Posted on 11/18/2017 6:36:43 AM PST by iowamark
You forgot about the South firing on the Star of the West and the Rhoda Shannon I see. Both before they fired on Sumter.
There’s a reason it’s called the war of Northern aggression.
Let me guess. Ignorance?
>>There’s a reason it’s called the war of Northern aggression.
>Let me guess. Ignorance?
Ignorance, more like willful stupidity. The North invaded the South, the south didn’t invade the North.
>No. Great Britain betrayed the colonists.
And the North betrayed the South by refusing to protect runaway slaves in violation of the Constitution.
If the Army of the Potomac had never crossed the Potomac in 1861 then there would not have been a war. The South wasn’t eager to invade a country with 2.5x the population. Besides the whole point of secession it to end a political relationship not to turn around and occupy them.
You are grasping at straws. While there may be an anecdote to support your contention there was no orchestrated effort to “protect” (curious choice of words) runaway slaves.
But even if they did that’s a long walk from any sort of “betrayal”.
Far from "enshrining" slavery, the Constitution recognized it could be controlled or outlawed by Federal Government (see Article 1 Section 9).
jeffersondem: "If anyone took up the bayonet to overthrow slavery, they were taking up arms to overthrow the US constitution.
There is a word for that."
"Rebellion" describes the Confederacy's war on the United States, so the United States in 1861 did not "take up the bayonet to overthrow slavery," but to preserve the Union against rebellion.
At the same time, however, "Contraband of war" was acknowledged & practiced by all.
For example, Confederate armies in Union states grabbed any freed-blacks they could as "contraband" for return & sale as slaves.
By contrast, Northern armies declared as "contraband" any fugitive slaves who fled into their lines, then hired them to serve the Union cause.
That was as much as the Union could constitutionally do before passing the 13th amendment in 1865.
By early 1865 everyone North & South understood that the price for Confederates losing the war would be abolition.
The only question at the Hampton Roads conference (February 1865) was whether slave-holders would be compensated or not.
Confederates chose "not".
>If the Army of the Potomac had never crossed the Potomac in 1861 then there would not have been a war. The South wasn’t eager to invade a country with 2.5x the population. Besides the whole point of secession it to end a political relationship not to turn around and occupy them.
Exactly. Which is why it wasn’t a civil war. A Civil war involves sides trying to take over the central government. This was a war of secession exactly like the one the 13 colonies fought against Great Britan, admittedly for a less than noble cause.
I readily acknowledged in my post 47 that there could be other reasons the North fought to destroy the South.
Here's what I wrote: “Of course, if the North was fighting because it was in the North's economic and political best self-interest, then, arguably, that was a high moral cause worth killing 600,000 people.”
” . . . so the United States in 1861 did not “take up the bayonet to overthrow slavery,” but to preserve the Union against rebellion.”
That is a fair argument Brother Joe. But an opposing argument was made just recently in Post 33 by someone your equal. He wrote:
“When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
The song he referenced included the militant line: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
Critic answers critic.
The U.S. invaded Germany in World War II. Was that the War of U.S. Aggression?
You ignored the U.S. fighting the war that the South started as one of your reasons. Why?
It is worth remembering that one of the causes for independence that the slave states cited in the Declaration of Independence was that Britain was interfering with slavery in the colonies.
Let's not pull any punches. The slave states were: New York. New Jersey. New Hampshire. Connecticut. Pennsylvania. Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Delaware. Maryland.
Also Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
“Nobody specifically. The end of slavery was a fortunate offshoot of the war but never the reason why the Union was fighting.”
Nobody specifically? I don’t think I have ever heard that claim, stated in that manner, in reference to Mr. Lincoln’s valorous war.
Your claim contradicts some real experts on Lincoln’s war. For example, in this thread, it was said: “When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
The song he referenced included the militant line: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
“The U.S. invaded Germany in World War II. Was that the War of U.S. Aggression?”
She said Hitler.
Well maybe if you studied up on it a little bit.
Your claim contradicts some real experts on Lincoln’s war.
Like who?
For example, in this thread, it was said: “When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
So one song defines the Union war effort?
“Like who?”
I’m not one to name names, but if you happen by post 17 on this thread you’ll see what I mean.
Are you going to tell me this person is not a real expert?
The writer of the song intended it to be archetypal. The northern people accepted it as archetypal and adopted it as their de facto war anthem.
You could cut the ground out from under this argument by calling the song mythology. I would have to concede your point.
Why not just quote Lincoln on why the war was fought?
"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
You could cut the ground out from under this argument by calling the song mythology. I would have to concede your point.
I would say it was a song and not a statement of administration policy.
Sure, I totally "get" that you enjoy playing these word-definition games so much that the real truth of the matter is of no concern to you.
But the fact is that everyone here has been clear & consistent on the following points:
So, enjoy twisting & spinning all that as much as you wish, but the facts don't change.
Thank you. It often concerns me when I see people respond to the fools errands that this poster invites but you cleanly cut through his bullspit.
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.