re: Why are tariffs and illegal acts overlooked as a cause of the civil war?

Ft Sumpter was the excuse for the North militarly attacking the South to force reunification no matter 1 or 1000 dead.

quote:

---

by goatmilker
Ft Sumpter was the excuse for the North militarly attacking the South to force reunification no matter 1 or 1000 dead.

---

First, its Fort Sumter.

Second, no degree of propaganda and spin will change the fact the Southern Democrats formed the CSA (D) and fired the first shots in the fricking Civil War.

You can lie about it, you can psuedo justify it, or you can pretend it didn't happen, but it did.

Sometimes what it be is what it be and not what it don't be.

quote:

---

Because the Civil War was about slavery. Period. Dot. Read the secession documents and political speeches of the time. No one was in streets with pitchforks because Lincoln was going to raise tariffs!
The “tariff” canard is something the UDC and SCV got up to hide the fact that grandpappy fought for white supremacy and slavery. And I say that as someone eligible for membership.

---

Yup, and grandpappy was a Democrat, just like the UDC and SCV.

They may hide it today but they were founded by Democrats to propagandize the American Public and serve as PR for the KKK and other violent Democrat organizations

quote:

---

Lincoln was set to invade before Fort Sumter. He called up 75000 troops to invade the South and another 50000 in reserve.

---

He called up the 75,000 2 days after Fort Sumter. Fact

I'm sorry, 3 days

quote:

---

On April 15, 1861, just three days after the attack on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed “to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.”

As days passed, senators noted the tremendous response to the president’s call for troops. “The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind,” wrote Senator John Sherman of Ohio. “Within a few days the road to Washington was opened, but the men who answered the call were not soldiers

---

quote:

---

No, that’s when it was made public. The plan was already in place with his transition team before inauguration.

---

Gtfo

So you mean the President had contingency plans for if a hostile government attacked the United States?

Holy No fricking shite Batman

quote:

---

South Carolina almost rebelled against Andrew Jackson during the nullification crisis

---

Almost only counts for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Second, they didn't almost seced, they passed a nullification law regarding what they viewed as an unconstitutional tariff and let it be known that they'd defend themselves if the Federal government tried to enforce with the military...

Yada, yada they reached a compromise that satisfied all sides.

It was also resolved damn near 30 years before the war. It's a bit of a stretch to use this as justification for secession or war.... a bigly stretch

quote:

---

It planted the seeds

---

I'm pretty sure the field slaves did the planting.

I must say, your thread has really revealed the effectiveness of the UDC propaganda machine. All that nonsense about the victor writing history appears to be completely false.

It's astounding how so many Conservatives are defending a wholly Democratic owned and dismally operated chapter in our history.

Its easy to blame you MFs for the plight of the black man because you white knight for the sorry mfs who fought a gd war for the right to continue to buy and sell them like cattle, why?

quote:

---

quote:
Why is this so often overlooked?
=======================

Probably because states themselves cited slavery as the linchpin issue.

---

NOTE - this response is to TBird - if I could do this in a private message I would have chosen that avenue. I am not going to use THIS thread to respond to pejoratives or half-baked ideas from other people - if you can add substantially to the ideas I want to discuss with TBird feel free to engage - If you just want to disrupt the flow of this thread feel ignored.

TSpur, sir - I admire/respect you greatly and am always buoyed by your wisdom. I trust that you will not interpret anything I say to be in DEFENSE of the 'peculiar institution' of slavery. My everlasting, enduring principle is that slavery as a concept was, is, and ever will be an absolute evil concept. I equate it to abortion-on-demand which I ALSO think is just as bad as slavery in a moral sense. But at this moment in time half the country thinks it is ok - and some think that it is a divine RIGHT. Future generations will weigh in on who is then 'right' in the view of what that culture thinks.

I first want to give you the following background - because I know something about your own from what you have posted here over the years. I can expand on my own personal experiences as I grew into adulthood if you ever want to hear it.

I am a white man born in 1938 - in the depths of the depression and raised in an environment of segregation by parents whose animosity to the Republican Party was based entirely on their (perceived?) hardships they and their families had endured during reconstruction. == I never heard one word about Negroes being sub-human or genetically inferior. I was taught from my earliest memory to "hate Republicans", and indeed they brought that same message to my own children = "never vote for a Republican." When I was about 6 or 7, I asked my dad one day when we were in the courthouse in Leesville, LA why there were signs that said "Colored" over some of the bathrooms there. He simply said "hygiene" and that satisfied me - or maybe distracted me because of my interest in learning about a "new word". Yes - we all habitually used the dreaded n-word, but it was never said to imply 'sub-human' status - there were slang words for every demographic - spic, dago, Aggie, coonass, Philadelphia lawyer, etc - used mostly when telling an ethnic joke. My dad's only 'tales' concerning Negros were about episodes where he treated them (and Mexicans) respectfully - once firing his own brother-in-law over a spat about working conditions concerning crew assignments.

So - I want to discuss (learn form a trusted source) with you the your response noted above.

I like to discuss events using attitudes and cultures of the time in which they occurred.

Do you think the war was initiated to "free the slaves?"
- I am convinced the war was all because of basic economic ambitions - Had the Confederacy (CSA) not fired on Ft. Sumter, there would have been no war - Lincoln and the "Union" did NOT start a war to 'free the slaves' --- they started the war to 'preserve the union' (primarily for economic reasons.) -- As Lincoln state - he wanted to save the union, whether it be with all slaves freed, no slaves freed, some freed some not freed. The only mission was to 'preserve the union.'
- I believe that the south seceded from the Union because the election of Lincoln meant a final resolution of the "Missouri compromise" issue would soon be settled in a way antithetical to the desires of the south. (nothing in the discussion at that time ever related to freeing the slaves already existing in the south - the discussion was on the 'future' of new states being allowed/prohibited from becoming slave-holding states)
- I also believe that Lincoln wanted the war 'to save the union' to be initiated by the CSA attacking the "Union," and not the Union invading the CSA. hence the tactic to get SC to fire upon Ft. Sumter FIRST. And it worked.
- I believe there was ZERO thoughts that CSA military leaders, troops, or common citizens were "traitors" in any way at all. It is my opinion that secession was a concept entirely valid in that era - and the the constitution would never had been ratified with the understanding that secession was equivalent to treason.
- I believe that the Emancipation Proclamation was done as a PR tactic to arouse a new (albeit heartfelt) 'cause' for which the abolitionist fervor in the north could be motivated to infuse new troops into the Union war effort.
- I believe that the CSA had the preservation of slavery as their unifying political cause - just as the north had preserving the union as theirs.
- I do NOT think the common citizens of the CSA gave much thought to the 'peculiar' institution of slavery - it was the condition they were born into - just like other evils that were extant at the time. They were too busy working from daylight to dawn to survive.
- And finally, prior to the conclusion of the Civil War, all citizens, north or south, gave allegiance to their STATE over the UNION as their underlying loyalty. Hence the patriots such as Lee et al served their STATE rather than the Union. No treason implied before, during, or for over 150 years after the event itself.

That is all -