Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame. - Page 10 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

No no, let him continue.
Look ASU, you misread. I get it. It happens.

But if you're going to get petulant, I'll happily deliver more vesicant responses.

E.g., Are you going to answer the question or just run your mouth?






Back to top
JB14
Ole Miss Fan
Sutpen's Hundred
Member since May 2012
254 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


True, true. As much as I abhor Americans' simple portrayals of Lincoln in today's popular/everyday histories, it's hard not to recognize his political genius, particularly in this instance. His manipulation of a petulant McClellan and the various generals was remarkable as well. I just wish more focus was put on his politics as opposed to his morals





Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

E.g., Are you going to answer the question or just run your mouth?
Just a reminder . . . Do you disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
11390 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

But if you're going to get petulant, I'll happily deliver more vesicant responses.


rich.

You really don't like being called on your bull shite do you?







Back to top
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3128 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The Union never recognized the right of the states to secede

Like I said. The union adopted King Georges policies. Lincoln sending troops into Charleston harbor was the same policy that King George followed when he sent troops into Lexington and Concord.

Your stance is that the break from England was illegal, and the Americans had no justification for firing on the British? Otherwise, you have to agree that So Carolinians had as much right to fire on the union troops as Mass. citizens had after Reveres ride?

One act cannot be held in esteem, while the other is condemned






Back to top
Rebel
Memphis Fan
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
83483 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Upon sobering up from a 3 year drinking binge, Lincoln was quoted as saying, "I freed WHAT?"





Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

You really don't like being called on your bull shite do you?
Stay on task . . . Do you disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war? . . . . . Feeling blistered yet?


asurob1, this didn't have to happen. You got influenced by a petulant imbecilic troll. Sorry.






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
11390 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. Following Lincoln's victory, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option.

Violence on behalf of Southern honor reached the floor of the Senate when a Southern Congressmen nearly beat to death Republican Charles Sumner when he ridiculed prominent slaveholders as pimps for slavery.

While not all Southerners saw themselves as fighting to preserve slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery. To Northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln consistently made preserving the Union the central goal of the war, though he increasingly saw slavery as a crucial issue and made ending it an additional goal.

Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union and Confederate fighting soldiers believed slavery to be the cause of the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to bring emancipation to the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
11390 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Now twist and turn as hard as you'd like. Try to not injure your spine as you do it.







Back to top
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10561 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. Following Lincoln's victory, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option. Violence on behalf of Southern honor reached the floor of the Senate when a Southern Congressmen nearly beat to death Republican Charles Sumner when he ridiculed prominent slaveholders as pimps for slavery. While not all Southerners saw themselves as fighting to preserve slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery. To Northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln consistently made preserving the Union the central goal of the war, though he increasingly saw slavery as a crucial issue and made ending it an additional goal. Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union and Confederate fighting soldiers believed slavery to be the cause of the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to bring emancipation to the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it


Well, that about sums up the intelligent and non biased opinions as to why the war was fought.

People around here like to say the war was fought over states rights. The state rights were about the states right to own slaves. As has been stated time and time again, we can easily see why in the articles of secession written by numerous southern states.

As to why the common southern man fought versus why the common northern man fought, the reason through the years really hasn't changed. He was told to do so.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s
Slavery was indeed a central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. No question about it.

Now do you want to answer the question you responded to idiotically earlier?







Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Just in case you forgot . . . the question was . . . .

"""Do you disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war?"""






Back to top
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10561 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Rarely is there a single issue that starts a war.

There are multiple issues that contribute to a war. But there is usual a central issue to the war. There is no doubt about the central issue. In fact the central issue in the civil war is so large that it dwarfs the other reasons.

For without this central reason, there would be no war.

So, in the case of the reason for the civil war, there were multiple reasons for the war. But the war was started over one reason. If that reason wasn't there, there would not have been a war. That reason is easy to glean. And that issue was slavery.

If the south was not afraid of losing slavery, they would not have attempted to withdraw from the union. If slavery was not an issue, there would have been no war.

Just like today, in years past there were many political issues that separated between the north and the south. However, none of these issues today, like non of those issues back then were close to being enough to start a war.

The issue of slavery however, was the central cause of the southern states attempt at withdrawing from the union. While there were other factors that made the south unhappy, the slavery issue was the issue that caused the war.

Lets put it this way. If slavery was not an issue, there would have been no war. If all the other issues didn't exist and slavery was still an issue, the war would have still been fought.

Therefore, one can say with confidence that the war on the southern part was fought for slavery.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
11390 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:


"""Do you disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war?"""



hurts doesn't it.

To have it pointed out just how wrong you are about something.

You are probably one of those who think that the US didn't need to nuke the Japanese into the stone age to end the Pacific war either.

I hate apologists and people who try to revise history to make their little corner of the world look like the good guys.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Now do you want to answer the question you responded to idiotically earlier?


He's probably not in for playing your little games.

He rightfully laughed at you so painfully going out of your way to not concede that maintaining slavery was THE reason South did what they did.

And regardless of who you try to badger, that's never going to change. It hasn't changed in about 150 years and won't change in another 150 years.

You Confederate apologists are entertaining for sure.



This post was edited on 11/24 at 6:26 pm


Back to top
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3128 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

going out of your way to not concede that maintaining slavery was THE reason South did what they did.

So fricking what? Great Britian passed anti-slavery laws in 1801, but didnt get around to outlawing it until 1834.

Guess what, no one died in the interim

So what the frick if the southern states seceded because of slavery. Within 30 years, slavery would have vanished EVEN IN THE SOUTH. By 1906 China abolished slavery, being the last large govt. body to allow it. Soutehrn states would have either rejoined the union, or served as competition for the union to keep their act together or risk losing more states

And no one would have died

600,000 dead wasnt worth waiting for the economy to turn on the south






Back to top
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10561 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


League, that really is a poor attempt at rationalizing.

The north didn't respond to the war th he south started over slavery. The north responded to keep the union whole.

The blame for those 600k dead goes to the south. They caused those deaths fighting for slavery. The north fought to preserve the union.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51761 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The blame for those 600k dead goes to the south
An incredibly simplistic take indeed, but on par with other posts in the last couple of pages.

War is virtually always related to economics. Causation is multifactorial and due at least in part to a cascade of diplomatic missteps or missed opportunities.

The Civil War was no different.








This post was edited on 11/25 at 6:21 am


Back to top
themunch
LSU Fan
At home/ at work/ it's all the same
Member since Jan 2007
9895 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


The south was not taking down the Federal government. They were opting out. The North brought war on those who they wanted to dominate physically and politically. Robert E. Lee fought the war for states rights. He himself stated slavery was on its way out. The north wanted the cotton from the south picked by the slaves but the south was selling to France, thus the blockade to prevent shipping. Thus the fighting back. There is your reason for war.
Federal government forcing their way into private business because they had a want to.



This post was edited on 11/25 at 7:00 am


Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24716 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The Civil War was no different.



But the Civil War would have never happened if not for slavery. I know that may be difficult for your revisionist head to rationalize but it's true.






Back to top


Back to top