Replies

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:

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.

As an accident, and by their own side. I have long wondered whether or not that accidental explosion was a Godsend for Lincoln, because I'm not certain he would have been able to rally the North to the cause were he not able to say any men had died. Bloodshed will move passions faster than damage to property.

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.

And that is in some dispute. What the British were doing was perfectly within their legal mandate at the time. Their is no legal or moral difference between the British Marching to Lexington than there was for the garrison at Ft. Sumter to maintain their posts.

The British saw those cities as falling under their legal authority, and the colonists disagreed, and there are reports that the colonists fired first.

Whether or not this is true, it cannot be denied that if the colonists hadn't assembled armed and en masse to confront the British, a war would not have started there.

As you said about the confederates, the colonists were "crusin' for a brusin' ."

In short, the Confederacy presented an existential military threat to the Unite States, which had to be defeated for the USA to survive.

If this were the criteria, then we should have attacked the Canadians long before. They and the British had came down and burned our Capital once already. I dare say they had demonstrated themselves to be as much or more of a threat than had the Confederates.

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.

That it didn't happen is not the point. That the argument offered above would justify such a result, *IS* the point. I used that example as a way of demonstrating the falsity of such a claim, "that whatever happened, the South deserved it." No, there are limits to what a group of people deserves, and it isn't open ended.

That is merely a reiteration of your opinion, and does not constitute objective proof.

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.

You aren't grasping this analogy stuff. If the Union is like a Husband, and the South is like a wife, than a non bloodshed causing attack on Ft. Sumter is the equivalent of the wife throwing a plate at the husband and missing, or perhaps slapping his hand when he touched her. The "injury" to the union is inconsequential and of no real importance, but the Humiliation was grave.

The Union response would be similar to a Husband repeatedly punching and beating the wife to unconsciousness. Again, he wasn't hurt, but for his pride.

You are drawing a conclusion from an array of contrary facts. No one *was* killed. 24 hours of bombardment consisting of something like 4,000 shells, and no one was killed? How do you do that if you are trying to kill someone? A man can easily aim to the side if your intent is to scare, but you cannot miss that many times if your intent is to kill.

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 yet both continued to own slaves for the rest of their lives. Nothing better illustrates that they had no intention of applying the principles of the Declaration of Independence universally. Their behavior demonstrates conclusively that they intended for those ideas to only apply to the communities of which they were a part, and not to slaves, though they eventually noticed their own hypocrisy in this regard, but their own moral proddings never became sufficient to provoke them to act against their own interests.

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.

It is entirely consistent with human nature to protect the source of one's income. I'm sure the Northeastern ship building industry would have objected if the manufacture of ships was seriously being considered for prohibition by law. Raising taxes on Imports and Exports would have no doubt been opposed by Boston and New York.

It would appear that many northern states were okay with slavery until it eventually became unprofitable for them, and they could then afford the morality of condemning that which no longer served their interests.

A similar thing is going on nowadays with the Jet Setting rich objecting to the use of carbon fuels by the rest of the population.

Slavery was evil, and it would have been better to have never let it get started on this continent, but having done so, it was not reasonable to object to it after you had reaped the profit from it, merely because others continued to do so, especially since they had fewer still other methods for producing an income.

The big lie is the constant distraction from the point that by the standards of this nation's founding, the forming of a new government to suit them was well within their rights.

You and others simply want the discussion focused anywhere but on this essential point; That populations have a right to self determination, that in the words of the Declaration of Independence:

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.

Of course you don't want to discuss this point, because you do not have a moral leg to stand on when this point is put forth.

You are making an ex post facto argument. This is no evidence that an alternative timeline of Southern independence would have been socialistic at all.

That Southern states would try to use the machinery created by Lincoln to benefit their own interests does not surprise me at all. That is just basic human nature. It is just a case of "When in Rome you do as the Roman's do."

And where was "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt & Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson" from? If you guessed New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, then you can go to the head of the class. They were all Northerners pushing Fedzilla policies which Lincoln pioneered.

Three ~~Southern~~ Northern "heros":

Having much of their industry and population wrecked by the civil war, it is no surprise that much of the south saw nothing wrong with getting money from any source they could. That's just human nature.