Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
Well, not all of them. I think Lew Rockwell has his Lost Cause Alternate Reality Compendium. I’m sure he has a few copies kicking around.
People try to cherry pick stuff to support what they wish people to believe, and i've seen this argument over and over.
So how about you post *VIRGINIA*'s secession statement? Why did you gloss over that one?
What was VIRGINIA's stated reason for leaving the Union?
Oh barf. Anderson commanded all the federal facilities in the Charleston area - Charleston Armory, Castle Pinkney, Fort Moultrie, and Fort Sumter. He didn't "SIEZE" anything; he moved his troops from one part of his command to another. And he did so in the face of real threats being made against his men by people in South Carolina.
This was after the cannons in fort Moultrie had been burned without warning.
Not the canons, which being iron would not burn, but the carriages. And he was supposed to leave them untouched so the South Carolina rebels could use them against him?
First hostilities of the war were instituted by Anderson, not the confederates.
So if you burn your house down am I to take that as an act of hostility towards me?
I was thinking of real history books, not Southron fairy tales.
I suppose you think it fitting that we should give up Guantanamo Bay because the current Cuban Government does not want us there.
The mistake there was ever allowing that communist dictatorship to get into power there. Thanks JFK!
Yes the war had started. Sumter was fired on. Davis issued letter of marque against American shipping. Lincoln called for a blockade and for 75,000 volunteers. Got it. Does not belay the fact that Confederate Forces did launch military incursions into those states.
Are you and I have been around on this over and over again. You will not listen to the historical facts so there’s really not much point in going any further. Don’t start in on specie and tariffs.
So I am constantly told by people who attempted to justify all the bloodshed and upheaval for doing what they did.
Works on silly people of mediocre intelligence, but not so much for anyone else.
Again, "Corwin Amendment". Hello? Hello?
You can't very well pass an amendment that guarantees slavery forever, then come along and pretend you needed to fight a war to get rid of slavery.
The one thing you can tell from such history is that the reason for the war was clearly not slavery, because that was attempted to be handed out on a silver platter, but was ignored.
The slave was always morally free, but kept in chains by the power of people who wanted him to remain subjugated.
So too with the Supreme court. Their rulings may represent power, but they do not represent objective truth.
The government of South Carolina ceded the property Sumter was built on to the Federal Government. It was no longer South Carolina property.
Just because the Government of Cuba that signed the lease for Gitmo no longer exists, does not give the current government of Cuba any right to Gitmo other that agreed to in the treaty. I suppose If the current Cuban government tried to take Gitmo by force you would be okay with that.
George III was not as willing to tolerate so much bloodshed as was Lincoln. He certainly could have won had he been willing to kill so many people as he could have done.
When it comes to making crap up who better than you would know?
Who better to recognize made up crap than myself? I'm sure there are others out there, but I am pretty good at recognizing made up crap. The secret is in researching a subject until you actually know something about it.
And the Southern leaders of the time. Don't forget them.
Works on silly people of mediocre intelligence...
Not from what I can see.
Again, "Corwin Amendment". Hello? Hello?
Hello? Hello? We're talkiing about the Southern motiviation for starting the war, not the Northern motivation for pursing the war that was forced upon them.
You can't very well pass an amendment that guarantees slavery forever, then come along and pretend you needed to fight a war to get rid of slavery.
Again, slavery was the Southern motivation, not the Northern one.
So then what you're saying is that Lincoln would do what it took and accept the sacrifices necessary to win the war that the rebels forced upon him but that George IV would not. That would be an indication of exctly how much each man valued their cause.
So the objective truth is that 3.9 million slaves were morally free but kept in chains by the power of people who wanted them to remain subjugated. Got it.
The courts rulings may not represent some ones definition of objective truth, but they are the law of the land.
If you disagree with the courts decisions, you are free to disobey them.
1) The Nebraska-Kansas Compromise was in 1854 when Stephen Douglas of Illinois pushed the legislation through.
2) The Democrat Party split into two factions, the North and South, as was evidenced in 1852 and 1856.
The crisis for the Democratic Party came in the late 1850s as Democrats increasingly rejected national policies demanded by the Southern Democrats.
When the new Republican Party formed in 1854 on the basis of refusing to tolerate the expansion of slavery into the territories, many northern Democrats (especially Free Soilders from 1848) joined it.
