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 11-17-2009, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,761,214 times
Reputation: 10454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlabel View Post
Look,It's as simple as this:

1) South paying 70% of cost to run the U.S. govenment via tariffs on King Cotton. (Overwhelming most of it spent on Northern infrastucture and arms).

Tariffs are on goods coming in not goods going out. Now that we've determined you don't know the basics of what you're talking about.....

Last edited by Irishtom29; 11-17-2009 at 08:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2009, 09:35 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,060,237 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlabel View Post
Look,It's as simple as this:

1) South paying 70% of cost to run the U.S. govenment via tariffs on King Cotton. (Overwhelming most of it spent on Northern infrastucture and arms).
How utterly ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 02:38 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,742,017 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by barante View Post
Do we hear echoes of the War of Northern Aggression in today's political discourse?

Your question is extremely broad, and generally loaded towards race-baiting.

Despite that, I will answer your question with: yes, the war between the states has an impact on today's political landscape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Cheswolde
1,973 posts, read 6,810,868 times
Reputation: 573
Default My question

My question is none of that. Using nomenclature of one side, it provocatively asked for posters' views because I have been struck by how we are stil replaying Civil War issues, including states' rights, in today's American politics.
This discussion does not seem to go anywhere. What I mean is that it quickly deteriorated into a rehash of issues that were recently dealt with on a different thread that the moderator shut down eventually.
Anyway, as a native European I keep being startled how echoes of the Civil War still shape U.S. politics after all these years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 02:15 PM
 
2,377 posts, read 5,403,978 times
Reputation: 1728
It startles me,too.. Maybe it's because we only had one Civil War in the US and so many European countries had quite a few??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,348 posts, read 7,357,862 times
Reputation: 7276
Default US war of 1860.

I think the problem here is you see the war as a race issue, and it was a States Rights issue. Race and slavery were a thorn in the side of our nation from the beginning which Lincoln wisely ended at the end of the war, but it was a secondary problem not the primary issue. The continued uneasiness we see today in my view is because of how reconstruction was accomplished. I would have liked to see how Lincoln would have brought the States back together rather than Johnston, and Grant’s hard nose method. The revolts and distrust bred during that period still exist in the deep and rural South. It was and is an example of how not to repair broken systems.

I have always questioned the term Civil War. In my view it was not a civil war. The States had the legal right to succeed from the union. The succession issue had been brought up by MA several times related to taxes, and the laws were not changed till after the war. I think the War Between the States is better, and also correct in a legal sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 08:23 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,060,237 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
I would have liked to see how Lincoln would have brought the States back together rather than Johnston, and Grant’s hard nose method.
I wouls like to see Americans who actually had a clue about American history.

Johnson, not Johnston, did more to return power to the former rebels than even Lincoln might have done. The enemy that you seek was the U.S. Congress which enacted and called for the enforcement of "Radical Reconstruction." As for Grant, considering the rise of the Klan and the abject and violent resistance to Federal law, there were few alternatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Islip Township
958 posts, read 1,106,446 times
Reputation: 1315
The civil war will never end because many of us see one side , yet ignor the other with out looking into there views. Many wrongs were done by both sides. Who is to say which were the right ones.
Please leave the slavery thing out of it, as it was not he major point. Many of the North owned slaves including lincoln.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,588 posts, read 84,818,250 times
Reputation: 115126
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
I think the problem here is you see the war as a race issue, and it was a States Rights issue. Race and slavery were a thorn in the side of our nation from the beginning which Lincoln wisely ended at the end of the war, but it was a secondary problem not the primary issue. The continued uneasiness we see today in my view is because of how reconstruction was accomplished. I would have liked to see how Lincoln would have brought the States back together rather than Johnston, and Grant’s hard nose method. The revolts and distrust bred during that period still exist in the deep and rural South. It was and is an example of how not to repair broken systems.

I have always questioned the term Civil War. In my view it was not a civil war. The States had the legal right to succeed from the union. The succession issue had been brought up by MA several times related to taxes, and the laws were not changed till after the war. I think the War Between the States is better, and also correct in a legal sense.
I agree on the perferred terminology, but it takes longer to type.

WBTS? Think it will catch on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,588 posts, read 84,818,250 times
Reputation: 115126
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think the Southern populace was very divided, which made the war and its aftermath all the more bitter. The wealthy may have been euphoric, there may have a lot of young cocky Southern boys sure the war would end quickly and in their favor, but there were many who saw secession and Civil War as death knells for a young country and for a vision.

The United States hadn't even reached its first centennial. Most of the population came from Europe where their countries traced their histories back a thousand years or more. So the perception of the United States as new, and more than that, as an innovation. A promise to the world that men could rule themselves, that a caste system, an aristocracy, was not needed, the failure of the union to survive wasn't seen as just a failure of this young country, it was seen as something much bigger, much more important. And in a region that looked to both Thomas Jefferson and to Andrew Jackson as part of its heritage, a region that saw education as a key component of the gentility that was the best of itself, many of the young men who marched off to war did so with the hope that the promise of the United States would be kept by the Confederate States of America.

They felt betrayed by the union in a host of ways. Beginning with Lincoln's election, when Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in those Southern states. It is a demonstration of power when a Presidential candidate can get elected with zero support from half of the country. And zero, as in absolute zero. It underscored the nature of democracy, that urban populations have more power than rural ones.

They felt betrayed because it was tariff income that supported the government of the United States, and that tariff income was primarily supplied by the South. But that income wasn't spent in the South. Roads, rail, and industry were subsidized by the government, and those subsidies went to the North, not to the South.

They felt betrayed because the issue of slavery had been left to the states by the Constitution, but increasingly the Federal government was assuming power over that issue, and the impetus was to limit slavery, the impetus was to impose Federal rules over the states. In current times, the exercise of Federal power is rarely challenged. But the debates over the balance of power in the first half of the 19th century were not over the balance of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government. The debates were almost always focused on the balance of power between the individual states and the central government. From the very beginning, the tension, even among the Founding Fathers, focused on this balance.

As for Buchanan and the Union military forts in the South, his entire position in the matter rested on his political position that the South's rights in the matter lay not in secession, but in rebellion. And if the South's rights were solely the right to rebel, then it was their obligation to fire on those military forts. Which explains Buchanan's failure to respond to any overt aggressions, and also helped to develop the situation where the South was uniquely positioned to support its interests by initiating war.
Good post. Re the bolded, in his book, April 1865, author Jay Winuk points out that before the Civil War, the terminology was "the United States are..." and afterward, "the United States is..."
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
Similar Threads

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