Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The nicest word I could think of for this silliness you are posting is "blarney" -- but that is too nice for what you are doing and implies a particular sort of Celtic charm you have never exhibited here, so I can't use it. Balderdash is about as nice as I can get. You simply are unwilling to face up to your own bad behavior as the reason for the resistance you encounter. IMHO.
Nope. I can't say I have ever seen that here. It is, however, a frequent complaint posted by those I would describe as nothing-but-Southern-is-right extremists, who practice the technique of professing outrage with much the same fervor that propagandists for Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did. The problem seems to be that you object to being held to any objective standard in what you post, no matter what it is, and fill the ether with long passages of rhetoric with little factual content as a means of making it seem you have a point.
Battalion speaks "tersely" and "rigidly" because he has often been caught in concealing the truth and deceiving others. He is afraid to be revealed that way again, and so he has become cautious and vague when asked for clarity in what he means.
Oh, poppycock. How "newfound" could it be? The last Northern state to vote to end slavery was NJ, and that was more than 50 years before the Civil War. One of the biggest men in the running of the Underground Railroad was a Quaker citizen of Wilmington, Delaware -- a slave state. Get off your hobby-horse and admit more of real-life into your fantasy.
Silly. All "worlds" are different, and people have always been people. They'd have as much difficulty with our times as we'd have with their time.
The logical content of this sentence appears to be a void. But then if you look at your entire post -- like so many other posts you have made -- and boil it down to an essence, we find the content comes to nothing.
Tim
There is always this 'rush' to ascribe Northern slavery's end with abolition of slavery everywhere. These two were in fact distinct and separate, as evidenced by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
Northern slavery ended with its own trade, and the end of the Golden Triangle, the North's original and principle interest in that particular beast. Abolition, its NEWFOUND morality, was the result of an unholy marriage of fanatics (as Davis called them) and the Left. By this time, The North had discovered Big Business, Consolidated corporate welfare, and industry. They also discovered Abolitionism and the legends of John Brown and his types as the source of more votes and political power.
I have noted that Battalion offers the information he wishes to comment upon. I note that you and your 'side' are as equally reticent to write lines which disagree with your rhetoric. Pot calls the Kettle black here!
Battalion always answers you, when challenged, and holds his own in a 'fire-fight' with you.
Your despise of a 'South is never wrong' viewpoint always includes a love for the exact polar opposite, as I see it ...
the official 'North is always justified' viewpoint.
Again, no third line from anyone! Not even me! I want to see a third line, but I am not
compelled to provide it for you, as that would again be MY SIDE of things!
It remains that 20,000 desertions cannot convincingly be pinned to the Emancipation Proclamation. How many deserted from the Western Armies?
ole
The 20,000 figure so easily thrown around is a mischaracterization of what Gary Gallagher wrote. Gallagher was referring to Union desertions for the entire war, not in response to the EP.
Dang. I got my decimal point screwed up. The total for the war was about 200,000, but the 20,000 figure is still a mischaracterization. I'll try to find my notes on it.
I found my notes on it. Gary Gallagher doesn't talk about Union desertions at all in his book, _The Confederate War._ Claims that reference that book are simply without attribution, since they falsely claim Gallagher wrote it in his book.
There is always this 'rush' to ascribe Northern slavery's end with abolition of slavery everywhere. These two were in fact distinct and separate, as evidenced by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
Northern slavery ended with its own trade, and the end of the Golden Triangle, the North's original and principle interest in that particular beast. Abolition, its NEWFOUND morality, was the result of an unholy marriage of fanatics (as Davis called them) and the Left. By this time, The North had discovered Big Business, Consolidated corporate welfare, and industry. They also discovered Abolitionism and the legends of John Brown and his types as the source of more votes and political power.
I have noted that Battalion offers the information he wishes to comment upon. I note that you and your 'side' are as equally reticent to write lines which disagree with your rhetoric. Pot calls the Kettle black here!
Battalion always answers you, when challenged, and holds his own in a 'fire-fight' with you.
Your despise of a 'South is never wrong' viewpoint always includes a love for the exact polar opposite, as I see it ...
the official 'North is always justified' viewpoint.
Again, no third line from anyone! Not even me! I want to see a third line, but I am not
compelled to provide it for you, as that would again be MY SIDE of things!
So, I give you MY SIDE of things, instead.
Beowulf
You know, nothing you just posted seems to have any reference to anything I said. But that appears to be normal in what you post, whether it is to me or someone else.
My own viewpoint on secession is that it was caused by Southern extremists, and that there was a good chance that a peaceful separation from the Union could have been arranged -- if Southerners went about it in a reasonable, legal, peaceful manner. I have said that often, distinctly, and forecefully on this forum for over two years, including during the period you've been here.
