- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are tariffs and illegal acts overlooked as a cause of the civil war?
Posted on 7/15/20 at 7:44 am to jerep
Posted on 7/15/20 at 7:44 am to jerep
quote:
I've already pointed out that the semi-quote you gave said nothing about reasons for the war. The author (not actually Stephens) says that slavery was the basis for the government of the C.S.A.. (This is at best hyperbole.) You said that this shows that the reasons for secession and war was slavery.
I and several others argued that slavery was not the sole or even the primary thing which led to secession and war and you argued against this position. What else can one reasonably conclude?
If this is not your position, then are you admitting that slavery was not the fundamental reason for the war but rather mostly a proxy for other economic and political reasons?
Either slavery was the major reason for the war or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
The word multiple means more than one. There are multiple references, in this thread alone from official secession declarations and statements from Confederacy (D) leaders about the war. There is also Google, help yourself.
I have never said slavery was the only reason, in fact I said it would stupid to think that.
What I have said is that according to the Democrats (D) who started the war, Slavery was a major reason. (Lynchpin/cornerstone)
Stop trying to pin me into arguments I haven't made, you are making yourself look boorish and/or slow.
2
Posted on 7/15/20 at 8:21 am to More&Les
Posted on 7/16/20 at 12:44 am to More&Les
quote:
There are multiple references, in this thread alone from official secession declarations and statements from Confederacy (D) leaders about the war.
There have been four links in this thread (not including the one on this page):
page 3 Tariff of Abominations
page 4 How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War of Northern Aggression
page 4 American Civil War Conscription
page 6 Economy of the Confederate States of America
None of them are links to documents of secession by any of the states of the C.S.A. None of them were provided by you. There are no references in the entire thread to documents of secession.
Maybe you don't know what a reference is. It is not just putting something in quotes and asserting it to be true. "Southern Democrats said the Earth is flat and liked to burn puppies", is not a reference. A reference is a description of the source of a quote or other information sufficient to allow it to be independently examined.
In this entire thread you have done nothing but state your opinions and provided not a single bit of verifiable evidence to support any of it. The closest you came was when you posted something as a quote which appears to be someone's commentary about what was described as the "cornerstone" speech.
Each time I, or anyone else, has pointed out inconsistencies in what you've said, or countered your unsupported claims with referenced statements, you've ignored them, or responded with irrelevant, childish vulgarities.
I've repeatedly, and specifically disputed statements you've made and challenged you to support them. You show the weakness of your position by pretending not to notice the challenges.
quote:
There is also Google, help yourself.
You make false statements and when called on them, you respond by telling the target of your dishonesty to find non-existent evidence for you. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you.
So, I'll make it easy for you to prove me wrong.
1) You said the there was a declaration of war in which the C.S.A. gave slavery and the election of Lincoln as reasons for the declaration. Several times I've pointed out there was no such declaration. I say you don't know what you are talking about.
Prove me wrong. Provide a link to the declaration of war and a quote from that link of the part about slavery and Lincoln. Like you said, just use Google.
2) You have repeatedly claimed the attack on Fort Sumter as justification for the U.S. waging war on the south. A war that resulted in over 600,000 military dead (equivalent to almost 7 million of the current population); and thousands more southern non-combatants many of whom were intentionally targeted by the northern army. I've asked more than once for you to tell me how many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter. I say either you don't know or care about even the most basic facts of what you are saying or, you are too dishonest to answer.
Prove me wrong. How many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter?
Posted on 7/16/20 at 1:46 am to Parmen
I’m glad we won the War of Northern Aggression
CSA seceded because they valued slavery more than the union and then decided to attack our soldiers at Fort Sumter
Someone in this thread said the confederates didn’t have a draft. Not true at all both sides drafted soldiers
CSA seceded because they valued slavery more than the union and then decided to attack our soldiers at Fort Sumter
Someone in this thread said the confederates didn’t have a draft. Not true at all both sides drafted soldiers
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 1:48 am
Posted on 7/16/20 at 9:42 pm to jerep
quote:
There have been four links in this thread (not including the one on this page):
page 3 Tariff of Abominations
page 4 How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War of Northern Aggression
page 4 American Civil War Conscription
page 6 Economy of the Confederate States of America
Somehow you missed this one from page 1
quote:
South Carolina's casus belli:
...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
I'm sure it was an innocent oversight on your part but here we have the State who led the charge of secession stating exactly why they were taking this action...
