- 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: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:46 am to Midtiger farm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:46 am to Midtiger farm
A good many prominent Southerners went to Brazil after the war.
0
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
a necessary justification for a horrific war that had no basis in law.
But it did have basis. The south opening fire on Sumter was the basis. Lincoln telegraphed the punch in his Inaugural Address.
On Apr 12, 1861 he broke the news of the attack on Sumter to a Virginia delegation. He made clear to them that the attack on Sumter was the requisite opening of hostilities justifying war and northern invasion in response. He told them in no uncertain terms there would be war.
This makes a lot of sense until you realize just how ridiculous it is that the North was maintaining an armed military base with cannons and the ability to destroy all shipping coming in and out of Charleston which was of course an act of war. Once South Carolina seceded the Union had no right to remain at Fort Sumter by any rational legal standard. Lincoln refused to leave Sumter and he continued to threaten Confederate shipping and trade. He refused any negotiation with the Confederacy that would result in the South leaving the Union. He would not allow them Self Determination. Now you can blame the Confederacy for firing on Sumter after repeated warnings but the true fault was with Lincoln who desperately wanted the war because it benefitted him politically.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:44 pm to aggressor
quote:Not blaming, just stating fact. The south gave Lincoln the legal basis for war. Not through secession, but by opening hostilities.
Now you can blame the Confederacy for firing on Sumter after repeated warnings but the true fault was with Lincoln who desperately wanted the war because it benefitted him politically.
quote:The ability to do something is not an act of war. Doing it, is. Had the North actually fired upon Southern ships in the harbor that would be different.
the ability to destroy all shipping coming in and out of Charleston which was of course an act of war.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Where does this “right” to secede come from in your mind?
You've read the Declaration of Independence haven't you?
Have you celebrated the secession of the colonies from Britain on July 4th?
Do you support the UN Charter that guarantees the “self-determination of peoples” ?
Did you cheer when several states seceded from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s? All done with the full throated support of the United States.
When the U.S. fully supported the secession of Kosovo, did you protest?
Did you take issue with Obama supporting the secession of Palestine from Israel and its statehood?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:53 pm to aggressor
quote:
This makes a lot of sense until you realize just how ridiculous it is that the North was maintaining an armed military base with cannons and the ability to destroy all shipping coming in and out of Charleston which was of course an act of war.
Only if you fail to remember that the United States refused to recognize the newly formed Confederacy as a legitimate nation. Lincoln considered them "states in rebellion" and thus he firmly believed that Charleston Harbor, and thereby Fort Sumter, were both still sovereign U.S. soil.
This post was edited on 5/19/21 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:38 pm to burger bearcat
The American Civil War was the first of its kind to use propaganda in a modern fashion. The civil war was not about slavery. Much of what’s going on today is very similar. Slavery was just an added dimension to the reasons that the government wanted the American people to understand. The north made it impossible for the south to prosper and had a stranglehold on its overall fate. The politicians back then would like you to believe that the war was over race and slavery. Don’t bite. Slavery is a terrible thing and something that needed to be ended for sure, but that is not why there was a war. Many people from the north also owned slaves, but you won’t find that in many history books because it doesn’t fit the narrative
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:38 pm to RollTide1987
Of course he did but clearly that wasn't the case. South Carolina voted Unanimously to secede and Lincoln refused to even negotiate with them about leaving.
I understand what he claimed as justification but that doesn't make it right. He wanted the war and he was determined to draw the Confederacy into one, had it not been there he would have found another way (maybe blockage New Orleans or Savannah for instance). He chose Sumter though because he knew South Carolina was the most adamant state in wanting to secede and had always had an awkward relationship with the North.
I understand what he claimed as justification but that doesn't make it right. He wanted the war and he was determined to draw the Confederacy into one, had it not been there he would have found another way (maybe blockage New Orleans or Savannah for instance). He chose Sumter though because he knew South Carolina was the most adamant state in wanting to secede and had always had an awkward relationship with the North.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:28 pm to aggressor
quote:
Once South Carolina seceded the Union had no right to remain at Fort Sumter by any rational legal standard.
