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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2019, 03:37 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,082 posts, read 17,033,734 times
Reputation: 30236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Modern public school curricula generally teach that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. This is correct. We know it's correct because when the Southern state seceded, they very publicly aired their grievances for all posterity, and their overriding grievance was interference with slavery. They wanted, above all, the power to enslave, and they feared that that power - again, to enslave - was being encroached upon.
The immediate problem was the issue of fugitive slaves. Slaves were an incredible portion of invested Southern capital. Slaves were also mobile. When transportation was primitive, as it was at the time of independence, their mobility was limited. When better stage coach roads, steamships and railroads came to be, the ability of a slave to travel to "free" territory was enhanced. The citizens of "free" states were understandably unwilling to return human chattel. In addition a traveling slave owner was faced with the risk of his "property" becoming free. This was exactly the problem in the Dred Scott case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2019, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Planet Telex
5,900 posts, read 3,903,028 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
That poster is actually OK in some areas. A bit off in others.
He is OK on military spending and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements. Aside from that, there is nothing that differentiates himself from any other authoritarian right wing nut job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2019, 01:33 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,732 times
Reputation: 80
Default Baiting the South Carolinians?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6LKmhDRWFc

The above is a video published on YouTube by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on June 10, 2013.

The full title is “Patrick Clawson Responds to Questions, Full Video – 9/21/2012”.

At the present time, Mr. Clawsen is the Morningstar senior fellow and director of research at the Institute.

The context for the quotation below is a discussion of a possible conflict with Iran.

From 3:36-49, Mr. Clawson makes the following statement:

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel (that) he could call out the Federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked. Which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. (bold characters mine)”

Last edited by TedF0ster; 06-21-2019 at 01:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2019, 01:22 PM
 
14,993 posts, read 23,899,456 times
Reputation: 26523
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel (that) he could call out the Federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked. Which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. (bold characters mine)”
Can you enlighten us on "exactly that thing", what it is? Strange you don't mention it, my guess is youtube guy didn't mention what "exactly that thing" is ether, maybe he doesnt now what 'exactly that thing' is. Or Youtube guy probably gave another pay per view link "CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT 'EXACTLY THAT THING'".

As far as I know, the only thing that the Union didn't do is surrender the fort immediately. Well yeah, performing "EXACTLY THAT THING" of surrendering the union probably also would have prevented the war. Youtube guy is a genius I tell you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2019, 03:17 PM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,710,204 times
Reputation: 19315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Can you enlighten us on "exactly that thing", what it is? Strange you don't mention it, my guess is youtube guy didn't mention what "exactly that thing" is ether, maybe he doesnt now what 'exactly that thing' is. Or Youtube guy probably gave another pay per view link "CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT 'EXACTLY THAT THING'".

As far as I know, the only thing that the Union didn't do is surrender the fort immediately. Well yeah, performing "EXACTLY THAT THING" of surrendering the union probably also would have prevented the war. Youtube guy is a genius I tell you.
Presumably, THAT THING was resupplying the fort. Perhaps Ted is so confused that he thinks that providing a military installation with basic supplies is only done when trying to provoke a war. Furthermore, the historical record shows that Lincoln agonized over the decision of whether or not to resupply Sumter, and also notified the governor of South Carolina in advance about the resupply effort, taking pains to underscore that the resupply would include only provisions - not troops or armaments - so long as it was allowed to proceed.

My guess is that's THAT THING that Ted thinks was a Machiavellian maneuver to provoke a conflict. Or, at least, that's what some guy on YouTube says. I doubt Ted's actually given it any thought beyond assuming the ominously intoned claim's complete and absolute veracity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:33 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,732 times
Reputation: 80
Mr. Clawson is on the staff of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a foreign policy think tank. According to the Wiki article about it, "Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama." The Wiki article also states that, among others, WINEP's Board of Advisors include Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice. This demonstrates that WINEP is in the Washington mainstream, and it is not some obscure hole-in-the-wall organization founded by someone who lives in his parents' basement.