The American people had the audacity to elect Abraham "the Boogie Man" Lincoln and what was that other thing, oh yea, fricking slavery...
I'm sure you'll provide a page or two of rambling text as to how they didn't mean what they said but they really were tricked in to starting the war which was totally moral and perfectly legal but that dastardly Boogeyman Abe suspended corpus de habeas, Tall Man Bad!
quote:
1) You said the there was a declaration of war
Link that word for word so anybody still reading this thread can see that in addition to being fricking stupid you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.
What I said was in their secession documents and declarations of the war, in other words, their statements...
In any event the secession declaration of South Carolina, its' casus belli was posted on page 1 and above and it says exactly wtf I said it does...
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 7/16/20 at 10:10 pm to jerep
quote:
2) You have repeatedly claimed the attack on Fort Sumter as justification for the U.S. waging war on the south. A war that resulted in over 600,000 military dead (equivalent to almost 7 million of the current population); and thousands more southern non-combatants many of whom were intentionally targeted by the northern army. I've asked more than once for you to tell me how many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter. I say either you don't know or care about even the most basic facts of what you are saying or, you are too dishonest to answer.
Prove me wrong. How many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter?
One shot took virtually the entire world into WWI, We damn near went to global thermonuclear war over Cuba stashing some Russian missiles...
I said it was an act of war, and it sure af was. Doesn't matter that no one died, the South clearly wanted war and clearly started it.
Lincoln told the crazy frickers in his inaugural address that he wasnt coming for their fricking slavery and made it clear he didn't want war.
He had been in office for 3 fricking weeks when Jefferson Davis gave the order to attack a US MILITARY INSTALLATION, anybody trying to blame Lincoln is smoking crack and full of shite
ETA: If The CSA (D) hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, this wouldn't have happened
quote:
The Union deaths came during the evacuation: One soldier was killed and another mortally wounded in an accidental explosion
So twice as many deaths caused by the Confederacy (D) as what took the World to war in 1914...
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 7/17/20 at 4:28 am to More&Les
quote:
Somehow you missed this one from page 1
No, I didn't miss it. There was neither a link nor a reference. You simply posted something as a quote. As I previously said, anyone can post anything they want as a quote. It can be accurate, completely fraudulent (as was my quote about a flat Earth and burning puppies), or it can be based on truth and mixed with a lie so as to create a more convincing deception.
You included as part of your unattributed quote "South Carolina's causus belli:" which is a fraud.
Here is a link to the South Carolina's declaration of secession:
[LINK ]
It was passed in convention in December 1860. The term "causus belli" or it's equivalent appears nowhere in it. There is no statement of reasons for S.C. wanting war with the north, or discussion of war with the north. It only discusses reasons for secession.
You said [p. 7]:
quote:
"... in their secession documents and declarations of the war."
quote:
You said the there was a declaration of war
Yep, that's what I said and I stand by it. You said the southern states issued declarations of war giving slavery and Lincoln's election as reasons. That never happened. If you really don't understand the difference between a statement of secession and a declaration of war then you aren't in a good position to call someone else stupid or question their reading comprehension skills.
They (the southern states) did not issue declarations of war, and the secession statements said nothing about reasons for a war. They simply wanted to leave the Union and be left in peace. In February 1861, the southern congress passed a resolution:
"Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."
[LINK ]
and at the end of February, Davis sent a related letter to Lincoln:
"The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens...
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust,..."
[LINK ]
Now regarding the secession statement of S.C., the beginning of the paragraph containing your quote is,
"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line..."
Reading the whole statement (not just one or two paragraphs) in context, one sees that the reasons given for secession (not war) were that the northern states had acted together in violation of the U.S. Constitution to the injury of the southern states. Exactly as the OP of this thread suggests, and the article linked to above explains.
If you look at other secession statements you see the same thing to a lessor or greater degree. The secession ordinance of Virginia is relatively short and the only mention of slavery is as "... the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."
[LINK ]
I am not claiming slavery was not an issue, and some of the language as it referred to black people was clearly racist, but on the whole, separated from emotionalism, as a cause of secession it was mainly a proxy for the economic and political abuse of the south by the north.
