Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
I would say without the volatile issue of slavery, there would've been no war. Maybe a whole lot of bickering the in the House of Representatives over tariffs and such. Perhaps another caning or two, but IMO no war.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Battalion your figures may not be exactly right(I don't know) but your point is correct.Were the Confederate states not worth a huge chunk of money there would have been no war.
Neil all of the death in the Civil War was caused by the Northern invasion of the South not the other way around.The South was invaded yet you comically blame them for Northern men with weapons at their door.Do you not know the Confederacy sought peace.Lincoln refused peace.Let that sink in the North not the South turned down peace.Attemting to place all the blame for Northern aggression on slavery is pathetic.Northern men with loaded guns didn't come South to do one thing about slavery in 1861 did they?I suppose slavery was responsible for Northern murder of the Plains Indians including women and children and stealing their land too huh?Open up your eyes.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
Ashley, we can have 'peace' right now if we just gave in to Al Qaida. That's what they want, isn't it? To be left alone, to do what they will. Hamas & Hezbollah too, all we have to do is give in and we get 'peace.'
And all we'll have to do after that to preserve the 'peace' is keep giving in to their ever renewing demands - or they will not like it and we'll have war and of course then it will be our fault for not accepting the 'peace' they wanted.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Ashley, we can have 'peace' right now if we just gave in to Al Qaida. That's what they want, isn't it? To be left alone, to do what they will. Hamas & Hezbollah too, all we have to do is give in and we get 'peace.'
And all we'll have to do after that to preserve the 'peace' is keep giving in to their ever renewing demands - or they will not like it and we'll have war and of course then it will be our fault for not accepting the 'peace' they wanted.
I do believe this is correct; as Ashley and others would have us believe it wa Lincolns fault that SC opened the ball by firing on Ft Sumter. Just as an aside Ashley did Northerners profit from taking land from the Seminoles, Cherokee, Creek or Commanche? You have accidently hit on a fact; our treatment of the Native American is a NATIONAL sin as is/was slavery.
The South was worth a huge chunk of money? The South was so poor they never had a chance against the mean old North? You can't have it both ways.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
It is my contention that Battalion is wrong when he thinks the war was about the tariff. Period.
I do not 'comically' blame the South for all the deaths in the Civil War. I simply acknowledge the historical fact that they left the Union over the issue of slavery, which was the burning, contentious political issue of the day, not how much the South was 'worth.' I acknowledge that the South began the war by firing on Ft. Sumter, another documented, historical fact.
I also know the South sought 'peace' on it's terms while it tried to get the rest of the nation to acknowledge that it's rebellion, disguised as 'peaceable secession,' was somehow a legal act.
Attempting to deny that the South left the Union over the issue of protecting slavery is what I consider truly disturbing, because it takes a serious effort at historical denial to come to this conclusion.
Ashley, I consider my eyes to be open and they have been so for a very long time. I have used them to read, to study and to research and I have used them to come to my own conclusions about the reasons for the Civil War. While I do not agree with your own observations, I will try to meet your objections with serious, honest research, historical documentation, reliable sources, etc., and I will never call into question your own eyesight and I ask you to please let that 'sink in'.
Again, if slavery had not been present in the United States by the time of the 1860 election, it is my own opinion there would have been no other issue as dangerous, as contentious, as dividing as the institution of slavery.
A $1.94 a year is a poor reason to murder your fellow countryman, North or South.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
So, you hold the idea that Ft. Sumter was fired on with the idea that the gunners had no intention of causing any casualties?
That there was such a thing as a 'smart' cannon ball in 1861?
That this fort was in the middle of a harbor, surrounded by hostile forces of a hostile state in rebellion?
That '500 miles from a Northern state' should have no meaning as this was a state in the United States?
This was an act of war, no ifs, ands, or buts. When one lights the fuse, one should not be surprised at the results of a massive explosion. When one pulls the trigger of a gun in a crowded room with other armed residents, again, one should not be surprised at the return of other gunshots that cause death and injury.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Battalion,
That this fort was in the middle of a harbor, surrounded by hostile forces of a hostile state in rebellion?
That '500 miles from a Northern state' should have no meaning as this was a state in the United States?
Unionblue
No matter what the members of the Southern Confederacy thought "in their own minds" they were not a country so were "in rebellion".
The definition by 19th century diplomacy of a nation is:
....1) you must be able to defend your borders
....2) you must be recognized by other countries
....3) you must be able to give services to your citizens. The CSA accomplished #3, creating a Government but was never able to defend its borders or get recognition from other countries.
Therefore it was never a nation, just some states in rebellion from
the mother country.
Chuck in IL.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