It is immaterial that South Carolina voted to secede. Fort Sumter was then, and always was,a part of the United States. South Carolina was in rebellion.
quote:
Lincoln refused to leave Sumter
Why would he negotiate or agree to leave from territory that was then and always part of the United States?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:31 pm to Patch
Disagree. Slavery was a major driver for the war. The land owners of the time were lazy and wanted free labor to maintain their properties. Was it the only reason? No, but to say the CW was not about slavery is ignorant.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:33 pm to aggressor
quote:
Of course he did but clearly that wasn't the case.
Was it so clear? Unless I’m mistaken I believe South Carolina remains part of the United States to this very day.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:36 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
Why would he negotiate or agree to leave from territory that was then and always part of the United States?
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States. South Carolina (nor any other state)would've joined the union if they'd known they couldn't secede.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:39 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States.
Except Lincoln refused to acknowledge South Carolina’s right to secede.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:06 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States.
States are prohibited from unilateral secession. In the eyes of the law, the rebellious states never stopped being a part of the Union.
quote:
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States. South Carolina (nor any other state)would've joined the union if they'd known they couldn't secede.
Immaterial. The United States was, and still is, a perpetual union. This is settled case law. See Texas v. White (1869). "By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
—?U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. White (1869).[6]
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:40 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
quote:
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States.
States are prohibited from unilateral secession. In the eyes of the law, the rebellious states never stopped being a part of the Union.
quote:
If a state seceded it was no longer part of the United States. South Carolina (nor any other state)would've joined the union if they'd known they couldn't secede.
Immaterial. The United States was, and still is, a perpetual union. This is settled case law. See Texas v. White (1869). "By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
—?U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. White (1869).[6]
If there is every a straw man it is Texas vs White. It was decided AFTER the war and by a SC that had no Southerners (they were expelled or left when they seceded) and was filled with Lincoln appointees (since he replaced them). Ironically Texas was not even given the full rights of a state until 1870 so when this decision was made Texas wasn't even a part of the United States as a full partner and with the rights they were supposed to have in the Constitution.
The word secession and the concept of leaving the Union is never mentioned in the Constitution. This is though:
quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Texas vs White only has standing if you completely ignore those 2 Amendments and then make up something out of thin air. It also implies that in spite of the Declaration and Constitution being based on the concept of Self Determination that they are completely immaterial to the almighty power of the Federal Government to do anything they wish to the States and People underneath them.
Every Confederate State voted by at least 2/3rds to leave. Most were unanimous or very close to it. It was the will of the people by any standard.
Oh, and of course there is the Declaration of Independence which the entire freaking country is supposed to be based on that clearly states that separation (secession) is the right of all men:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
White v Texas makes Roe look like an extremely well thought out legal opinion with deep basis in law and precedent.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:55 pm to aggressor
quote:
Where does this “right” to secede come from in your mind? The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that unilateral secession by a state from the union was illegal.
White v Texas had nothing to do with session. It was a determination on the issue of Texas issuing bonds to fund their part of the war.
The Justice Cash opinion is only an opinion and no standing whether or not a state can secede. Otherwise ....takes every opinion in every Supreme Court case and apply it to the Constitution.
It is simply an opinion .... alone.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 4:52 pm to AUCE05
quote:The civil war was about northern aggression. Sure slavery was a topic and later became written in the history books, but the war would have happened no matter if there were slaves or not. It is what this country is coming to today. Its beginning to be inevitable... And what will the historians write this time? Slavery and racism again? Covid? We all know its political and unfortunately it will be over 2 sides that cant agree on squat, but we will blame it on something else other than the fact that each side hates each other... I hate to say it, but it's true
Disagree. Slavery was a major driver for the war. The land owners of the time were lazy and wanted free labor to maintain their properties. Was it the only reason? No, but to say the CW was not about slavery is ignorant.
We need to learn to get along and co-exist again
This post was edited on 5/19/21 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 5:01 pm to Patch
quote:
The civil war was about northern aggression.
Yeah, the North just felt like kicking the shite out of their southern neighbors. Let em know who's boss.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News