Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
Fantasize and mythologize all you wish, but, first, that's not what they said at the time, and second, it's no more true of the Civil War than of any other war.
And if you then say, "all wars are only about economics" that makes you a Marxist, and a liar, because very few wars, and certainly not the Civil War, were fought for purely economic reasons.
Other reasons predominated even if economics was also involved.
But in the case of the Civil War, Northern economics was not only secondary to other reasons, it was never mentioned as a reason for war.
Southern economics, specifically slavery, on the other hand, played a very prominent and fully acknowledged role at the time.
DiogenesLamp: "Same trouble we face today. New York/Washington controls the nation, and the rest of us pay tribute."
Oh, sure, they do, just like they controlled the last election and forced us all to elect Hillary president.
I have to admit, you got me on that one.
Not
The only line I remember from Battle Cry of Freedom stands out to me as a great descriptor of life in that era.
Paraphrased, “The only daily interaction a person had with the Federal Government was if they received mail or not”.
You are wrong about Fort Sumter being an attack by Lincoln on Confederates.
Sneak attack or not, Confederates began their assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, just as Japanese attacked Americans at Pearl Harbor.
And the result was the same: they started war on the United States.
That map you post endlessly proves no such thing.
I shows that regardless of who owned & operated various *export* shipping, returning ships found it convenient to land and pay tariffs in New York, that's all.
Everything else you've extrapolated from that is pure unsupported speculation.
Or were you referring to something else?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Who's gonna mention they started a war which killed 750,000 people over money?
Their stated reason for killing 750,000 people was to "Preserve the Union", though why preserving the Union was worth so much death and destruction is not clearly explained.
I didn't suggest that it did. I said the links you have posted several times, proves such a thing. I asked you why you didn't even bother to read your own links relating to shipping out of New Orleans.
It out and out says virtually all the contracts and shipping were controlled from New York. Do I need to hunt it up for you, or can you find it from what I have told you?
It is the link about the flat bottom boats. Look it up.
“Sneak attack or not, Confederates began their assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, just as Japanese attacked Americans at Pearl Harbor.”
The Jap attack on Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, errr I mean the Fort Sumter incident, directed by President Lincoln, was not a sneak attack (by the Confederates.)
Big difference. Your contention that Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, errr I mean the Fort Sumter incident, was “exactly” the same detracts from my confidence in your objectivity.
Killer Angels.
I haven’t.
Dear Lord, the reading list this thread provided is amazing.
bkmk
Especially if the accusation is totally false.
DiogenesLamp: "Their stated reason for killing 750,000 people was to "Preserve the Union", though why preserving the Union was worth so much death and destruction is not clearly explained."
Ask yourself those same questions regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and what answers do you get?
That the US went to war over money?
No, the US went to war because the Japanese attacked, and fought that war until the Japanese and their allies surrendered unconditionally, exactly the same as the Civil War.
Sure, anybody can point to economics, but the fact is that economics alone do not start wars, there have to be higher level reasons, and no reason is higher than: they attacked us.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
No link of mine discussed "flat bottom boats" or shipping controlled from New York.
You'll have to find that one yourself, and when you do, I'll explain how you got it all wrong.
I couldn’t put the books down. If you get the other books, this will give a lot background.
No difference, zero, zip, nada.
The Confederate military attack was an attack, period.
It was an act of war regardless of whether announced or "sneak".
To cite an example of forewarned attack: when the Kaiser's government in 1917 announced it was resuming unrestricted submarine warfare on US shipping to Britain, President Woodrow Wilson abandoned his previously neutral position (1916 campaign slogan: "He kept us out of war") and asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
So an attack does not cease to be an attack just because it is announced ahead of time.
Similarly, even if the Communist Cubans announced they will attack US forces in Guantanamo, it is still an act of war when they do it.
Finally, your comparison to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident is ludicrous, since there is no dispute whatever that Confederates first demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, then bombarded it into surrender, and then took over the fort after its surrender.
As such it was a clear act of war against the United States, followed on May 6, 1861 with the Confederate formal Declaration of War.
So your efforts to minimize these events are misplaced.
jeffersondem: "Your contention that Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, errr I mean the Fort Sumter incident, was 'exactly' the same detracts from my confidence in your objectivity."
Of course they were exactly the same in their effects on American public opinion, but they were also quite similar militarily, when you compare the relative sizes to that of the total US military.
So, your efforts to minimize Fort Sumter as the cause and beginning of Civil War are ruled pure pro-Confederate propaganda, not related to actual historical facts, FRiend.
The Jap attack on Pearl Harbor was a war of aggression. The South’s attempt to defend its homestall was a defensive war. Your attempt to draw moral equivalency is - well, to be expected. There it is - Lincoln’s justification, such as it is, for killing 600,000 Americans.
While you are at it, denigrate this: “That to secure these rights, Governemnts are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government become 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.”
I recommend ... that you don’t read FR threads on it LOL!
They are the worst.
The South’s attempt to defend its homestall was a defensive war.
Are you asking my opinion based on the real constitution, or the synthetic constitution in use since Appomattox?
I read a lot of history. When I wrote a book about how to properly argue for our Constitution, I researched every writing and quote back to its source. I was amazed how many of the “quotes” on the internet and other sources were inaccurate.
One interesting point is that when I read several sources concerning the same event, I found that each author had put some sort of spin on their reporting.
You’ve got to be careful about reading - more careful about writing.
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.