Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame. | Page 11 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25001 posts

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


quote:

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.


The South fired on Fort Sumter. Not the North.

quote:

Robert E. Lee fought the war for states rights. He himself stated slavery was on its way out.


So what? The politicians, the ones who pushed for secession in the first place, were fighting to preserve the Southern economy - and that economy was based almost entirely on slavery. Robert E. Lee didn't even want secession, let alone war. And he couldn't have cared less about states' rights. He was fighting to protect Virginia. That was his SOLE purpose for fighting.

quote:

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.


You got your timeline mixed up there, dude. The blockade wasn't set up until AFTER the initiation of hostilities.

quote:

Federal government forcing their way into private business because they had a want to.



So you are okay with the Federal government staying out of the business of slavery?






This post was edited on 11/25 at 9:08 am


Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52755 posts

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


quote:

But the Civil War would have never happened if not for slavery.
About as speculative as asserting the United States would have never happened if not for slavery. Probably true, but who knows.

You seem to crave an either-or reductive premise isolating slavery as an exclusive catalyst. Kind of like saying if the South had not fired on Sumter, there would have been no war. It is a simple-minded thesis addressing a complex cause. Right in part. Wrong in part. Certainly not all encompassing, your protests not withstanding.

Without economic pressures the Civil War would have never happened.






Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5729 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Posted by RollTide1987


Are you still embarrassing yourself in these threads?






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25001 posts

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


quote:

About as speculative as asserting the United States would have never happened if not for slavery.



No. Not it's not. In fact...that's probably the worst example I have ever seen.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25001 posts

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


quote:

Are you still embarrassing yourself in these threads?



Just because you're in denial doesn't mean I'm embarrassing myself. I know what I'm talking about. You do not.







Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52755 posts

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


quote:

quote:

About as speculative as asserting the United States would have never happened if not for slavery.
No. Not it's not. In fact...that's probably the worst example I have ever seen.
quote:

Are you still embarrassing yourself in these threads?






Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

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


quote:

I know that may be difficult for your revisionist head to rationalize but it's true.


Confederate sympathizers/apologists get real crazy and defensive when folk start talking the truth about secession






Back to top
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10621 posts

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


Nc, i respect you as a poster, but damn dude, really?

Are you familiar with the articles of secession?

Did you read them?

They pretty much sum everything up.

Saying the civil war was about economic pressures is like saying it was over states rights.

The states rights were only one, the right to own slaves. And the economic pressures were those economic pressures related to losing slavery.

One can cut out the trash and just say that the civil war started over slavery. And the south started the war and fired the first shots






Back to top
Fat Bastard
New Orleans Saints Fan
Paradise
Member since Mar 2009
16391 posts

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


quote:

Confederate sympathizers/apologists get real crazy and defensive when folk start talking the truth about secession





you back from banland again clown?

I see again you cannot read worth a lick.

one more time.............


LINK







Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

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


quote:

Nc, i respect you as a poster, but damn dude, really?


You should expect that from Confederate sympathizers/apologists






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:

Fat Bastard


Talk about someone who needs to be marginalized in society






Back to top
  Replies (0)
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
41567 posts

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


quote:

Are you familiar with the articles of secession?


The various Confederate state "ordinances" and articles of secession pretty much put the issue of slavery at the forefront. I'm not sure how anyone can deny this historical fact.






Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

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


quote:

I'm not sure how anyone can deny this historical fact.


If Nc_Tigah senses someone is trying to make the CSA the bad guys, he could find a way. He wouldn't fool anyone but he'd give it a shot.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10621 posts

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


quote:

Fat Bastard


Wow. Just wow. OK, I'll play along.

First, few here say that the north fought the civil war over slavery. They fought to restore the union and because the south attacked the north. For the most part everyone realizes that Lincoln wanted to preserve the union.

quote:

The war itself really had nothing directly to do with slavery


Actually that is wrong. It had everything to do with slavery. The south seceded over slavery and then attacked the north because of fears about losing slavery.

quote:

secession and the war were two separate events


True. Secession happened which the north didn't recognize. Then the south attacked the north.

quote:

The seceded states posed no threat to the federal government


Well, they attacked a US fort. One could say that posed a threat.

quote:

The Confederate states wanted to live in peace with the North and offered to pay their share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal forts in the South.


the peaceful part just isn't right. The north didn't want to sell and didn't recognize the right to secede.

So the peaceful south then fired the first shots of the war. They attacked the US army, not the other way around.

quote:

To most Southerners, independence was more important than the continuation of slavery.


And to most northerners, the war was because the government told them to fight. What is your point?

Honestly, that post you linked is the biggest whitewash I can think of. And here I thought NC was way off. You are even further off.

How can it be the war of northern aggression when the south started it? Technically the war was a war of southern insurrection and aggression. And slavery was at the core.

The apologists on this board are just crazy.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
thetempleowl
Temple Fan
dallas, tx
Member since Jul 2008
10621 posts

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


quote:

The various Confederate state "ordinances" and articles of secession pretty much put the issue of slavery at the forefront. I'm not sure how anyone can deny this historical fact.


Numerous people here deny this historical fact.

Does this surprise you?

Actually if I told you that NC tigah was one of them, that might actually surprise you.

Others here who claim that you would expect, but he is a bit of a surprise.

But read the thread. Numerous people deny that obvious fact.






Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

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


quote:

Actually if I told you that NC tigah was one of them, that might actually surprise you.


Why? Nc-Tigah is has a long history of spouting off factually incorrect/false bull shite. He's one of those guys still resisting the new south. I would expect him to be the most likely.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52755 posts

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


quote:

Actually if I told you that NC tigah was one of them, that might actually surprise you.
Yeah, it would certainly surprise me too.
It also surprises me that you would make the statement.

The Southern States absolutely listed Slavery as prominent in secession. It was a huge issue. They did not however cite it as sole cause as you seem insistent on doing. I'm frankly a bit mystified at your confusion about this.

A couple of many examples:
quote:

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.


quote:

But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time.

Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.


quote:

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefore, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.








Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
11718 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Numerous people here deny this historical fact.

Does this surprise you?



Not really no. I have seen it on this board too many times to count.

This one just caught my ire the other day. The facts are the facts and the people whitewashing history are a lot like those people who deny things like the holocaust actually happened.







Back to top
sugar71
UCLA Fan
baton rouge
Member since Jun 2012
1724 posts

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


quote:

really no. I have seen it on this board too many times to count.

This one just caught my ire the other day. The facts are the facts and the people whitewashing history are a lot like those people who deny things like the holocaust actually happened.


I made the 'holocaust denier' comparison recently also. It's almost as if though you are in the twilight zone.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5729 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Just because you're in denial doesn't mean I'm embarrassing myself. I know what I'm talking about. You do not.


You mean your statement about the war being just because it resulted in an empire based on freedom rather than oppression?

You are a clown.






Back to top


Back to top