Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
-— In short, the idea of unilateral secession is lunacy. It was lunacy then, it would be lunacy now. -—
Dunno. Makes perfect sense to me. A majority vote would be sufficient for me.
>>Since I do not believe the South was in any way being deprived in 1860 of their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”
The federal government had determined that the only ports of entry for European immigrants was in the north, so northern businesses had easy access to a cheap and easily-exploited labor source. There were also tariffs and laws to make it hard for southern states to ship their goods directly, requiring them to go through northern businesses.
The industrialized and commercialized north had decided that the southern states were to remain poor and agricultural and to be subservient to them for finished and imported goods.
If the south could have gotten Irish and other poor immigrants fresh off the boat to work in their fields, I’m sure that they would have sent the blacks back to Africa. After all, renting labor for slave wages is much cheaper than the cost of ownership. Because, that’s exactly what motivated the northern states to suddenly become anti-slavery after a century of making money off their import.
Yes, that’s what the losers call it.
Confederate generals Patrick Cleburne and the great Robert E. Lee were for plans to give freedom to slaves who fought for the South. They were given a hearing and summarily turned down. Because freedom for slaves was against what most Southerners stood for.
I don't know if the South could have found enough slaves to fight for them with their freedom as a prize, but the fact that Cleburne and Lee were given short shrift proves what the South was fighting for...slavery.
If I’m not mistaken the British were supplying weapons etc, like the 1853 Rifled musket.
Machinery and Money? How so?
As far as men I will give you that. And the few men we have up here? We will be down to help ya’ll
I like, "The War of Kicking the Slave Owning Moron's Ass."
The much larger population and the fact that the North was much further ahead in manufacturing capabilities and materiel doomed the South. (Although the South never lost a battle for lack of ammunition.) In fact, from some sources I've read, if the North had used available repeating Henry rifles at the start of the war, it might have ended after a few battles. Lots of what ifs.
But basically the South's only chance was a kind of delaying action that might make the war weary Northern population give up. Lincoln was afraid of that with all the Copperheads twisting public opinion. But after Grant took Vicksburg and Sherman marched through the deep South, the game was mostly over. The South had great generals and great soldiers...just not enough of them.
Basically, without slavery there would have been no war. Slavery was the single, outstanding cause of the conflict.
The north had the machines the south did not have. The north had 90% of all manufacturing and most of the railroads. The north had three times the population. The north had ten times the money the south did.
See my response #140.
It makes perfect sense. Really? Think hard. What if you’re living in a state that’s about 50-50 lib-conservative? But the libs get a slight majority and vote to secede and establish Cuba North. Do you think that’s logical?
-— Do you think that’s logical? -—
As long as residents are allowed to flee, I don’t have a problem.
But i don’t think it will be easy to get a majority to vote for secession, even if the population is 60% moonbat, for example.
“I enjoy using an older title: “War of Northern Aggression”.”
I lean that way also. But today I think we could call it the War to End The Police State.
Except there really wasn’t a police state.
The same could be said of joining the union; that the nuts could join against the will of the people.
Isn't every person in North Korea essentially a slave?
I meant NOW not the 1860s
There was no tyranny - except that coming from the slavrocracy. The south had full voice in Congress, and had held the presidency more often than not. That the had a temper tantrum and a meltdown when they didn’t get their way is telling.
But basically the South’s only chance was a kind of delaying action that might make the war weary Northern population give up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I have wondered about that. What if the South had never used the traditional warfare practices of the day, but, had waged a low simmering guerrilla war instead. They might have won and those in the North grew weary,
“But today I think we could call it the War to End The Police State.”
Key word is today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.