Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-12-2017, 09:47 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
Much like an abusive husband beats a wife into submission when she wants to leave. And just as sick.
More like a husband that tries to take drugs away from his wife (slavery) and she leaves him so she can keep on using drugs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2017, 10:03 AM
 
Location: SW MO
1,127 posts, read 1,267,976 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Sick?????

As one of the most contentious issues between the northern and southern states was slavery in the vast territories of the West, what do you think would have happened if the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself as a separate country. A military conflict likely would have been inevitable. If the Confederacy had evolved like South Africa, it might have allied itself with Nazi Germany in WWII.

One of the goals of the Constitution and the Perpetual Union was to "insure domestic Tranquility" by replacing armed conflict among the states, so common in European history, with Constitutional solutions to conflicts and political differences. Indeed, within a few years of the end of the Civil War, the vast armies and the Union Navy were gone and the nation set out to rebuild and pay down its war debts. I imagine much larger standing armies would have been maintained in the Confederacy and the shrunken United States as well as large navies, if the Confederacy had won its independence. It would have been an immense burden, as we've experienced since the end of WWII when we chose to become the world's policeman.

The Confederate leaders certainly believed that they easily would win their revolution, gain independence, and preserve the institution of African American slavery. Few were the Sam Houstons warning realistically and accurately of the coming destruction:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNB3Y5uBRQ

The Ohio River/Mississippi River basin also was an important trade route for the states of the former Northwest Territory. These states did not want the Mississippi under the control of a foreign, perhaps hostile nation.
If Lincoln had understood the right of a sovereign state to secede from a republic not aligned with its interests, and cared about the Constitution at all, no war would be needed, or fought. The south did not desire war, but was forced into it by the actions of the federal government. It was not a rebellion, it was a revolution. Imagine the history books had the American revolution been lost to England. One only has to see the all- invasive and hegemonic federal government of today to understand why the south was unwilling to allow the increasing federal control of its resources and way of life to continue. Abraham Lincoln cemented by force the supremacy of the federal government over states' sovereign rights, and here we are. This nation was formed as a republic of sovereign states. Lincoln turned it into a centrally controlled oligarchy using the blood of its citizens. The police actions and illegal wars of the past 75 years would not have come about without Lincoln's power grab. Taking sovereignty from the states and moving it to D.C. simply moved the big house to Washington and turned the whole of America into a federal plantation. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he enslaved the entire nation. At least those who survived the war...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2017, 12:37 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
The south did not desire war, but was forced into it by the actions of the federal government. It was not a rebellion, it was a revolution.
Battle of Fort Sumter

On December 20, 1860, South Carolina officially seceded from the Union, and demanded that all United States forces evacuate Charleston Harbor. At that time the small number of US forces at Charleston were under the command of Major Robert Anderson (below left).

Rather than surrender his command, Major Anderson took action on the evening of December 26. He gathered his entire command (roughly eighty five men then stationed on the mainland at Fort Moultrie), and secretly moved them all, under cover of darkness, to the island stronghold of Fort Sumter.

Despite being in a very defensible position, Anderson needed more men and supplies to be able to hold his ground against a determined attack. He sent word to Washington asking for assistance, and help was soon on the way.

That help came in the form of the Star of the West, a merchant ship loaded with supplies and 200 men to bolster Anderson's defense, but the South Carolinian defenders did not intend to allow Anderson to be relieved. On January 9, 1861, the Star of the West sailed into Charleston Harbor, but before she could reach Fort Sumter she came under heavy fire and was forced to turn back.

Therefore, Major Anderson was left alone, undermanned and under-supplied, to face the unrest that was brewing in Charleston.

After Anderson had consolidated his forces at Fort Sumter, the South Carolina militia forces had seized all other US property in Charleston, including the local armory. So, while Anderson was isolated, the South Carolina forces were quickly arming and readying themselves to attack.

In March, things got even more interesting... ...the new Confederate Government took over the direction of the siege, and the forces in Charleston were placed under the command of General P. G. T. Beauregard (above right). It is interesting to note that Anderson had been Beauregard's artillery instructor at West Point, and the two were said to be close friends.

Beauregard determined to end the siege by cutting off all sources of supply for Fort Sumter (up to then, Anderson's men had been allowed to purchase food from Charleston), and force the fort to be evacuated for lack of supplies. This move increased the likelihood that there would be a Battle of Fort Sumter.

In early April, Abraham Lincoln informed the Confederate leadership that he intended to resupply Fort Sumter, and sent a small fleet to carry this out. The Confederate high command decided that they could not allow Anderson to be resupplied, and on April 11, Beauregard sent his aides to Fort Sumter with a demand for surrender. Anderson refused the demand and sent this message back:

"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication, demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor and of my obligation to my Government prevent my compliance."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2017, 02:46 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
If Lincoln had understood the right of a sovereign state to secede from a republic not aligned with its interests, and cared about the Constitution at all, no war would be needed, or fought.
The southern states were not sovereign states. They ceded that status when they joined the United States under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," which was made more perfect by the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized in Texas v. White that no right to secede by a state existed under Constitutional law.

See posts 262 and 264 in this thread.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...rnight-27.html

The colonies were NOT sovereign states, and as they joined the Perpetual Union of the United States before gaining their independence from Great Britain, they were never sovereign states.