It is also my opinion that the Civil War was not fought by the rest of the country over slavery. The "North" essentially fought because of the abuse and violence coming from Southerners; there is no believable evidence to the contrary. The South, OTOH, repeatedly said in 1860-61 it was seceding over slavery. Their choice to make that secession over slavery through the use of force, without resort to law and established procedure, was what caused the war. Nothing else did.
Yet I see that NO PART of what you say takes this into account. It is all made up to suit yourself, the usual process of setting up a straw man to attack used by propagandists and "spin doctors" everywhere. That's what people see in you here, a man throwing rhetoric around with no regard for real facts, because you really don't care for truth, only to hear the sound of your own typing. That's why they waste so much time responding to the silliness you post.
This is not personal attack, though some might see it as such. It is merely the necessary response to the mud-slinging tactics you hold so dear.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You know, nothing you just posted seems to have any reference to anything I said. But that appears to be normal in what you post, whether it is to me or someone else.
My own viewpoint on secession is that it was caused by Southern extremists, and that there was a good chance that a peaceful separation from the Union could have been arranged -- if Southerners went about it in a reasonable, legal, peaceful manner. I have said that often, distinctly, and forecefully on this forum for over two years, including during the period you've been here.
It is also my opinion that the Civil War was not fought by the rest of the country over slavery. The "North" essentially fought because of the abuse and violence coming from Southerners; there is no believable evidence to the contrary. The South, OTOH, repeatedly said in 1860-61 it was seceding over slavery. Their choice to make that secession over slavery through the use of force, without resort to law and established procedure, was what caused the war. Nothing else did.
Yet I see that NO PART of what you say takes this into account. It is all made up to suit yourself, the usual process of setting up a straw man to attack used by propagandists and "spin doctors" everywhere. That's what people see in you here, a man throwing rhetoric around with no regard for real facts, because you really don't care for truth, only to hear the sound of your own typing. That's why they waste so much time responding to the silliness you post.
This is not personal attack, though some might see it as such. It is merely the necessary response to the mud-slinging tactics you hold so dear.
Tim
Let me make sure I understand here. The North fought because of the 'abuse and violence' coming from Southerners?
What, they just didn't like the South? Or, they were mad because the North was made to look bad because they 'left'?
Abuse and violence? I don't get that, I am afraid. (Unless, of course, you are referring to the habit of challenging Northern senators to duels of honor, and watching them crumble away in horror at the thought of it!).
(I know that my 'seconds' have not 'awaited anyone with pistols at dawn' for many years!
Honor is a rather silly thing when your opponent draws his pistol, fires it into the air, and says that honor has been served... I always thought, why could not honor have been served after Lunch? The most terrifying thing about a duel for me was getting up before dawn!).
Now, to attack over the issue of money, in any of its forms, this makes sense on the part of those at the North. It does not exonerate, nor justify, but it does explain....
Lincoln might have let the South go if he could have collected Caesarian tribute from the South at the ports.
The blockades were more for diverting trade than they were for anything else, which is in fact a war crime!
As Davis will hopefully get to bring out in his upcoming trial, SLAVERY is an erroneous
assumption; the handling of a national crisis concerning African servitude, as well as the quest for consolidated empire among the Northern states... this was
more of what the South was doing in reference to the Secession from the general government. I realize that this is gravely at odds with what the pro-Northern historians teach, but be that as it may, The South should be the ultimate party responsible for their actions, and should be free to identify those actions as they saw them, at that time.
And I am gratified that you were not attacking me, personally...
I can well imagine what it must be like to fall foul of you, sir!
Lincoln might have let the South go if he could have collected Caesarian tribute from the South at the ports.
Two things he promised in the First Inaugural: He is obligated to enforce the law, thereforr he is obliged to have (1) Federal property back and (2) to collect customs duties. Unless one is inclined to call Lincoln, Davis, et alii, liars -- and provide evidence that they ever did -- his statement can be taken to the bank.
To modify your statement slightly, "Lincoln might have had to let the South go if he could have collected 'Caesarian tribute' from the South at the ports." First, the superfluous comment is the kind of thing that derails civil discourse. You might try dropping such editorial modifiers to gain an appreciative audience. Second, if southern ports complied with their obligation to forward duties to the Federal Government, Lincoln would have been hard put build a case for not letting the erring sisters go. There was simply was not enough support. Too many had accepted the idea that secession, although illegal, could not be rescinded Constitutionally.
Firing on the US Flag and a garrison of US troops tipped that balance.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Let me make sure I understand here. The North fought because of the 'abuse and violence' coming from Southerners? ...
What a lot of empty rhetoric you post, designed to avoid confronting what Southerners actually did in the "Winter of Secession" in 1860-61.
