- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 155 Years Ago Today Confederate Forces Opened Fire on Fort Sumter
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:28 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Fort Sumter belonged to the US. It was federal property.
From the Southern point of view the war was one of Northern aggression due to the fact the north refused to retreat from what the South considered now sovereign territory of the Confederate States of America.
2
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:29 am to slackster
quote:
100% agree. This is the worst myth about the Civil War.
The second worst myth is that the South didn't secede because of slavery.
Slavery was the key issue for sure. But, as I've already said, it was more complicated than just that. One other key aspect that lead to the South leaving the Union was the shifting power in Congress as well as in the Presidential electoral map. Basically,y the South saw that the North's political power in the Federal government was eclipsing their own and soon would grow to a point that the Federal Government of the US would be totally dominated by the north, thus leaving the South totally subservient to whatever the North wanted. And the South was not just worried about the issue of slavery. They also were gravely concerned about key issues like tariffs and international trade which could totally crush the South's economy. In short, in addition to Slavery diving the North & South, economic policies likewise divided the two factions. It basically boiled down to the fact that policies that would help the north, would in turn crush the South and leave the area impoverished. This fact, coupled with the North's growing power in the federal government were key factors that lead to the South forming the Confederacy. This fact was also a major contributing factor that cannot be overlooked.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:31 am to ballscaster
quote:
From the Southern point of view the war was one of Northern aggression due to the fact the north refused to retreat from what the South considered now sovereign territory of the Confederate States of America.
Fort Sumter belonged to the US. It was federal property.
Once again, I'm only trying to give you the point of view of those who were alive and in positions to make those sort of decisions at that time. I'm neither here to defend or attack any point of view. All I'm trying to do is put things in a historic perspective in order to help those who want it to gain a better understanding of the Civil War.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:32 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
All I'm trying to do is put things in a historic perspective in order to help those who want it to gain a better understanding of the Civil War.
I, for one, appreciate your efforts. I tried the same thing with my initial post in this thread and, as expected, I have received downvotes and been attacked for my wrong thinking.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:34 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
This fact was also a major contributing factor that cannot be overlooked.
Sure, but the part that cannot be ignored, ever, is slavery. You remove slavery from the issues above and there is no war or secession. The rest of those things are mitigating factors, and while they are important, they haven't exactly gone away in the last 155 years.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:34 am to GetCocky11
So y'all can back down to a bunch of whining SJW types and have it removed and probably melted down? I think we'll onto it until you South Carolinians get your balls back.
So, indefinitely.
So, indefinitely.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:36 am to LCA131
Blacks were used as pawns then just as they are now.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:36 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I don't like the idea that a group of nonresidents can and still does hold sway in one States affairs. There's plenty of current day examples of that.
Agreed, but slavery is a terrible place to stand your ground.
(I'm not saying you agree with that stance, and I understand and probably agree with your current issues, but even 155 years ago slavery was a disgraceful move)
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:37 am to 504ByrdGang
Do traitors have military bases named after them? Do traitors have grave markers paid for and provided to them by the US Gov.? By the way frick you too.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:38 am to NYNolaguy1
The Civil War was not necessary. The South wet its pants because they saw Lincoln as an abolitionist. While Lincoln was certainly going to try to eliminate slavery, history has proven he was a pragmatist first and foremost.
Look at his policy on reconstruction as an example. It would have been immensely popular to parade around Confederate leaders in shackles but he saw that our nation needed to heal more than it needed to punish.
Lincoln would have found a peaceful solution to transition the South away from slavery. One that would not have destroyed the southern agrarian economy as bad as the Civil War had done.
But the genteel Southern Gentleman was not gonna have anything to do with a GD Yankee. The South's stubborn pride lead to its downfall and ultimate destruction. Millions of lives lost that could have been avoided.
There are many parallels to our current political climate. Neither side is willing to hear ideas presented by those with overall opposing viewpoints. Compromise for the greater good has become a four letter word...
Look at his policy on reconstruction as an example. It would have been immensely popular to parade around Confederate leaders in shackles but he saw that our nation needed to heal more than it needed to punish.
Lincoln would have found a peaceful solution to transition the South away from slavery. One that would not have destroyed the southern agrarian economy as bad as the Civil War had done.
But the genteel Southern Gentleman was not gonna have anything to do with a GD Yankee. The South's stubborn pride lead to its downfall and ultimate destruction. Millions of lives lost that could have been avoided.
There are many parallels to our current political climate. Neither side is willing to hear ideas presented by those with overall opposing viewpoints. Compromise for the greater good has become a four letter word...
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 9:48 am
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:38 am to udtiger
quote:
And, in true irony, to the slaveholding party.
My favorite claim is the idea that the Republican party of today is responsible for freeing the slaves.
Look, I'm a conservative, but neither the Republican or Democratic party or predecessors of the 1860s have a damn thing to do with the modern variants.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:39 am to dwr353
quote:
Do traitors have military bases named after them? Do traitors have grave markers paid for and provided to them by the US Gov.?
Yes.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:40 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Compromise for the greater good has become a four letter word...
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:43 am to lsu2006
quote:
I'm sorry but that's not historically correct.
k
Here. Learn some history...
