Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
Well first of all, it wasn't "My side", because my family wasn't even here when all of this was happening, and second of all, it was the founders that said this was a right given by God, not me.
God let the Israelites live in slavery for a number of years, so i'm not going to second guess his reasons for doing what he does, or allowing what he allows.
How much of an advantage did Great Britain have over the colonies?
England had about 6.5 Million people in 1776, and the US had about 2.5 Million, so it was only 2 to 1 odds, with the Ocean serving as a serious impediment for their command and control.
Likewise King George III was not so insane as to kill 750,000 people to get his own way. He decided to stop the fighting after about 15,000.
The South had a far harder fight than did the Colonists. Given that the Colonists had established the new paradigm of independence being a right, the South shouldn't have had to fight for it at all.
The end of the system of governance which the Founders created. It was the era in which plutocrats seized control of many of the levers of governance. This is why there was so much corruption following the Civil War.
If Jefferson Davis had only been as wise as King George.
Because just leaving them alone was unthinkable.
to the southron fire-eaters anyway. The northerns were fine with leaving them alone but a bit averse to being robbed, battered, and shot at.
Under the laws of that US government, the slaves had no say. Given that the United States government didn't give a sh*t about them for "Four Score and Seven Years", I don't see why business as usual would have suddenly been regarded as a crises.
Certainly the USA didn't launch that war against the South for the benefit of the slaves, though it is they who ultimately benefited from it most.
As Charles Dickens so eloquently put it:
Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
Had the New York/Washington DC power axis won the war more quickly, the Slaves would have continued their toil in the fields, and the money going into New York and Washington pockets would have continued as before, though they would have probably wanted a bigger cut than previously.
Because unwanted guests who refuse to leave your living room should just be indulged until they get bored instead of being repeatedly asked politely to leave before they eventually get tossed out on their ear.
Jefferson Davis didn't control the fighting. Abraham Lincoln controlled the bloodshed. He could have stopped it at any time he wished. He just thought it was worth killing so many people to reestablish financial control over the South.
He couldn't allow them to compete financially with the Empire City. Carthage had to be destroyed so that Rome could rule without challenge. Rome has ruled ever since.
Sure he did. He started it, he could have stopped it. Or not started it to begin with.
Your slipshod analogy bears zero resemblance to the situation.
This analogy is even worse. You suck at this!
That is naive. Lincoln had already sent Porter to Pensacola to start a war there. Lincoln deliberately started the war. He did exactly what his own Cabinet said would start a war, and his orders to Porter were just the backup plan to start a war in Pensacola if the confederates didn't take the bait in Charleston.
Lincoln was going to have his war one way or the other because he could not let the South trade directly with Europe and thereby cut out his Benefactors in New York.
New York needed a war to blockade the South, and New York was going to get a war one way or the other.
Guns of a fortress commanding the entrance to one of the most important Ports in the South could deter shipping and commerce with mere threats.
If my analogy is inaccurate, it is likely because I didn't adequately convey the threatening nature of the unwanted occupant in the living room.
Truth hurt?
Lincoln had already sent Porter to Pensacola to start a war there. Lincoln deliberately started the war. He did exactly what his own Cabinet said would start a war, and his orders to Porter were just the backup plan to start a war in Pensacola if the confederates didn't take the bait in Charleston.
You can claim that the ships and supplies were there to start a war if you want. But assuming, for the sake of argument that you are correct then all Davis had to do was...not start the war. Let Sumter be resupplied. Let the status quo continue. No conflict. Continue to wait Lincoln out. Instead he jumped into the conflict with both feet and lost everything.
New York is the financial capital of the world. There is no better analogy for what "Rome" represented to the Ancient world.
Your rationales are worse than your analogies. Stop before you embarrass yourself.
It certainly must, judging by the way you keep trying to dodge it.
You can claim that the ships and supplies were there to start a war if you want.
The Star of the West was seemingly enough to carry supplies before. One does not send multiple warships, a troop transport carrying 200 riflemen, and several tugs, just to unload supplies.
So far as Pensacola goes, the Captain that intercepted Porter as much as said he prevented Porter from starting a war there. Judging by what Porter himself wrote, he was expecting to be engaged in combat upon his arrival.
I haven't seen any coming from you to dodge.
The Star of the West was seemingly enough to carry supplies before. One does not send multiple warships, a troop transport carrying 200 riflemen, and several tugs, just to unload supplies.
And the Confederate batteries drove it away. The war could have started there if Davis had been running the show and Buchanan hadn't been president. The South showed their hostile intent early on.
Making accurate statements is not embarrassing. New York has far too much influence on Washington DC. They run most of the News Media out of New York, and they do it to make sure a Liberal agenda with lots of government spending is always advanced.
I figured out something was wrong back in 1995 when Republicans took control of Congress and voiced the intention of balancing the budget.
Virtually every news broadcast mocked the very idea of the government living within it's income. I thought to myself, "What kind of person would oppose the idea of our government balancing it's budget?"
The only answer that made sense to me was: "Those people making money off of the spending."
You start looking at who is making profit from government policy, and you start to see a pattern.
Eyes which do not see, and Hears which do not hear.
And the Confederate batteries drove it away.
Cadets at the Citadel shot at it. They had no orders from the Confederate Government to do any such thing.
The Confederate Batteries did nothing.
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.