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!
Wilson created several false scenarios to get us into war- an invasion from Mexico for example.
The people on the Lusitania had been warned by Germany not to be onboard the ship, Wilson assured everyone that the U.S. was neutral and there were no arms or munitions onboard. This clearly put peoples lives at risk. Although the sinking was not as made up as the Maine incident was. As far as I know if you declare yourself neutral running guns and money illegally is illegal. There was warning, Wilson responded by saying the Germans should board the ships and check for themselves ( impossible on a subnmarine). The victims only crime was believing a follower of Lincoln.
The UK treated ALL slave ships as pirate ships and that crippled the trade. That would have continued and hit any ships North or South that tried to bring back slavery here.
Well, no, actually, they did not. They permitted American ships to pass in virtually all cases. That only changed when Lincoln came to office. He signed a new agreement with the British.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The 1860 date is still before our Civil War.
So????? It is decades after many US states abolished slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
There is absolutely no reason to think that the man who shut down newspapers, arrested without charges reporters, fired on unarmed peace marches, ordered the killing of Jeff Davis and his cabinet, allowed the abuses of Camp Douglas would have suddenly discovered the Bill of Rights. He was a thug.
You just have no clue as to how funny this is. Change a word or two and this statement refers to Jeff Davis and his administration just as well. No one is as blind as they who will not bother to see.
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.
Wilson created several false scenarios to get us into war- an invasion from Mexico for example.
Since Germany actually did approach Mexico about allying against the US, what in the world are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The people on the Lusitania had been warned by Germany not to be onboard the ship, Wilson assured everyone that the U.S. was neutral and there were no arms or munitions onboard. This clearly put peoples lives at risk.
This was a British passenger ship sunk by a German U-boat on the open sea. The captain of the U-boat was known for attacking without warning; he is also one of the very few submariners of any age known to have deliberately and knowingly attacked a hospital ship.
The US was neutral, and acting as a responsible neutral under the law. Wislon was correct in his assertion of that.
Everyone has known for a very long time that there were munitions aboard (chiefly 4200 cases of rifle ammo and some shrapnel shells). While it might not be wise, it was perfectly legal under international law and US law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Although the sinking was not as made up as the Maine incident was.
You actually noticed the Lusitania really was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat? But you missed that the Maine blew up and sunk in Cuba? Blown out of proportion the incident certainly was, but there really was a US battleship sitting on the bottom of a Cuban harbor, and 274 dead US sailors. You do remember that, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
As far as I know if you declare yourself neutral running guns and money illegally is illegal.
Then you should begin to understand you don't know what you are talking about. There was nothing in either international or US law in 1915 that made the shipment of arms to any of the warring parties by a neutral nation illegal. This has already been pointed out to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
There was warning, Wilson responded by saying the Germans should board the ships and check for themselves ( impossible on a subnmarine).
You do understand that international law in that day REQUIRED warships to warn the merchant ship before attacking? This has already been pointed out to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The victims only crime was believing a follower of Lincoln.
This is your own fantasy, that's all. Please drop it and return to discussing the Civil War.
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.
The British Navy was still after slave ships all through the 1870's. I think the idea that the South was just waiting for a chance to re-start the slave trade is a paranoid fantasy.
As a what if, that would have drawn the South into direct hostility with England. England had industrialized by the time of the Civil War (only 5% of its economy was still farm related) and wanted trade with the South, why jeopardize all that to cling to a rapidly devolving institution? To go from the war between the states to war with England would be asking a lot, even of a Southerner.
Mexico had no troops massed, no plans for invasion.
The Navy investigation declared that the Maine was blown up by a Navy mine. The news, politicians and history imply Spain may have done it but I accept the Navy version. And I'm glad Spain doesn't seem to hold this against us, there has been so much that has gone on there I'm sure most don't even know of it anymore.
It is probably best that I go take a nap now. I've seen some steaming stacks piled up and the gorge is rising. Catch y'all later.
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
DJ Psychomike, seems to go out his way to ensure that he is 'Always' wrong.
A U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, sitting in Key West, felt the disaster was caused by "The explosion of a mine situated under the bottom of the ship at about Frame 18 and somewhat on the port side of the ship."
Perhaps he can inform us if the Spanish report on the disater was the 'naval' investigation that he favors?
The British Navy was still after slave ships all through the 1870's. I think the idea that the South was just waiting for a chance to re-start the slave trade is a paranoid fantasy.
No, it was a fact. You can argue about whether or not there was enough support to get it done, but you cannot dismiss the solid evidence that many leading Southern politicians and newspapers of the 1850s discussed it openly. This is clear, has been known since before the Civil War, and is impossible to miss if you just study the facts. Please do not rush to dismiss everything you don't want to know as "a paranoid fantasy". Instead, at least try to consider that people are correcting mistakes you are making for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
As a what if, that would have drawn the South into direct hostility with England. England had industrialized by the time of the Civil War (only 5% of its economy was still farm related) and wanted trade with the South, why jeopardize all that to cling to a rapidly devolving institution? To go from the war between the states to war with England would be asking a lot, even of a Southerner.
Southerners in the 1850s had come to believe in the myth of "King Cotton". They thought England would not dare such an action because they needed Southern cotton (the South had a virtually monopoly on worldwide production, producing the best quality and most desirable types at a price others could not meet). This idea was so entrenched in 1861 that the Confederacy decided to embargo their own shipments of cotton in order to force support from Britain and France. It was a stupid idea, and they reversed it after a while when they saw it was a flop -- but very clearly you do not understand how the Southern leaders of 1861 saw themselves and their place in the world.
This is just another example of how you seek to avoid problems with your own ideas by slinging mud and scorn about. Try LEARNING the facts before venturing opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Mexico had no troops massed, no plans for invasion.
Back to WWI again? Mexican bandits were crossing the border in raids, and the Germans were offering alliance and military support to the Mexicans. No Mexican troops means they would not be invading in the next few weeks, that's all.
Certainly the German idea was nutty for Mexico. Mexico would have been crushed. But that might have been just fine with Germany if it delayed US participation in Europe. And if you want to see an example of a country doing a similar stupid act of war, consider the Rumanians in 1916 (declaring war after the Russians were thorughly thrashed instead of before.) The Germans then overran Rumania in a rush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The Navy investigation declared that the Maine was blown up by a Navy mine. The news, politicians and history imply Spain may have done it but I accept the Navy version. And I'm glad Spain doesn't seem to hold this against us, there has been so much that has gone on there I'm sure most don't even know of it anymore.
Then why lie to us by saying it was a hoax?
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.
There is a moral argument to whether or not using civilians as cover for war work is appropriate- I think there were some Nuremberg trials based on this.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