Clawson made his statement as he remarked about war with Iran, American presidents, and how the government got into wars in the past. He did not take a pro-Confederate tone as he was talking, and he was and is a member of a prominent foreign policy organization. It is logical to conclude that he is knowledgeable about U.S. history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 06:38 AM
 
14,993 posts, read 23,899,456 times
Reputation: 26523
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
Mr. Clawson is on the staff of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a foreign policy think tank. According to the Wiki article about it, "Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama." The Wiki article also states that, among others, WINEP's Board of Advisors include Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice. This demonstrates that WINEP is in the Washington mainstream, and it is not some obscure hole-in-the-wall organization founded by someone who lives in his parents' basement.

Clawson made his statement as he remarked about war with Iran, American presidents, and how the government got into wars in the past. He did not take a pro-Confederate tone as he was talking, and he was and is a member of a prominent foreign policy organization. It is logical to conclude that he is knowledgeable about U.S. history.
That is impressive, but dude, it tells us absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. You learned that Lincoln refused to surrender Ft. Sumter (assuming that's what "that thing" is). That's not exactly earth shattering, even you had to have learned that in school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 07:21 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
30,708 posts, read 79,831,000 times
Reputation: 39453
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
You don't learn the whole story about anything in high school. What do you have, 300 years of US history compressed into how many hours of classroom time.

Yes, the South was "angry" of state's rights issues, particularly the right to own slaves. Read the secession documents of the Confederate States; you will clearly see that secession was about slavery.

Edit: It is easy to pontificate when participants clearly and voluminously wrote about their motivations and experiences in the war -- no one has to guess anything.
In all the voluminous writings about the Iraq war, did the government ever say "this war is about oil?"

If you read the voluminous writings, you would think the Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction. However if you read soldiers individual diaries you will find they have varied reasons for being there and varied beliefs of what the war was about. Media accounts will give you a different version altogether. European version another story. Iraq's two or five sides all have their own versions.

The Civil war is the same way. What the war was about for Jefferson Davis is no the same as what it was about for Robert E Lee, or what it was about for Billy Bob Donkus form Appalachia, or for the brothers from Virginia who fought on opposite sides of the war. What it was about for northerners was different than what it was about for southerners. What the government wrote is different from their actual motives. different people in each of the governments had different reasons. Some agreed with the "official" writings and some did not.

We fall victim to our own proclivity to attempt to over simplify everything and to put all reasons and people into a box that fits with our worldview so we can then generalize about people (them ones is "bad," these are "good."). Unfortunately it does not really work that way.

Were all of the millions of people in the Confederate states (or even a majority) just evil bad people for some magical reason? If an Irishman went to Boston he was a good guy, but if he went to Charleston he was a bad guy? If he lived in Washington DC - good guy, a couple of miles south and suddenly he becomes an evil being? Was there something in the air that turned people evil if they crossed a certain imaginary line drawn across the country?

While it may help avoid forcing people to think things through or to realize things are far more complex than we can possibly understand today, it is not very rational to believe in such a magic line that turns people evil.

Nor does it make much sense to try to put over 9 million people into a box and generalize about them applying modern values and understandings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 08:40 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,732 times
Reputation: 80
My point is ... if Lincoln didn't intend to maneuver the Confederate government into firing the first shot, into firing on the flag, then why did he issue such an order?

Other items about Fort Sumter:

*according to what I've read, two Union soldiers were killed there, and they didn't die during the battle. They were killed because they were standing too close to a cannon that blew up during the surrender ceremony.

*at the time of the battle, the fort was standing on foreign territory, and the Confederate government had an understandable desire to have it removed.

Last edited by TedF0ster; 06-25-2019 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 09:29 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,082 posts, read 17,033,734 times
Reputation: 30236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
My point is ... if Lincoln didn't intend to maneuver the Confederate government into firing the first shot, into firing on the flag, then why did he issue this order?

************

*at the time of the battle, the fort was standing on foreign territory, and the Confederate government had an understandable desire to have it removed.
Was Lincoln duty-bound to recognize Fort Sumter as foreign territory?
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.

© 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