They seized bullion and money that did not belong to them. They seized Federal property (forts, ships, buildings, equipment, etc.) that did not belong to them. They counterfeited US money. They used armed force to do so. They threatened violence against US citizens and employees (both military and civilian) in many states. They fired upon US ships (twice, in Charleston harbor, once at a US merchant ship that simply wandered into the wrong port). They seized and threatened to auction off US merchant ships (in Georgia, twice, several ships each time -- granted in response to a seizure of a shipment of arms in New York City which was eventually released to them). They besieged every Federal post they could not seize immediately. They threatened the Federal forces assigned to protect Texas, forced them to surrender their equipment and posts and to evacuate -- and then broke that agreement and interned the forces that had not had time to evacuate yet when they started the war. They plotted to begin the war by assaulting either Ft. Pickens in Florida or Ft. Sumter in Charleston; when Bragg indicated he was unsure of success in Pensacola, they began with the assault on Fort Sumter. That assault was months in preparation, involved thousands of troops building artillery positions, and the firing of over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery ammunition at US soldiers, with clear intent to kill.
All of this is clearly abusive behavior. The use of armed force is clear in many instances. The act of violence is clear at Fort Sumter. In doing all these things they violated US law and the Constitution. They violated their own state laws and state constitutions. They also violated (each and every elected and appointed official among them) their own personal oaths of office. Men like Roger Pryor of Virginia (a serving US Congressman and US citizen even by the standards of secessionists when he urged South Carolina people to "Strike a blow!" and then served as Beauregard's aide in the attack on Fort Sumter) committed acts that clearly meet the standard of Treason in the US Constitution.
Yes, the "North" was outraged at all this. Yes, the final straw was the attack of the Confederates upon Fort Sumter. Anyone who studies the sources comes to the conclusion that there was NO consensus for war in the "North" until the news of the attack on Ft. Sumter arrived in a particular area -- and that very day the attitude changed to outrage and anger translated into a desire to punish the ones who had struck them. Before that, the largest single attitude in the 'North" is believed to have been that there was no "right of secession", but that the rest of the nation had no right to use force to compel a state to stay (the same attitude the Supreme Court had expressed in Ohio v. Dennison before the Civil War). As the Confederacy's Secretary of State had said when he was the lone voice in Jefferson Davis' Cabinet opposing this violent start of the war, it was fatal to the hopes of the Confederacy and cost them all their friends at the "North".
Yet you indicate you know of none of this. No other conclusion is possible if this last post of yours is to be believed -- or else you are simply pretending to be ignorant for another purpose. Which is it?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Two things he promised in the First Inaugural: He is obligated to enforce the law, thereforr he is obliged to have (1) Federal property back and (2) to collect customs duties. Unless one is inclined to call Lincoln, Davis, et alii, liars -- and provide evidence that they ever did -- his statement can be taken to the bank.
To modify your statement slightly, "Lincoln might have had to let the South go if he could have collected 'Caesarian tribute' from the South at the ports." First, the superfluous comment is the kind of thing that derails civil discourse. You might try dropping such editorial modifiers to gain an appreciative audience. Second, if southern ports complied with their obligation to forward duties to the Federal Government, Lincoln would have been hard put build a case for not letting the erring sisters go. There was simply was not enough support. Too many had accepted the idea that secession, although illegal, could not be rescinded Constitutionally.
Firing on the US Flag and a garrison of US troops tipped that balance.
ole
It was my understanding that, at some prior and obscure point, Lincoln had offered to play the tetrarch and considered asking to collect monies and to consider allowing the South to go free. This would, of course, negate the reasons for the Secession as an art form, because Secession was also over money, and tariffs, to whatever degree...
I was not aware that I had to pretend to be the Third Line in this discussion. This is news to me, sir. I believe I have made my point that I support the South entirely, and the North, not at all. I both hear and entertain Northern argument in the matter, but Thomas Jefferson, sir, I am not! He might be able to endure such restraint; I not at all.
As Lee would say, "That is clear."
So you admit that it was, possibly, on the Northern side, all about the money?
And you insist that Secession was illegal, and that the South fired unprovokedly upon Sumter. In your argument, there are no five warships coming to make Fort Sumter a working Federal (and, thanks to Lincoln, a most hostile) installation. The North was a hostile element against the Southern government since their refusal to receive the ambassadors.
You, sir, might try dropping such assumptions in order to garner more politeness from the Southern side of this argument. That was Abraham Lincoln's great failing, seeing he possessed all the polish of sandpaper...
If I say that Sumter was an excuse, baited and played by Lincoln, you doubtless would take umbrage to that statement...
Why don't you take the side of the prosecutor in the case against Davis, and we can decide through a court of law who is the more right in regards to this matter? I should enjoy very much meeting you or one of yours across the bar in a proceeding of such jurisprudence.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