LINK
The "1863 Draft Riots" in New York City were largely due to the fact men in the north were outraged at the idea of fighting to free African slaves in the South. 119 blacks in New York were murdered during this riot.
Also....
quote:
Historian Benjamin Thomas wrote: “The public reaction was mixed. Many persons experience a bewilderment of joy, but sullen notes intruded. As Lincoln had anticipated, abolitionist extremists expressed dissatisfaction at a halfway measure. Some persons in the border states predicted a social cataclysm. Proslavery Northern Democrats saw Lincoln’s perfidy unmasked; after wheedling them into supporting a war for the Union he had turned for the Union, he had turned it against slavery.”9 According to T. Harry Williams, “To the Democrats the proclamation was the final example of Lincoln’s perfidy in soliciting Democratic support for a war to restore the Union and at the same time capitulating to the radicals on every issue. The mask was now off, they shouted, and they would have no more of Mr. Lincoln and his glib talk about an all-parties policy. Let Wade and Chandler run his war for him! An inauspicious portent for the president was the announced opposition of a powerful prelate of the Catholic church. The newspaper organ of Bishop [John] Hughes of New York condemned the proclamation and the congressional radicals who had forced the issue.”10
Describing the army reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation in early January 1863, T. Harry Williams wrote that many letters to the editor were written by “officers who claimed to have been Republicans but who were now bolting the part because they could not stomach the emancipation proclamation and the mismanagement of the war. Among the private soldiers the new emancipation policy excited disgust and opposition. Henry Raymond picked up a story that the New Jersey regiments in Burnside’s army had declared that they would not fight in an antislavery war because their state had just elected a Peace Democrat to the Senate, thereby demonstrating its opposition to the administration program. [Joseph] Hooker later furnished the [War Oversight] committee with an accurate picture of the army’s dangerous state of mind: ‘At that time perhaps a majority of the officers, especially those high in rank, were hostile to the policy of the government in the conduct of the war. The emancipation proclamation had been published a short time before, and a large element of the army had taken sides antagonistic to it, declaring that they would never have embarked in the war had they anticipated this action of the government.'”11
LINK
So as you can clearly see, the notion that the North went to war to end Slavery is pure myth. Yes, there were many among the North who wanted to end slavery (just as there were many in the South who likewise wanted slavery to end). But for the majority in the North, they were fighting to "save the Union" and not only didn't fight to end slavery, they were quite pissed off when Lincoln made it an issue in the war.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:47 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
So as you can clearly see, the notion that the North went to war to end Slavery is pure myth.
Not at all what I said, but it's cool. Obviously it's far more complicated than:
North: SLAVERY BAD
South: SLAVERY GOOD
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 9:48 am
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:48 am to slackster
quote:
Am I supposed to think it was OK now since some Union states had slaves too? This is the equivalent of everyone jumping off the Golden Gate bridge and you following suit as if is a good idea. I mean c'mon.
No one says this.
And no one is arguing that slavery shouldn't have ended.
But it does stop in the tracks any narrative that the north started the war to end slavery in that evil racist South.
It wasn't. It's not even debatable.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:48 am to lsu2006
Traitor to you, patriots to me. We will never change the mind of the other. I for one honor my multiple ancestors who defended their homeland from an invading army bent upon rape, pillage, and domination.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:50 am to Volvagia
quote:
But it does stop in the tracks any narrative that the north started the war to end slavery in that evil racist South.
It wasn't. It's not even debatable.
I've never argued otherwise. There was no altruistic side during the Civil War, but let's not try to sugar coat the fact that the ultimate reason the South seceded was because of slavery.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:53 am to Darth_Vader
So many issues.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a stroke of genius by Lincoln which effectively accomplished nothing legally. However, politically it changed the whole face of the war, especially where England and France were concerned.
Read this exchange somewhere. I believe it was told by Shelby Foote but not sure.
Union picket hollering at Confederate counterpart: "How many slaves you own?"
Confederate picket's response: "None."
Union picket: "What're you doing here then?"
Confederate picket: "What're you doing here?"
The Emancipation Proclamation was a stroke of genius by Lincoln which effectively accomplished nothing legally. However, politically it changed the whole face of the war, especially where England and France were concerned.
Read this exchange somewhere. I believe it was told by Shelby Foote but not sure.
Union picket hollering at Confederate counterpart: "How many slaves you own?"
Confederate picket's response: "None."
Union picket: "What're you doing here then?"
Confederate picket: "What're you doing here?"
Posted on 4/12/16 at 9:55 am to slackster
quote:
Sure, but the part that cannot be ignored, ever, is slavery. You remove slavery from the issues above and there is no war or secession. The rest of those things are mitigating factors, and while they are important, they haven't exactly gone away in the last 155 years.
You're right. Slavery was the key issue. However, even without slavery, I think a split between the North and South was coming either way due to (1) the growing stranglehold of power the north had over congress and the Presidency and (2) diametrically opposed economic interests between the North & South and (3) the north's expansion of federal power over the states.
Yes, slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back in December of 1860. But even had that issue been resolved without a split occurring, I think there's a good chance that split would have just came later as the north continued to grow the power of the federal government at the expense of state governments. The South would come to see the only way they'd ever have any political voice in government would be to leave the Union and form their own independent country.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News