The Missouri Compromise was in 1820. The Compromise of 1850, which led to the issue of whether the territories would be slave or free came to a boil following the election of Zachary Taylor, a member of the Whig Party and opposition to the Democrat Party, as president in 1848. In his first annual message to Congress, Taylor endorsed statehood for California and urged that “those exciting topics” that had caused such apprehension be left to the courts. He opposed any legislative plan that would address the problems that so agitated Northerners and Southerners, thus preventing Henry Clay from pushing ahead with another compromise plan that, he hoped, would settle the issue for at least a generation, as had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Then Taylor died just 16 months into his term, and his successor, Millard Fillmore, saw the wisdom of Clay’s proposal and encouraged him to continue.
No the Democrats were not always in power leading up to the Civil War. A trifecta is where one party controls Congress (House and Senate) and the Presidency. Not having a trifecta makes it harder to pass legislation through for various and obvious reasons. From the start of Andrew Jackson’s Presidency until Abraham Lincoln was elected there were 16 Congressional Sessions. Each session was for two year period. In this time frame, only 9 of 16 Sessions of Congress were trifectas. Meaning that the Democrats were weakened leading up to the Civil War due to not having a trifecta. The Whigs were the direct predecessors to the Republican Party and the Jacksonians were the predecessors to the Democrat Party. The division between the North and South for the Democrats further weakened the Democrat power, as the Northern Democrats tended to side with the Whigs and later Republicans. Until well after the war, you cannot lump the Democrats as a unified bloc in DC due to the rift of the North versus South. 8 years between Andrew Jackson and Lincoln were held by a Whig President (btw this was more than 2 Presidents due to deaths).
People think that because a President is elected they control power in DC or their party does. This is not the case and has never been the case. A President that does not have two chambers of Congress aligned with him (and up to this point it has only been a him, sorry ladies and whatever else people want to call themselves) has always found the position to be extremely difficult to get things done. You cannot say that because both the upper and lower chambers of Congress fall to one party and a opposition party President a certain party controls the power. Especially leading up the Civil War where the Democrat party was intensely divided between North and South. That would be like saying all those RINOs in power give the Republicans power when Trump was in office. Yeah I laughed at that one too.
Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, a leading statesman and member of the Whig Party known as “The Great Compromiser” for his work on the Missouri Compromise, was the primary creator of the Missouri Compromise. Fearful of the growing divide between North and South over the issue of slavery, he hoped to avoid civil war by enacting a compromise.
Famed orator and Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster, while opposed to the extension of slavery, also saw the compromise of 1850 as a way of averting national discord, and disappointed his abolitionist supporters by siding with Clay.
Anyways little boi, your information was somewhat correct but mostly wrong.
Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas and/or Border War, is officially recognized by historians as starting in 1855 and goes until 1859. (So your math is wrong and even 1854 to 1859 is not ten years) And Lincoln even made a comment on Brown’s execution, officially ending the conflict, at Harper’s Ferry saying that he agreed with Brown but could not on the violence and death.
This is a debate that rages on and to think it will never be concluded. The debate is the major cause of the Civil War as Pew Research found out that 48% of Americans believe the cause was States rights and only 38% believed it was over slavery. Yet people confuse the South’s Institution of Slavery with the individual slave for good reason. Yet, the Institution of slavery has never really been dissolved in America as the Democrats seek to bring in low paid unskilled labor illegally. Think America’s Civil War is really, really, ,over? Think again.
Do you suppose that George III would have thrown in the towel had he not had a major war with the French at the same time.
You can spin it anyway you want Lampster. You’ve been slapped with the truth here so many times and yet you never learn.
Lincoln was resupplying a federal installation. The South opened fire. It was occupied by federal troops. Your revisionism is just historically untrue, it’s insulting.
And it’s a smokescreen for the fact of why the South went to war: To preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Alexander Stephens
That's from March 1861. Before the rebellion began.
bingo!
The act of hostilities were started by Lincoln through his navel blockade of the south and his fortification of sea ports located in the south (e.g. Sumter, Hampton Roads,...etc) These were more than provocative since they could be used to block commercial shipping. Both sides were already a powder keg ready to go off.
Yes it was about Slavery primarily. Go read the CSA Constitution and the ordinances of secession 1860-1861.
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.