In any case, there was no declaration of war by the C.S.A. or the southern states, either separately or as part of their secession statements.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 4:46 am to More&Les
My understanding is that after the fighting was over, and as their condition of surrender, the northerners were carrying out a 100 gun salute to the flag before evacuating the fort. During this, a spark caused an explosion of nearby ammunition. This mortally wounded two and injured four others.
However, the only injuries and deaths were not caused by the southerner's attack. (Although I don't mean to imply that the attack couldn't have been expected to kill people in the fort.) Lincoln then used this as an excuse to invade the south in violation of the U.S. Constitution with a result that over 600,000 people were killed. Hardly a reasonable response. But hey, your argument is that the Germans did the same thing in WWI so that makes it okey-dokey.
So when Russia denied putting arms in a nearby foreign country that threatened the U.S. it was reason to nearly go to nuclear war, but when the U.S. was in the process of doing the same inside the C.S.A., the C.S.A. was just supposed to be happy about it.
No inconsistency there.
You've not provided any evidence that the south "clearly" or otherwise wanted a war. The links I provided in the preceding post are very strong evidence that they didn't.
As I pointed out in a previous post and you ignored, and again with links in the preceeding post, Davis tried to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Gen. Beauregard and the C.S.A. secretary of war both wanted to avoid bloodshed and waited as long as they thought they could without laying themselves open to attack from the fort and the approaching Union ships.
[LINK ]
Again, as Lincoln's May 1861 letter to Gustavus Fox (commander of the naval force involved) shows, Lincoln decided he needed a war and wanted the south to fire the first shot. Also as I pointed out with two examples in the same post, the sentiment that Lincoln wanted a war and had acted to maneuver the south into firing the first shot was common in the north.
So I guess Lincoln and a large number of northern news papers were "smoking crack and full of ...". But in contradiction to your argument about the mis-characterized semi-quote from Stephens, here we shouldn't go by what people at the time said, but instead by what you say.
It is commonly known that Lincoln repeatedly said he would use any means necessary to keep the southern states from leaving the union. When he decided it was necessary, he took advantage of the situation at Fort Sumter.
The reasons are the subject of this thread and are explained in the link provided by RollTide. The southern states had no motivation for starting a war and you have provided no evidence to support the idea that they did.
And if the U.S. had attacked Cuba over the missiles leading to nuclear war, the Russians could have said the same thing.
However, the only injuries and deaths were not caused by the southerner's attack. (Although I don't mean to imply that the attack couldn't have been expected to kill people in the fort.) Lincoln then used this as an excuse to invade the south in violation of the U.S. Constitution with a result that over 600,000 people were killed. Hardly a reasonable response. But hey, your argument is that the Germans did the same thing in WWI so that makes it okey-dokey.
quote:
We damn near went to global thermonuclear war over Cuba stashing some Russian missiles...
So when Russia denied putting arms in a nearby foreign country that threatened the U.S. it was reason to nearly go to nuclear war, but when the U.S. was in the process of doing the same inside the C.S.A., the C.S.A. was just supposed to be happy about it.
No inconsistency there.
quote:
... the South clearly wanted war and clearly started it."
You've not provided any evidence that the south "clearly" or otherwise wanted a war. The links I provided in the preceding post are very strong evidence that they didn't.
quote:
He had been in office for 3 fricking weeks when Jefferson Davis gave the order to attack a US MILITARY INSTALLATION, anybody trying to blame Lincoln is smoking crack and full of shite
As I pointed out in a previous post and you ignored, and again with links in the preceeding post, Davis tried to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Gen. Beauregard and the C.S.A. secretary of war both wanted to avoid bloodshed and waited as long as they thought they could without laying themselves open to attack from the fort and the approaching Union ships.
[LINK ]
Again, as Lincoln's May 1861 letter to Gustavus Fox (commander of the naval force involved) shows, Lincoln decided he needed a war and wanted the south to fire the first shot. Also as I pointed out with two examples in the same post, the sentiment that Lincoln wanted a war and had acted to maneuver the south into firing the first shot was common in the north.
So I guess Lincoln and a large number of northern news papers were "smoking crack and full of ...". But in contradiction to your argument about the mis-characterized semi-quote from Stephens, here we shouldn't go by what people at the time said, but instead by what you say.
It is commonly known that Lincoln repeatedly said he would use any means necessary to keep the southern states from leaving the union. When he decided it was necessary, he took advantage of the situation at Fort Sumter.
