they did what they should have done IMO.... I don't hate the North or think they were completely in the wrong. I just am one of the first that's going to jump in to defend what the South did when someone tries to place the blame squarely on their shoulders.

So it's a series of things/events that brought about the war. Either side could have stopped the progression of events. Neither did. I don't find it proper to put it all on the shoulders of the South for this reason, AND because I agree with the idea that it was within their right to secede, REGARDLESS of the reason for doing so....



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmccollough
In other words, the reason both that the South attempted to secede, .
I've never said otherwise Jack....
 
Old 01-12-2010, 09:21 AM
 
6,543 posts, read 12,425,297 times
Reputation: 3143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
Don't take him too seriously Rhett, in my Confederate flag thread he regurgitated alot of the same rhetoric as he does here in this one. Trying to get him to see our side and view of the civil war is impossible (which he calls southern revisionism, but from my experience southern revisionism means the total denial of slavery as a cause) and slavery was definately a big cause, but NOT the only one.
Oh I know.... I've been down this road even before your thread. That's why my participation in that one was limited...
 
Old 01-12-2010, 09:37 AM
 
900 posts, read 497,253 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
Don't take him too seriously Rhett, in my Confederate flag thread he regurgitated alot of the same rhetoric as he does here in this one. Trying to get him to see our side and view of the civil war is impossible (which he calls southern revisionism, but from my experience southern revisionism means the total denial of slavery as a cause) and slavery was definately a big cause, but NOT the only one.

You have no 'side' in the Civil War. Your 'side' was slavery. It renders everything else moot.

But it is not surprising that those who defend the South's position in the Civil War continue to bleat on about the Confederate flag, as though it was some holy icon.

It's just the flag of another defeated enemy of the United States, much like the Rising Sun or the Swastika. It should have it's appropriate place in any military museum, along with those flags.

If you don't take me seriously, why bother responding? In fact Rhett supposedly put me on ignore, although apparently he changed his mind.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 10:00 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
9,685 posts, read 17,692,068 times
Reputation: 8707
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And many, many Southerners weren't fighting for slaves at all. The majority of Southerners weren't slave holders, most didn't even aspire to owning slaves. Maybe some fought for slavery. And others fought for the rights of the states to make such laws on the state level, to not have a federal government dictating such laws. And others fought just to defend their homes, just to drive out the invaders, because the war was mostly fought in Southern territory.

Those not fighting to preserve slavery were duped by those that did. The leadership of the South rebelled to protect slavery and the fighting was to protect that rebellion. What may have motivated this or that individual soldier didn't matter, his following the lead and serving the interests of the slave owning elites is what mattered.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 10:04 AM
 
6,543 posts, read 12,425,297 times
Reputation: 3143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Those not fighting to preserve slavery were duped by those that did. The leadership of the South rebelled to protect slavery and the fighting was to protect that rebellion. What may have motivated this or that individual soldier didn't matter, his following the lead and serving the interests of the slave owning elites is what mattered.
Pot - Kettle to me....

Like the average Union soldier cared all that much about keeping Georgia in the Union? Could you not as easily say that they were "Duped into fighting to preserve the Union." ?

Beyond that, had you asked the average soldiers of both sides, the Union soldier would actually say, "I'm fighting to preserve the Union." and they took pride in doing so..... I wonder how they'd answer the follow-up question of, "Why do you care if Georgia is a part of the United States or not?"

Whereas the average southerner would have RARELY said they were fighting "For slavery"....

So who was truly "duped"?

I suppose you could say that the Confederate Soldier was duped into fighting by giving them other reasons to do it, while the Union Soldier was duped into actually believing that "preserving the Union" held some sort of benefit to them...
 
Old 01-12-2010, 10:05 AM
 
38,429 posts, read 22,404,648 times
Reputation: 11848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Those not fighting to preserve slavery were duped by those that did. The leadership of the South rebelled to protect slavery and the fighting was to protect that rebellion. What may have motivated this or that individual soldier didn't matter, his following the lead and serving the interests of the slave owning elites is what mattered.
Of course it matters why the individual soldiers fought. This wasn't a standing army, after all, they were volunteers. To say that millions of men (and a few women) were duped is ridiculous. They weren't duped, they just didn't fight for the reason you wish to ascribe as the sole reason. You want a simple, cut-and-dried, explanation for a war, when instead, the situation was incredibly complex, and slavery was entwined with a host of other factors.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top