Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 08-22-2020, 03:23 AM
 
17,544 posts, read 17,485,812 times
Reputation: 25556

Advertisements

In the US Civil war neither side were saints and both sides had plenty of sinners. First off, the south voted to leave the USA and form their own nation. Fort Sumpter was the only place in which Union troops were fired upon and that was after the union troops within the fort were ordered to leave. A nation cannot abide having armed troops within their borders especially within a fortified structure. No other move was made by the Confederate States against the north until after the order was given for military action to regain the south. Many horrors were committed by some Union troops in many towns and cities in the south and they weren’t done to free the salves and the slaves were also victims of their actions.

Now after the war was over many of those Confederate officers were key to the rebuilding of cities and towns fully destroyed by union troops. They had the money, manpower, and leadership abilities to help get the job done to rebuild communities. Some of those monuments were in recognition to their activities following the war.

Before people call for removal of statues and monuments they should look at newspaper articles of the time they were erected to see why the people of the time saw fit to honor these individuals. They may well have been honored for something not connected to their time in the civil war. They should also keep in mind that many Union officers serving in the Civil War owner slaves before and during the war. After the war was over some communities in the south were still being punished in various ways out of spite. Such spiteful behavior combined with the crimes committed against their families during the war by men wearing Union uniforms all contributed to decades of animosity by those in the south towards those in the north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2020, 03:29 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Not the southern states though.


Easily another 60 years. The South would’ve NEVER given up slaves without a war. Southerners loved the beatings, rapes and sadistic behavior that they could commit with pure impunity on a people that they couldn’t handle one on one in an equal situation.

Southern males especially enjoyed the rapes of slave women. That was likely the reason southern males wanted to keep slavery so badly. That’s how sick southern society had become.
That's why the 'Lost Cause' mythologies were created. Otherwise, they'd have to own up to their real heritage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 03:32 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
In the US Civil war neither side were saints and both sides had plenty of sinners. First off, the south voted to leave the USA and form their own nation. Fort Sumpter was the only place in which Union troops were fired upon and that was after the union troops within the fort were ordered to leave. A nation cannot abide having armed troops within their borders especially within a fortified structure. No other move was made by the Confederate States against the north until after the order was given for military action to regain the south. Many horrors were committed by some Union troops in many towns and cities in the south and they weren’t done to free the salves and the slaves were also victims of their actions.

Now after the war was over many of those Confederate officers were key to the rebuilding of cities and towns fully destroyed by union troops. They had the money, manpower, and leadership abilities to help get the job done to rebuild communities. Some of those monuments were in recognition to their activities following the war.

Before people call for removal of statues and monuments they should look at newspaper articles of the time they were erected to see why the people of the time saw fit to honor these individuals. They may well have been honored for something not connected to their time in the civil war. They should also keep in mind that many Union officers serving in the Civil War owner slaves before and during the war. After the war was over some communities in the south were still being punished in various ways out of spite. Such spiteful behavior combined with the crimes committed against their families during the war by men wearing Union uniforms all contributed to decades of animosity by those in the south towards those in the north.
Re: bold: why did the Slaver States want to "form their own nation"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 03:41 AM
 
17,544 posts, read 17,485,812 times
Reputation: 25556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Back then:
  • The Slaver States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
  • Slaver states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
  • Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery.
(In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights. In other other words, they had an extremely unhealthy obsession about owning people as property, beyond all reason.)

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Present day:
  • Deny the Slaver States seceded to protect & expand slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
  • Still railing against Lincoln, the Northern states & its peoples.
  • Still vilify the United States of America.
  • Still desire secession.
  • Still desire war.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Re: bold: why did the Slaver States want to "form their own nation"?
You’re under the impression that there was no slavery in the northern states. Go back and look up which states still had slavery in the 1860s. Include in your search which Union officers owned slaves. Try getting a broader historical perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 03:49 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
You’re under the impression that there was no slavery in the northern states. Go back and look up which states still had slavery in the 1860s. Include in your search which Union officers owned slaves. Try getting a broader historical perspective.
Re: bold: strawman argument.

