Was the nuking of two cities and the burning of a bunch of others proportionate to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Again, no one died at Ft. Sumter. There was no blood shed by the confederate forces. The first blood shed of the war was when Union forces tried to invade Virginia.
The South started the war. Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.
Your assertions is demonstrably wrong. Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it. Had the British murdered every colonist, you would say they had deserved it.
No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse. It is no different from a murderer saying the victim had it coming because she slapped him.
You think they bombarded the fort for over 24 hours and honestly weren't trying to kill anyone? Really?
And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?
The rebellion of 1776 was not in defense of slavery. The rebellion of 1861 was.
Slave states in rebellion from the United Kingdom were fighting for their slave property too. You cannot separate that aspect out from the overall cause of the war. If I recall correctly, the United Kingdom did ALSO offer freedom to any slave who would fight against the vile slave holding colonies.
However the blacks made their greatest bid for freedom by taking up arms. They took up arms fighting for the British early in the Revolution. The British offered blacks their freedom in return for their aid in fighting the Americans. Blacks took up the offer not because they were fighting for the British but because they were fighting for their freedom.
So how does it feel when YOUR SIDE is fighting for slavery while the other side is fighting against it? How do YOU like it when your side's motives are tainted with the slavery issue?
Stop the hypocrisy. Just stop it. The only issue of relevance is whether or not people have a right to self determination or whether they don't.
You are supporting the side of Fedzilla oppression in opposition to a fundamental principle of natural law.
People have a right to create whatever sort of government suits them, even if their reasons for doing so are bad, and even if their newly created government turns out to be a mistake.
Again, no one died at Ft. Sumter. There was no blood shed by the confederate forces. The first blood shed of the war was when Union forces tried to invade Virginia. The fact that nobody died is a testimony more to the stoutness of the fort and the terrible artillerymen of the Confederacy than to any desire on their part not to kill anyone. And it was still an act of war on their part.
Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it.
Had the Allies killed everyone in Germany and Japan would you say they didn't deserve it? They, too, started wars that they were ill equipped to win.
No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse.
Abuse? If the mugger is tazed by police has he been abused? If the murder is executed has be been abused? Abuse implies innocence, and the South was not the innocent party in this. The South was the aggressor, and brought down all that happened to her all on her own.
And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?
Obviously that's what happened.
So how does it feel when YOUR SIDE is fighting for slavery while the other side is fighting against it? How do YOU like it when your side's motives are tainted with the slavery issue?
I'm fine with it because I know that what you claim is pure nonsense.
DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg:
"Again, no one died at Ft. Sumter.
There was no blood shed by the confederate forces.
The first blood shed of the war was when Union forces tried to invade Virginia." Actually, there were two Union troops killed at Fort Sumter, Privates Hough and Galloway, when ammunition exploded during the surrender ceremony.
Four others were seriously wounded.
But it's important also to remember that Fort Sumter was only the last and most egregious assault by Confederates on Union forces & properties before the war itself.
Preceding Sumter were dozens of incidents, starting in December 1860, of Confederate seizures of Union property, threats against and firings on Union officials.
That none of these aggressions resulted in deaths by either Union or Confederate troops is more a matter of luck than anything else.
Confederates were certainly eager for war, "crusin' for a brusin' " you might say.
Finally, we should note especially that there were no Confederate soldiers killed in battle with any Union force, and no Union Army invasion of any Confederate state until after six months of Confederate provocations of war (December 1860 to June 1861), starting war (April 1861 at Fort Sumter), formally declaring war (May 6, 1861) and sending of military supplies and aid to Confederate forces in Union states (Missouri, May 1861).
Indeed, there was no Union invasion of Virginia until long after Confederate forces began seizing Union property there, and Virginia's voters formally ratified both secession from the Union, and joining the Confederacy's formally declared war on the United States of America.
DoodleDawg: "The South started the war.
Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed."
DiogenesLamp: "Your assertions is demonstrably wrong.
Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it.
Had the British murdered every colonist, you would say they had deserved it."
First of all, the Brits, not our Founders, started the Revolutionary War, more than a year before our Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, it was the British-started war which convinced many colonists that Independence was the only solution.
Likewise, Confederates began provoking war six months before formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And it was those numerous provocations (before Fort Sumter) which suggested to many Union citizens that war might be necessary.
Second of all, the Confederacy did not just provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States, they also invaded and supported Confederate forces within every Union state & territory they could reach, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
In short, the Confederacy presented an existential military threat to the Unite States, which had to be defeated for the USA to survive.
Finally, all talk about, if the "Union murdered every person in the South," is utterly, patently ridiculous.
The fact is that most soldiers on both sides were good Christian men, kept under effective control by their leaders, and so the American Civil War is therefore comparable to none other in all of history.
In contrast to most every other war, massacres were few and civilian deaths minimal to non-existent.
So here's the bottom line: Lincoln waited patiently until the Confederacy had fully provoked, started and declared war on the United States before he sent any Union forces to battle any Confederates anywhere.
Once war started then Lincoln, unlike some of his generals (i.e., McClellan), was determined to win victory and unconditional surrender.
DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse.
It is no different from a murderer saying the victim had it coming because she slapped him."
No, in this particular case, our alleged "victim" carried a gun, began shooting at and demanding assets from the "perpetrator", and indeed, never stopped shooting for four long years.
DiogenesLamp on Battle of Fort Sumter: "And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?"
What matters here is that Confederates did not really care if they killed any Union troops or not -- that much is clear from the deadly force they used.
They were determined to secure Fort Sumter's surrender by any and all means necessary.
DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "So how does it feel when YOUR SIDE is fighting for slavery while the other side is fighting against it?
How do YOU like it when your side's motives are tainted with the slavery issue?"
Ridiculous, because slavery was lawful in every colony in 1775.
So, slavery was not an issue between the states in 1776, though it was already a question within some Northern States, which began moving to outlaw it.
Even some Southern leaders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, recognized slavery as morally wrong and indefensible.
And they did what they could to restrict and control it nationally, while individual states wrote their own laws on slavery.
Slavery only became an issue between states many years later, when Southern slavery's enormous profitability became clear, and Southern states insisted every measure possible be taken to protect it.
DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "Stop the hypocrisy.
Just stop it.
The only issue of relevance is whether or not people have a right to self determination or whether they don't."
Indeed, that is the Big Lie perpetrated by all Lost Causers against historical facts & reason.
The truth of the matter is the opposite: the issue which caused Civil War was not slavery, was not secession, was not even the forming of a new Confederacy.
No, there was one and only one reason for war: the Confederacy first provoked, then started then formally declared war on the United States, then sent military forces & materials to invade Union states.
All this happened before a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle with any Union Army.
DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "You are supporting the side of Fedzilla oppression in opposition to a fundamental principle of natural law."
More total b*ll sh*t.
The fact is that former Confederate states were in total 100% support of such Liberal "Progressives" as Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt & Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson (!).
For many years the Old South was as socialistic as anyone, only finally, finally "seeing the light" when it became obvious that they were not the ones intended to receive all the benefits from Federal redistributionist largess.
Three Southern "heros":
1952 electoral map, Eisenhower vs Adlai Stevenson:
