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.
"He's a Civil War buff? I'd love to be a Civil War buff." --George Costanza
I'm not a Civil War buff either, but this Brexit negotiation got me to thinking-- The Southern States didn't negotiate. They just left. Other than ego & lust for power, why did The North feel such a need to go to war over it? If you invite a bad actor to your birthday party and he wants to leave, do you beat him up to make him stay?
The senseless rant in former Post #2 (since deleted) notwithstanding, the self-proclaimed "Social Justice Warriors" of the present day have a lot in common with the sheltered Northern abolitionists who stoked the fires of resentment and refusal to advance at a slower pace, then punished a defeated South -- the majority of whose citizens were not directly linked to a slaveholding aristocracy.
Unless we are incredibly stupid, we won't see another American Civil War, but a "peaceful divorce" between "red" and "blue" America -- in the manner of Czechoslovakia or Nineteenth Century Sweden.
Compromise was attempted on many occasions in the years before Fort Sumter, BTW; below is a link to the best-known; This was referenced in history texts during my formative years, but I doubt that the people preaching resentment in many present-day urban classrooms have much interest in it.
"He's a Civil War buff? I'd love to be a Civil War buff." --George Costanza
I'm not a Civil War buff either, but this Brexit negotiation got me to thinking-- The Southern States didn't negotiate. They just left. Other than ego & lust for power, why did The North feel such a need to go to war over it? If you invite a bad actor to your birthday party and he wants to leave, do you beat him up to make him stay?
The slavery issue was settled w/o civil war in most other nations.
It could have been here, too.
Except that one side wouldn't negotiate, instead pig-headedly insisting on trying to keep their inhuman system in place. They ended up losing not only their slaves but a whole lot more in the process. It would have been a lot wiser on their part to sit down and talk about it.
The slavery issue was settled w/o civil war in most other nations.
It could have been here, too.
Except that one side wouldn't negotiate, instead pig-headedly insisting on trying to keep their inhuman system in place. They ended up losing not only their slaves but a whole lot more in the process. It would have been a lot wiser on their part to sit down and talk about it.
The pig-headed Northern abolitionists were every bit as uncompromising as the Southern slaveowners, and the roots of the conflict can be traced back, to a lesser degree, to the disagreement between Adams and Jefferson over whether the United States would be an industrial, or an agrarian nation. The fires of resentment were stoked by both sides, and the refusal to acknowledge this is a common trait among those peddling the oversimplified Leftist "answer".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-07-2019 at 07:31 AM..
"He's a Civil War buff? I'd love to be a Civil War buff." --George Costanza
I'm not a Civil War buff either, but this Brexit negotiation got me to thinking-- The Southern States didn't negotiate. They just left. Other than ego & lust for power, why did The North feel such a need to go to war over it? If you invite a bad actor to your birthday party and he wants to leave, do you beat him up to make him stay?
Did you look for any existing threads here? The Civil War has been re-fought over and over right here in the History forum.
Before Lincoln had even taken office, Southern states began seceding from the United States. In every single case, their secession document said they were doing so to preserve the institution of slavery. The United States government took the position that secession was unconstitutional (although it was not mentioned in the Constitution) and used force to suppress the insurrection, eventually using the Emancipation Proclamation as a tool to further that objective. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that secession was not a valid act under the Constitution, so, no, the Northern states were not just exercising their collective ego and lust for power. They were putting down a rebellion by what were viewed as traitors.
All the nonsense about "States Rights" is just that. Nonsense. All of the seceding states said they were doing so to preserve the institution of slavery. People now say it was a fight over states rights so they don't sound so racist in defending the Confederacy.
All the nonsense about "States Rights" is just that. Nonsense. All of the seceding states said they were doing so to preserve the institution of slavery. People now say it was a fight over states rights so they don't sound so racist in defending the Confederacy.
Mensa, hi..
You're asserting that 'States Rights' and emancipation were mutually exclusive. But prior to the Civil War emancipation was a State' right. Northern states like Pennsylvania freed their slaves only at their state level. Southern states believed they retained that same right, and didn't want Lincoln to infringe on that established precedent.
I understand ethical outrage about the South's defense of slave ownership.. but I don't think it was "nonsense" for the South to assert that emancipation belonged to the states. Northern states had already established that.. And the South presciently understood, surrendering state sovereignty was a never-ending slippery slope (to Federal power). Peace
The pig-headed Northern abolitionists were every bit as uncompromising as the Southern slaveowners, and the roots of the conflict can be traced back, to a lesser degree, to the disagreement between Adams and Jefferson over whether the United States would be an industrial, or an agrarian nation. The fires of resentment were stoked by both sides, and the refusal to acknowledge this is a common trait among those peddling the oversimplified Leftist "answer".
The pig-headed Northern abolitionists were every bit as uncompromising as the Southern slaveowners, and the roots of the conflict can be traced back, to a lesser degree, to the disagreement between Adams and Jefferson over whether the United States would be an industrial, or an agrarian nation. The fires of resentment were stoked by both sides, and the refusal to acknowledge this is a common trait among those peddling the oversimplified Leftist "answer".
Let's simplify a step further.
Either you're OK with slavery or you're not.
The nots have always been right on that point and their viewpoint has prevailed.
You're free to continue to whitewash it for your own "peace of mind" in whatever manner gives you comfort.
The pig-headed Northern abolitionists were every bit as uncompromising as the Southern slaveowners, and the roots of the conflict can be traced back, to a lesser degree, to the disagreement between Adams and Jefferson over whether the United States would be an industrial, or an agrarian nation. The fires of resentment were stoked by both sides, and the refusal to acknowledge this is a common trait among those peddling the oversimplified Leftist "answer".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89
All of them Republicans!
Say What???
The Republican Party wasn't even founded until 1856 (and Wilmot was a Democrat rather than a Whig), Early Republican platforms called for limiting slavery to the states where it already existed (thereby ensuring its eventual demise as new free states entered the Union.
And Jim Crow laws (not enacted until after the Civil War ended, for reasons which should be obvious) were the creation of white Southern Democrats -- intended as a sop to white Southerners, mostly non-slaveholders, who might otherwise have continued a partisan / guerilla campaign in rural areas. The phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the "redneck revolt".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Let's simplify a step further.
Either you're OK with slavery or you're not.
Of course you seek to simplify; simple answers for simple minds are all your viewpoint has ever had to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
The nots have always been right on that point and their viewpoint has prevailed.
You're free to continue to whitewash it for your own "peace of mind" in whatever manner gives you comfort.
It would have taken a bit longer (it did in Brazil, to learn and longer still in the Persian Gulf emirates) but slavery would have succumbed to its own weaknesses in any case; I'm relieved to learn that some people, in their, all-seeing, self-righteousness, have determined that your answer was worth half a million dead, many more casualties, and a century of resentment.
Now please feel free to follow the usual pattern, and label all those who don't subscribe entirely to "progressive" Holy Writ as white nationalists, Klansmen, or Nazis.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-07-2019 at 09:23 AM..
The south had a much lower population with a much more fertile and longer growing season. Couple that together the south’s resources were much more demanded globally thus the wealth and power concentrated in southern land owners far surpassed that of northerners.
The fact was the north needed the south and not vice versus. This was excacerbated in that the south’s economy relied upon large amounts of inexpensive labor. The war was needed for the north to continue to flex their control of the nation and retain the south’s resources and tax base.
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.
