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.
Yep, it was Northern Aggression because the war started when the CSA opened fire on the US Army at Fort Sumter.
South Carolina wanted the USA to abandon Sumter. The first shots fired were Citadel cadets in the CSA fired on a supply ship, the Star of the West, that was dropping off food to the fort.
"Northern Aggression" is revisionist history. It was first used in 1956 when the SC Governor said all blacks should evacuate the south. It is a modern term.
Revisionist history is claiming that slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War.
As for Fort Sumter, there is far more detail involved in the first bloodless battle of the Civil War than can be covered in a forum post. To simplify, Fort Sumter along with Fort Moultrie existed in territory that belonged to South Carolina once it had seceded. The US refused to vacate. Exactly what should a sovereign state do when there is an enemy force occupying their territory?
The term “War of Northern Aggression” is accurate, no matter when it was created.
Revisionist history is claiming that slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War.
Maybe not the "sole" reason...
But certainly the main reason. Almost every State in the Confederacy mentioned slavery in their secession declaration. The Texas declaration mentioned slavery over 20 times.
And it's important to note that the powder keg issue was actually the intended federal policy on slavery in the new territories and states in the west.
He ran a slave plantation as executor of his father-in-law's estate, and he ran it in a way that was considered rather inhumane even by contemporary standards. The will stated that the slaves would be manumitted (freed) "within five years" and - contrary to common custom at the time - Lee took the full five years. He also made money by renting out his slaves - a practice that separated families, as only the most able-bodied were attractive for renters. With slaves being kept deliberately illiterate, separation was considered a harsh thing to so. And he even lobbied for a change in Virginia law, so he could rent slaves out across state lines.
So yes - you may be technically correct that didn't own slaves. But he sure as all out was master of hundreds, and treated them even worse than was common at the time. That dog won't hunt.
The Civil War was triggered by secession. And secession was motivated by the slave states desire to protect slavery. We know this. They thoughtfully wrote it down.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 09-19-2021 at 10:08 AM..
The war was fought to preserve the union, unfortunately you left out the fact that the "so call Confederacy", fired the first shots which ignited the war, not the North!
They like to ignore inconvenient facts like that. Only in the South is the Civil War called the War of Northern Aggression and even that designation is fading away.
You have the right to bawl about it. You don't have the right to make others get rid of it.
- All people have the right to their own beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to make others change their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that others must obey their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that something that offends them must be removed.
These two statements show the absurdity of demands to remove offending items:
- "I am offended by those who want everything that offends them removed."
- If everything that offends someone is removed, there will be nothing left.
People are demanding that street names must be changed. They do not understand how much it costs someone living on a street when government changes the name of a street. The people making the demand should be made to pay for the expenses the people living on the street must pay.
The ultimate case if this is one where a former property owner had a nice carved stone inscription of the address built into a stone house when he built it here. After the property was sold to a new owner, the city decided to change the name of the street. Now the city and the post office are demanding that the new owner of the house must change the inscription to show the new name of the street (a very large expense).
Robert E Lee did not own any slaves, and was offered commissions to lead both the North and the South armies. He chose the South solely because all of his land was in territory held by the South. If he had chosen the North, his property would have been confiscated by the South government. When the war ended, the North confiscated his land. It is now Arlington Cemetery.
Yet all of the BLMers are screaming that all of the statues of LEE must be taken down because he "fought for slavery". Waaaah! They don't even know his history. And after the war, he helped found Washington and Lee University.
And these screamers are demanding that many of the founding fathers be "removed from history" because they owned slaves. What these boneheads do not know is that EVERYONE who had any money before 1830 owned slaves. Slavery was the main "welfare system" for centuries. People who could not pay their debts sold themselves to pay the debts. It goes all the way back to Hammurabi.
Others making unreasonable demands:
- Making demands on others about COVIDE-19
- Demanding that people must disobey their own religions
- Demanding that religions must change their beliefs
- Demanding that people must obey your beliefs
- Forcing political beliefs on others
- Forcing YOUR solution to scientific problems onto others
- Using bad science to get your way
- Expecting to get something for nothing
I appreciate you're beliefs and feel that it's a commonly shared opinion with most here in the US. It's not entirely accurate though.
If I don't like something you do, I can band together with our fellows in our community to force those who represent me to make changes. This will be drawn up, voted upon, and in the possibility that it gets passed, I have essentially told you I don't like what you do, so now it's against the law..
You are free to the extent that the government allows you to be free. If your community decided to make it illegal to drive trucks, for instance, you're still free to move somewhere else, but if you choose to live in that community, trucks aren't allowed.
This is a great thing about America. We the people get to decide what's best for us. That's why the 2nd is so important, to hold those we elect in check and to protect our property rights.
You have the right to bawl about it. You don't have the right to make others get rid of it.
- All people have the right to their own beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to make others change their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that others must obey their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that something that offends them must be removed.
These two statements show the absurdity of demands to remove offending items:
- "I am offended by those who want everything that offends them removed."
- If everything that offends someone is removed, there will be nothing left.
People are demanding that street names must be changed. They do not understand how much it costs someone living on a street when government changes the name of a street. The people making the demand should be made to pay for the expenses the people living on the street must pay.
The ultimate case if this is one where a former property owner had a nice carved stone inscription of the address built into a stone house when he built it here. After the property was sold to a new owner, the city decided to change the name of the street. Now the city and the post office are demanding that the new owner of the house must change the inscription to show the new name of the street (a very large expense).
Robert E Lee did not own any slaves, and was offered commissions to lead both the North and the South armies. He chose the South solely because all of his land was in territory held by the South. If he had chosen the North, his property would have been confiscated by the South government. When the war ended, the North confiscated his land. It is now Arlington Cemetery.