Quote:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 03:57 AM
 
17,544 posts, read 17,485,812 times
Reputation: 25556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Re: bold: strawman argument.
Not a straw man argument. Point of fact. There were northern states in which slavery was still legal before and during the US Civil War and there were Union officers who did own slaves during the war. For these people the war wasn’t about freeing the slaves and ending slavery just as for many men serving in the confederate army the was was not about keeping slavery as many of those men never owned slaves. There were those in Washington and other areas who were using this war with the ultimate goal of freeing slaves but the average soldier didn’t know this. The US Civil war was more complicated than good north freeing the slaves from the evil south. It’s almost like WW1. A big convoluted war that never should have happened with neither side being good nor evil, but a series of events and bad decisions that made the conflict unavoidable with the mentality and politics of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 04:09 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
Not a straw man argument. Point of fact. There were northern states in which slavery was still legal before and during the US Civil War and there were Union officers who did own slaves during the war. For these people the war wasn’t about freeing the slaves and ending slavery just as for many men serving in the confederate army the was was not about keeping slavery as many of those men never owned slaves. There were those in Washington and other areas who were using this war with the ultimate goal of freeing slaves but the average soldier didn’t know this. The US Civil war was more complicated than good north freeing the slaves from the evil south. It’s almost like WW1. A big convoluted war that never should have happened with neither side being good nor evil, but a series of events and bad decisions that made the conflict unavoidable with the mentality and politics of the time.
My point is that I claimed none of that.

There was no way to appease the Slaver States. As Lincoln put it in his Cooper Union Address:

"This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right."

First post to OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Re: bold: the 'Lost Cause' narrative is pseudo-history, based on mythologies, & with no evidence to support.

Slaver States v. Free States & their disagreements began at the Constitution Convention & continued right on up to & throughout the war. Here's just some of the evidence:

A review of the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress reveals more than 300 proposals in regard to negotiations, some of these are Amendments to the United States Constitution, all are designed to avert military conflict. (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose.)

'US Constitution & Secession' is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing the many amendments proposed during this time frame, all designed to avert military conflict.

Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slaver State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.

Other significant issues discussed:

* Return of fugitives slaves
* Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
* Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
* Dred Scott decision
* Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
* Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)

The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.

Mr Pitcaithley's analysis reaches 3 broad conclusions:

* The Slaver States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
* Slave states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
* In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery.

(In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights. In other other words, they had an extremely unhealthy obsession about owning people as property, beyond all reason.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 04:17 AM
 
17,544 posts, read 17,485,812 times
Reputation: 25556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
My point is that I claimed none of that.

There was no way to appease the Slaver States. As Lincoln put it in his Cooper Union Address:

"This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right."
And Lincoln was one of the ones I was referring to in Washington who intended to use the war to end slavery. However the average soldier on both sides had no idea about this. The average soldier on both sides could never afford slaves and didn’t know they were fighting to keep or free slaves. For many of these soldiers they were fighting for their state, not their country. As for the officers there were good and bad on both sides. Some behaved honorably by the morals of the era while others behaved badly even by the morals of the era. None of us were there to know what led them to such behavior. What things they saw or injuries they endured that may have led them to act in such ways. Those who fought, as a whole, on both sides did what they felt was right. The only ones who deserve all blame for the war were those who held such political power and money to bring upon this war. In general none of those soldiers were evil traitors. Some of them didn’t even want to fight but had no choice as they were conscripted into fighting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 04:19 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
And Lincoln was one of the ones I was referring to in Washington who intended to use the war to end slavery. However the average soldier on both sides had no idea about this. The average soldier on both sides could never afford slaves and didn’t know they were fighting to keep or free slaves. For many of these soldiers they were fighting for their state, not their country. As for the officers there were good and bad on both sides. Some behaved honorably by the morals of the era while others behaved badly even by the morals of the era. None of us were there to know what led them to such behavior. What things they saw or injuries they endured that may have led them to act in such ways. Those who fought, as a whole, on both sides did what they felt was right. The only ones who deserve all blame for the war were those who held such political power and money to bring upon this war. In general none of those soldiers were evil traitors. Some of them didn’t even want to fight but had no choice as they were conscripted into fighting.
Again, not claiming anything about the average soldier.

South Carolina was the first State to secede. They seceded because the federal government would not overturn abolitionist policies in Northern states. They seceded because the federal government would not violate a state’s right to abstain from slavery.

The Slaver States would not be appeased period full stop.

Even after the War, they still would not be appeased.

Even today, they still will not be appeased. It's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2020, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,177 posts, read 18,482,484 times
Reputation: 25762
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Again, not claiming anything about the average soldier.

South Carolina was the first State to secede. They seceded because the federal government would not overturn abolitionist policies in Northern states. They seceded because the federal government would not violate a state’s right to abstain from slavery.

The Slaver States would not be appeased period full stop.

Even after the War, they still would not be appeased.

Even today, they still will not be appeased. It's ridiculous.
Totally wrong but you're entitled to your kook opinion.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:56 PM.

© 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