Neo-Confederates are as delusional as the original Confederates.


Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
The south did not desire war, but was forced into it by the actions of the federal government. It was not a rebellion, it was a revolution. Imagine the history books had the American revolution been lost to England. One only has to see the all- invasive and hegemonic federal government of today to understand why the south was unwilling to allow the increasing federal control of its resources and way of life to continue. Abraham Lincoln cemented by force the supremacy of the federal government over states' sovereign rights, and here we are. This nation was formed as a republic of sovereign states. Lincoln turned it into a centrally controlled oligarchy using the blood of its citizens. The police actions and illegal wars of the past 75 years would not have come about without Lincoln's power grab. Taking sovereignty from the states and moving it to D.C. simply moved the big house to Washington and turned the whole of America into a federal plantation. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he enslaved the entire nation. At least those who survived the war...
And the wars of the last 75 years are dwarfed by the carnage and lost treasure of the Civil War, waged by the slave-owning Confederate leaders to secure the institution of human bondage of African Americans.

At the start of the war, the primary war goal of the Union was to preserve the Perpetual Union, and thereby insure domestic tranquility on the Continent. Lincoln well explained in his First Inaugural Address that the right of secession was neither implied and certainly not expressly stated in the Constitution, and that such a right was the equivalent of institutionalized anarchy.

See post 106 here:

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...tatues-11.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2017, 10:27 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,378 posts, read 16,502,517 times
Reputation: 29536
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
If Lincoln had understood the right of a sovereign state to secede from a republic not aligned with its interests, and cared about the Constitution at all, no war would be needed, or fought. The south did not desire war, but was forced into it by the actions of the federal government. It was not a rebellion, it was a revolution. Imagine the history books had the American revolution been lost to England. One only has to see the all- invasive and hegemonic federal government of today to understand why the south was unwilling to allow the increasing federal control of its resources and way of life to continue. Abraham Lincoln cemented by force the supremacy of the federal government over states' sovereign rights, and here we are. This nation was formed as a republic of sovereign states. Lincoln turned it into a centrally controlled oligarchy using the blood of its citizens. The police actions and illegal wars of the past 75 years would not have come about without Lincoln's power grab. Taking sovereignty from the states and moving it to D.C. simply moved the big house to Washington and turned the whole of America into a federal plantation. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he enslaved the entire nation. At least those who survived the war...
You are silent on WRnative's point about an inevitable clash regarding territories, probably making Bleeding Kansas look serene.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2017, 12:15 AM
 
2,586 posts, read 1,326,018 times
Reputation: 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
Much like an abusive husband beats a wife into submission when she wants to leave. And just as sick.
You mean like Southern slave owners beat their slaves into submission? And refused to let them leave?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2017, 07:22 PM
 
Location: SW MO
1,127 posts, read 1,267,976 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
You mean like Southern slave owners beat their slaves into submission? And refused to let them leave?
Yeah, kinda like that. Except he didn't beat them. He killed them and impoverished those who survived.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2017, 07:24 PM
 
Location: SW MO
1,127 posts, read 1,267,976 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
You are silent on WRnative's point about an inevitable clash regarding territories, probably making Bleeding Kansas look serene.
I am silent because I don't deal in conjecture. We have no way of knowing what would have happened after a peaceful split, because we never got the chance to find out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 10:31 AM
 
2,586 posts, read 1,326,018 times
Reputation: 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryboy73 View Post
Yeah, kinda like that. Except he didn't beat them. He killed them and impoverished those who survived.
So slaves weren't kept in poverty? And wouldn't be killed if they had pushed as hard as would have been required to change their status? I would rather die than lead a slave's life.

Last edited by robertbrianbush; 10-16-2017 at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 11:26 AM
 
9,332 posts, read 6,866,407 times
Reputation: 14736
The north really didn't care that much about "slavery" in it's traditional form. Sure there were abolitionist in Boston and a few diverse areas of the Union but they didn't make up is primary constituency.

The primary reason for the American Civil War was the North needed the south but the South did not need the North.

At the time we were less that a 100 years into our time of being a nation after fighting multiple bloody wars with the European powers. We had shed blood and gone through a ton of pain to birth the nation that was in its infancy. The US was just arriving as a power on a global scale. We had an infinite amount of land, resources, and opportunity but limited infrastructure/navy/military. Our primary role at this point was importing human capital (North and West from Europe and South from Africa).

Now if you look at the wealth distribution the south had far more "wealthy" people that controlled large industries and plantations. The north had far more people, manufacturing, and industry but the wealth per person was far lower. The north needed both the tax basis to cover the entire federal budget (both to maintain existing infrastructure and to expand westward) as well as the crops/commodities grown into the south to be processed and manufacturing in the north.

The north leveraged their outright population and area to combat the south's expansion westward into areas like Texas, Misery, Kansas, New Mexico, Cali, and other western territories. The south's wealth advantage depended upon cheap to free labor in the form of slavery where the north relied upon manufacturing and technology. The control of the expansion and limitation of the south's advantages are what triggered the war. Not an idealism about race and the act of slavery.

Go to Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, west Virginia, and even most of NY state and you wouldn't have found that much apathy around the institution of slavery.
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 $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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top