Yet all of the BLMers are screaming that all of the statues of LEE must be taken down because he "fought for slavery". Waaaah! They don't even know his history. And after the war, he helped found Washington and Lee University.
And these screamers are demanding that many of the founding fathers be "removed from history" because they owned slaves. What these boneheads do not know is that EVERYONE who had any money before 1830 owned slaves. Slavery was the main "welfare system" for centuries. People who could not pay their debts sold themselves to pay the debts. It goes all the way back to Hammurabi.
Others making unreasonable demands:
- Making demands on others about COVIDE-19
- Demanding that people must disobey their own religions
- Demanding that religions must change their beliefs
- Demanding that people must obey your beliefs
- Forcing political beliefs on others
- Forcing YOUR solution to scientific problems onto others
- Using bad science to get your way
- Expecting to get something for nothing
Reasonable to a degree and then you start just flat out lying.
The city and the post office cannot make the homeowner change the carving. You're required to have only the numbers of your address posted on your home.
Revisionist history is claiming that slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War.
It was the motivating factor behind secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
As for Fort Sumter, there is far more detail involved in the first bloodless battle of the Civil War than can be covered in a forum post. To simplify, Fort Sumter along with Fort Moultrie existed in territory that belonged to South Carolina once it had seceded. The US refused to vacate. Exactly what should a sovereign state do when there is an enemy force occupying their territory?
The fort was the property of the US government, paid for by the taxpayers of the United states.
South Carolina was, in effect, attempting to steal it.
If you read the accounts, you will find that this is how the attack was perceived at the time. Even Buchanan (a state's rights advocate) was impressed by this dilemma over property rights and initiated the defense of US property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
The term “War of Northern Aggression” is accurate, no matter when it was created.
You conveniently ignore that the Confederate states also launched attacks on union states.
Yes, I remember my own grandmother referring to it as the 'War of Northern Aggression', and my only direct ancestor who fought in the civil war served in the Mississippi cavalry, so I am a bit conflicted about this myself. But there is no mistaking the fact that the entire crisis was started by southern slaveholders wanting to keep slavery and expand it. It was a terrific way to make a fortune ... by exploiting people.
They made the assumption that the northern states were going to eventually abolish the practice, perhaps through a constitutional amendment, and struck a pre-emptive blow to escape the power of the Federal Government.
Why?
Because for the first time in memory, a man was not even on the ballot in most of those southern states, and yet was able to win the presidency ... without a single one of their votes! Shocking. It signaled powerlessness, it suggested that no matter how passionately they felt about an issue, they would not be able to effect the outcome if the entire rest of the country was arrayed against them.
They felt helpless ... to protect the institution of slavery.
What these boneheads do not know is that EVERYONE who had any money before 1830 owned slaves.
I'm with you but just a minor correction. There's no percentage I can cite, but it's definitely not 100%. John Adams was against slavery, and his son John Quincy Adams sat a few feet away from Abraham Lincoln in the senate, and is said to have had a significant influence on Lincoln's view of slavery.
There were principled people who didn't participate in the practice at the time. Their perspectives aren't taught anywhere, though. You have to seek them out.
You have the right to bawl about it. You don't have the right to make others get rid of it.
- All people have the right to their own beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to make others change their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that others must obey their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that something that offends them must be removed.
These two statements show the absurdity of demands to remove offending items:
- "I am offended by those who want everything that offends them removed."
- If everything that offends someone is removed, there will be nothing left.
People are demanding that street names must be changed. They do not understand how much it costs someone living on a street when government changes the name of a street. The people making the demand should be made to pay for the expenses the people living on the street must pay.
The ultimate case if this is one where a former property owner had a nice carved stone inscription of the address built into a stone house when he built it here. After the property was sold to a new owner, the city decided to change the name of the street. Now the city and the post office are demanding that the new owner of the house must change the inscription to show the new name of the street (a very large expense).
Robert E Lee did not own any slaves, and was offered commissions to lead both the North and the South armies. He chose the South solely because all of his land was in territory held by the South. If he had chosen the North, his property would have been confiscated by the South government. When the war ended, the North confiscated his land. It is now Arlington Cemetery.
Yet all of the BLMers are screaming that all of the statues of LEE must be taken down because he "fought for slavery". Waaaah! They don't even know his history. And after the war, he helped found Washington and Lee University.
And these screamers are demanding that many of the founding fathers be "removed from history" because they owned slaves. What these boneheads do not know is that EVERYONE who had any money before 1830 owned slaves. Slavery was the main "welfare system" for centuries. People who could not pay their debts sold themselves to pay the debts. It goes all the way back to Hammurabi.
Others making unreasonable demands:
- Making demands on others about COVIDE-19
- Demanding that people must disobey their own religions
- Demanding that religions must change their beliefs
- Demanding that people must obey your beliefs
- Forcing political beliefs on others
- Forcing YOUR solution to scientific problems onto others
- Using bad science to get your way
- Expecting to get something for nothing
I agree with your thread title. But your post shows that you are just as guilty of demanding that others act as you want them to. For example, YOU may think that masks are worthless, but you have no right to demand that businesses stop requiring them. YOU may think that RE Lee was a great dude, but you have no right to demand that cities keep his statue in their parks.
More precisely, we ALL have the right to demand whatever we want; that doesn’t mean we’re going to get it. The one thing you wrote that is true, is that no one has the right to force political beliefs on others. And thankfully that is not happening in the USA. This forum is good evidence of that.
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.
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.