The reasons are the subject of this thread and are explained in the link provided by RollTide. The southern states had no motivation for starting a war and you have provided no evidence to support the idea that they did.
quote:
If The CSA (D) hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, this wouldn't have happened
And if the U.S. had attacked Cuba over the missiles leading to nuclear war, the Russians could have said the same thing.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 6:07 am to jerep
Well, I declare, you just keep arguing with yourself.
Thats a lot of twisting and wordsmithin' baw, but it takes a lot of bullshite to (unsuccessfully) refute some simple facts:
The Southern Democrats (over) reacted to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln.
They seceded and formed the CSA (D) before he was even inaugurated and cited his election and the fact that they believed he was hostile toward the institution of slavery as major reasons why.
They began seizing US Military Installations, such as Fort Macon and others, that were rightfully owned and maintained by the people of the United States of America.
Less than a month after his inauguration the Confederates (D) attacked Fort Sumter, which did in fact lead to two US Soilder's deaths.
War.
Thats a lot of twisting and wordsmithin' baw, but it takes a lot of bullshite to (unsuccessfully) refute some simple facts:
The Southern Democrats (over) reacted to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln.
They seceded and formed the CSA (D) before he was even inaugurated and cited his election and the fact that they believed he was hostile toward the institution of slavery as major reasons why.
They began seizing US Military Installations, such as Fort Macon and others, that were rightfully owned and maintained by the people of the United States of America.
Less than a month after his inauguration the Confederates (D) attacked Fort Sumter, which did in fact lead to two US Soilder's deaths.
War.
This post was edited on 7/17/20 at 6:34 am
Posted on 7/18/20 at 1:41 am to More&Les
It seems to me the only "twisting and wordsmithin'" is you trying to evade your mis-characterization of S.C.'s secession statement as a declaration of war.
If you want to claim I'm inconsistent in anything I've said, or dispute any of it with actual evidence, then point to a specific statement I've made and provide some actual evidence to refute it.
Here, you've almost narrowed things down to facts that very few people would disagree with.
Many people and groups reacted to the election. However your obsession with tying the Democrats to everything is like the left blaming Trump for anything negative that happens anywhere. If you remove "Democrats" and "(over)" it would be a simple fact. To say that the southerners over reacted would at least be a debatable matter of opinion. I think given what occurred over the decades leading up to 1860 and Lincoln's actions in complete disregard for the constitution both in the north and south, they reacted appropriately. I will say that in hind-sight, the attack on Fort Sumter was a tactical mistake in public relations.
Yes, several southern states did secede and form the C.S.A. before Lincoln's inauguration. They cited the north's violation of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law, using disputes over slavery as the primary example. Some secession documents also cited northern economic combination against the south via tariffs and other illegal acts just as the OP suggested. Other southern states seceded and joined the C.S.A. after Lincoln began raising his invasion army. Some northern states also tried to secede (not to join the C.S.A) and Lincoln used the military to stop them. All of these statements, are also facts.
They seized all U.S. installations within their territory and offered to compensate the U.S. monetarily. You say it was illegitimate. I say it was perfectly legitimate. Except for the offer of compensation, the American colonists did exactly the same thing with British military installations after April 1775. I also think that was perfectly legitimate. I am consistent on this point. Unless you want to say that the American colonists were just as wrong as you claim the southerner's to be, then you would be a hypocrite.
Again you are obsessed with the irrelevancy of the big "D", and have completely ignored the context of the attack. The attack did not lead to the soldier's deaths. They survived the attack completely unharmed and died entirely as a result of an accident after the attack while carrying out a 100 gun salute to the U.S. flag which they insisted on as a condition of surrendeing the fort. Otherwise this is a factual statement.
And yes, in this order of events, "war" followed. But a bare list of events is devoid of any cause or context. The decades of causes leading to the war between the states is what matters and it is a complex part of the history of this country. If it pains you that it can't be reduced to the level of a bumper sticker and you believe that anything more is "a lot of twisting and wordsmithin'" then that's too bad; But, representing history as a series of events without cause and context, and then filtering out those that don't jibe with a desired political ideology, is precisely what those who are running around defacing statues of Jefferson and Washington are doing.
If you want to claim I'm inconsistent in anything I've said, or dispute any of it with actual evidence, then point to a specific statement I've made and provide some actual evidence to refute it.
Here, you've almost narrowed things down to facts that very few people would disagree with.
quote:
The Southern Democrats (over) reacted to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln.
