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.
And here comes Katiana with her always historically astute summations.
Hey K? Ignoring me won't make me go away when you advance emotive little "sound-bytes" like this. Uhhhhhh, how many states which joined the CSA mentioned slavery at all as being a component of secession? I am sure you probably don't know...so let me help you out.
Only four. And each of THOSE (Texas and Georgia for instance) connected the institution with seperate and/or larger issues (rightfully) which had been brewing since the formation of the revolutionary nature of Union itself.
On the other hand? Seven of the 11 said nothing about it (nine if one counts the divided states of Missouri and Kentucky as member states).
Not so. The four states' primary cause was slavery. Every other cause was peripheral. In addition, they based slavery on Scripture, as in their belief that God had created blacks to be the world's burden bearers. The reason why the other 7 didn't go into it was that they had no need to. The first four had lengthily stated their case. I've never seen this poster link to the first four declarations. Anyone who reads them will know immediately that he's not telling the truth.
Sure. "Most people" who have never heard nor read anything but the "Northern" (i.e. "winners side") of the war might "agree" with that.
BUT...ever looked at it from another point of view...?
Ft. Sumter originally belonged to the state of South Carolina...which later turned over to the federal goverment for defense purposes. Point is, it originally belonged to the soverign state of SC...NOT the feds.
When the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas, seceded), they offered to negogiate a peaceful settlement with the northern states and to compensate for all formerly "federal" property...whether that be "forts" or post-offices. The Lincoln administation shunned this offer for peaceful settlement (because they wanted to keep the South's tax money).
Knowing northern public opinion was very much against using military force to prevent secession? Lincoln used the ingenious (and I admit it worked) strategy of provoking the new seven state Southern Confederacy into a military move; thereby uniting northern public opinion into supporting his already planned invasion of the South. Something to really be proud of, huh? Invading a people who had done the North no wrong to begin with, and wanted nothing more than peaceful seperation.
Oh yeah, here is where it comes back to square one...
Attacked a "united states". military installation?
Sorry, that ain't true! . Ft. Sumter was occupied by armed troops of a foriegn nation in CSA territorial waters. For them to have continued to remain could be construed as nothing less than hostile intentions by a foriegn power. It could no more be permanently permitted than -- in an earlier revolution -- the British could be allowed to occupy Boston harbor (or whatever).
Thus, the Confederates had no choice but to use counter-force after every overture of peaceful settlement had been shunned by an administration controlling the Old Union government which was pre-determined to use force ....no matter what. And just need an excuse to do so.
If they (the North) didn't have one? Well, by golly, they would find a way to provoke one!
South Carolina forced the issue. Sumter belonged to them in their own minds. The only reason the South forced the issue was that they feared that slavery would be outlawed state by state by the radical Republicans. They had the Dred Scott decision, which was in their favor and states were able to decide to be slave or free on their own. But the South wanted slavery extended to all states and were willing to fight to make it happen. The North didn't fight the war to end slavery but 190,000 black soldiers did and they won. Folks like this poster still can't get over it and will dissemble all day long to make their case. SCV spin and nothing more, by golly.
uhm the civil war was about states rights....not slavery....slavery was only a PART of the states rights
It was about the states' rights to keep and extend slavery. Read the 4 causes and R.L. Dabney's 'In Defence of Virginia'. The North did not fight to end slavery but 190,000 black soldiers did and pulled it off.
uhm the first 'shot' was by the north in 1859...browns raid
btw, I am a northerner, and my family faught for the Union..my ancestor was the Assistant Sec of war, and my other ancestor was a Union MG at gettysburg
the north was wrong to try to FORCE its agenda on the southern states..we lost more americans in that war than ANY OTHER WAR COMBINED
Very True! However, I do believe the south was wrong when it came to slavery. As far as the confederate flag, it's not racist, if you don't like it then don't fly it
Slavery was the primary issue by far. The other issues were peripheral. Read the 4 causes and R.L. Dabney's 'In Defence of Virginia'.
and WHY was there shots on ft sumter....because the NORTH attacked and TOOK it.......On December 26th 1860 U.S. Major-General Robert Anderson moves his troops from Ft. Moultrie, in Charleston, South Carolina, and takes over Ft. Sumter.
face it the north was the agressors
Sumter belonged to the Union. The South owned it only in their own minds.
A BIG part of slavery rights issue at the time. And it shouldn’t have been, considering the foundation to abolish slave trade was laid via the US Constitution in 1789.
Only international slave was abolished and that was in 1808. But slavery continued and the trade switched to internal, which sped up breeding and family break-up and even better conditions for the slaves. Illegal international trade continued as well. Slave ships continued to land in Southern ports.
Yes, you may be able to question his rationale or methodology, but he specifically pointed out that he is against racism.
Ron Paul also stated that - quoting Spooner - that other methods of freeing the slaves could have been implemented, such as the north buying slaves' freedom which were implemented by other countries. I'm not saying these methods would be effective, or that some of these would have been practical to eradicating slavery in the south, but Ron Paul appears to be anti-war and is just trying to offer solutions of a non-violent nature (which is unavoidable when you are dealing with irrational people).
I think his message is being misconstrued, especially with the "noise" of the confederate flag directly behind him and the crazy rednecks in the background shouting and applauding "halfway" through his viewpoints before he completes the entire sentence.
Oh whatever. It was 150 years ago, for chrissakes.
You know, if there hadn't been slavery, the United States could not have advanced as quickly or become as prosperous. We would not have the white house, the capitol building, wall street, as well as *all* the great plantations and estates of the era were built using slave labor. You could not have had the incredible agricultural achievements of the south without them.
I am not saying that slavery is right, by any means, but I am saying that, at the time it served an important purpose.
How about we just move forward and quit looking back.
20yrsinBranson
Southerners keep bringing it up. Why don't we wonder why whites didn't pay their employees.
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.
nope