Many people and groups reacted to the election. However your obsession with tying the Democrats to everything is like the left blaming Trump for anything negative that happens anywhere. If you remove "Democrats" and "(over)" it would be a simple fact. To say that the southerners over reacted would at least be a debatable matter of opinion. I think given what occurred over the decades leading up to 1860 and Lincoln's actions in complete disregard for the constitution both in the north and south, they reacted appropriately. I will say that in hind-sight, the attack on Fort Sumter was a tactical mistake in public relations.
quote:
They seceded and formed the CSA (D) before he was even inaugurated and cited his election and the fact that they believed he was hostile toward the institution of slavery as major reasons why.
Yes, several southern states did secede and form the C.S.A. before Lincoln's inauguration. They cited the north's violation of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law, using disputes over slavery as the primary example. Some secession documents also cited northern economic combination against the south via tariffs and other illegal acts just as the OP suggested. Other southern states seceded and joined the C.S.A. after Lincoln began raising his invasion army. Some northern states also tried to secede (not to join the C.S.A) and Lincoln used the military to stop them. All of these statements, are also facts.
quote:
They began seizing US Military Installations, such as Fort Macon and others, that were rightfully owned and maintained by the people of the United States of America.
They seized all U.S. installations within their territory and offered to compensate the U.S. monetarily. You say it was illegitimate. I say it was perfectly legitimate. Except for the offer of compensation, the American colonists did exactly the same thing with British military installations after April 1775. I also think that was perfectly legitimate. I am consistent on this point. Unless you want to say that the American colonists were just as wrong as you claim the southerner's to be, then you would be a hypocrite.
quote:
Less than a month after his inauguration the Confederates (D) attacked Fort Sumter, which did in fact lead to two US Soilder's deaths.
Again you are obsessed with the irrelevancy of the big "D", and have completely ignored the context of the attack. The attack did not lead to the soldier's deaths. They survived the attack completely unharmed and died entirely as a result of an accident after the attack while carrying out a 100 gun salute to the U.S. flag which they insisted on as a condition of surrendeing the fort. Otherwise this is a factual statement.
And yes, in this order of events, "war" followed. But a bare list of events is devoid of any cause or context. The decades of causes leading to the war between the states is what matters and it is a complex part of the history of this country. If it pains you that it can't be reduced to the level of a bumper sticker and you believe that anything more is "a lot of twisting and wordsmithin'" then that's too bad; But, representing history as a series of events without cause and context, and then filtering out those that don't jibe with a desired political ideology, is precisely what those who are running around defacing statues of Jefferson and Washington are doing.
Posted on 7/18/20 at 4:48 am to jerep
Any use of parties of 1860 to the parties in past 50 years is plain silly. Both parties might as well both drop Democrat / Republican, more like Liberals and Progressives. Reds vs the Blues.
If you study in honest and unbiased the history of 1800's you find all major events driven by $$$ and power. Lincoln like Presidents violated about The Constitution of the United States and mainly the Bill of Rights --
To say the Confederate War was about anything other then states right to succeed is disingenuous. Thankful, we remained "One Nation" or we all would be speaking either German/Russian/Mandarin by now.
If you study in honest and unbiased the history of 1800's you find all major events driven by $$$ and power. Lincoln like Presidents violated about The Constitution of the United States and mainly the Bill of Rights --
To say the Confederate War was about anything other then states right to succeed is disingenuous. Thankful, we remained "One Nation" or we all would be speaking either German/Russian/Mandarin by now.
Posted on 7/18/20 at 7:09 am to jerep
quote:
It seems to me the only "twisting and wordsmithin'" is you trying to evade your mis-characterization of S.C.'s secession statement as a declaration of war.
It literally has no bearing on the situation if I referred to it as "A Declaration of War" (I didn't) or not.
They (D) made affirmative statements that secession was because TMB, and they were afraid TMB was going to end slavery.
Similar statements were made over the war but again, it hardly matters, the two are inextricably linked in history.
quote:
Here, you've almost narrowed things down to facts that very few people would disagree with.
And yet, you find a way.
quote:
owever your obsession with tying the Democrats to everything is like the left blaming Trump for anything negative that happens anywhere. If you remove "Democrats" and "(over)" it would be a simple fact
It is a simple fact, EVERY Leader of the CSA was a Democrat as were the overwhelming majority of the slaveholders.
And what you call an obsession is really just a cause. I am sick and fricking tired of white liberals, who are in fact, the fricking racist mfs "keeping the black man down" blaming "white people" and "racist Republicans" for that of which they themselves are guilty.
They want to tare this country down to its founding and their "original sin" crusade is the means to do it.
Well, it's THEIR sin, fricking DEMOCRATS are responsible for all of it. They were the party of Slavery, they were the CSA (D), they created the Propaganda of the Lost Cause, Founded the KKK, the UDC and fathered Jim Crow. They fought desegregation, civil rights and enslaved the black community (and all poor people) in a welfare state that incentivised single parent homes, which has decimated the Black Family.
You can say its a big leap to tie today's Democrat to the Democrats of 1860 but if you look at the stream of time and figure out why and how we are still so divided today, you see, its the same fricking thing, Democrats!
Posted on 7/18/20 at 8:46 am to Matt225
quote:
To say the Confederate War was about anything other then states right to succeed is disingenuous.
Here we see the success of the Lost Cause Propaganda. The South was just fighting for muh right to secede, had nothing to do with the very well treated slaves who wanted to be slaves.
It was that 3 weeks of Lincon oppression that caused the virtuous South to be jedi mind tricked into attacking a US Military Installation that didn't kill anybody, even though men died because of it.
Typical fricking Democrat logic, the Confederacy (D) dindu nuffin
Posted on 7/18/20 at 8:54 am to jerep
quote:
I will say that in hind-sight, the attack on Fort Sumter was a tactical mistake in public relations
Ima just let you read this one again...
Posted on 7/18/20 at 8:58 am to Parmen
Because people are ignorant of history and sheepishly accept the simplest explanation that supports their internal narrative.
Posted on 7/18/20 at 9:59 am to udtiger
quote:
Because people are ignorant of history
Isn't that the truth.
Facts are facts, right?
November 1860 election = Abraham Lincoln
December 1860 secession begins
February 1861 CSA Government Inaugurated
March 1861 Lincoln Inaugurated
April 12 1861 - Jefferson orders the attack on Fort Sumter, 2 US Soldiers killed in aftermath
April 14, 1861 - Lincoln calls up troops
Its easy to see why people think Lincoln started the war, lol
Posted on 7/18/20 at 10:54 am to Parmen
Because from Day 1 tariffs were what paid for government.
In the case of taxing cotton, that was to keep the NE textile mills in business. They used water to power their looms instead of coal like England did and thus not as cost effective
In the case of taxing cotton, that was to keep the NE textile mills in business. They used water to power their looms instead of coal like England did and thus not as cost effective
Posted on 7/18/20 at 11:13 am to Parmen
The seeds of the Civil War began even before we had our Constitution of 1787 enacted. Wish we had never had the damn institution of slavery in our country. Our geography created different economies in our country.Northern bankers tried and did enslave the South with tariffs and lines of credit.Both the North and Europe profited from raw agricultural products from the South. The 3/5ths Compromise,Jefferson's Slave Trade Bill,the Missouri Compromise,Tariff of Abominations,Pres.Jackson's Force Bill,Gold discovery in California,the Compromise of 1850,John Brown an Bleeding Kansas were all flash points where the Civil War could have started.Thanks to Henry Clay for holding the Republic together. The slaves were a pawn in the the true cause of the War,that true cause was money (or the lack of it in the South). By 1859 the South was backed into an economic corner. Lines of credit were running out, and Lincoln as elected. The South felt that if their "free "labor force was going to end then there were no options left.Form your own country and protect your business and property. Did the war really end in April of 1865 ?
Posted on 7/18/20 at 2:49 pm to SantaFe
quote:
the true cause of the War,that true cause was money (or the lack of it in the South). By 1859 the South was backed into an economic corner. Lines of credit were running out, and Lincoln as elected. The South felt that if their "free "labor force was going to end then there were no options left.Form your own country and protect your business and property.
I'm not a historian but im pretty sure this is bullshite. Cotton was at an all time high at the beginning of the civil war and the #1 global export. The South literally controlled the world market and its what emboldened them. They though Great Britain and France would line up with King Cotton.
Alas, NO Nation on earth recognized the CSA (D) as a legitimate government, trade halted and southern grown cotton rotted by the boat load, tanking the Southern economy
This post was edited on 7/18/20 at 3:42 pm
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News