Replies

Good evening.

So, Non, was that Epperson's work? From Causes of the Civil War? Is it not true that slavery is the focus of the page and that anything else is excluded? Of course it is. Slavery as the reason for the war is the point you are trying to make.

It's true that you may post what you choose or, conversely, not post if you choose, within the rules that JimRob sets.

So, letting you know that I have read the same stuff that you have doesn't fill the bill and my arguments don't fit your view of reality. It's clear that I could bring Abe Lincoln on board to explain the facts and you would disagree. That's your right.

You may have noticed that I haven't cited many sources in the 7 or 4 eight years I've been enjoying this place That's my right. Prove me wrong with something that doesn't have an agenda or that isn't just your opinion. If that doesn't work for you, just ignore me. You won't lose a thing and I know I won't, apart from some entertainment.

I'm curious about one thing though. Did you assume the name non-sequitur because of the cartoon or because you identified with the definition in the dictionary? What was it? I think it had something to do with not fitting with the available evidence, or not being confirmed by the facts. That's a strange choice for someone who wants to argue on a forum on the Web.

Before I leave for the night, I believe it was you who denied that what I said about the North having a larger population and that a larger industrial base was part of the problem, I apologize if it wasn't you.

Any way, go to the 1860 census and look at the numbers. I would do it for you, but I just can't seem to do that. There were, what, about 31 million people in the US at the time and more than 21 million of them lived in what would remain Union.

While you are being industrious, look up when and where the slaves were emancipated. Just so you know what to look for, in 1862 slaves in states controlled by the Confederacy were freed. The slaves in Maryland, Kentucky and other areas that allowed slavery but were generally under the control of the Federals did not get to be free yet.

"The south could have had the status quo and pursued peaceful means. They chose not to."

Are you sure you are not a DemocRAT? Just give in to us and everything will be fine. That sounds much like the RATs and the antiwar movement. I'm done for the night, but I'll check in in the morning. G'night, all.

Michael Frazier

Is it not true that slavery is the focus of the page and that anything else is excluded? Of course it is. Slavery as the reason for the war is the point you are trying to make.

Again, you are free to post quotes showing that slavery was not the single most important reason for the rebellion. Why won't you?

You may have noticed that I haven't cited many sources in the 7 or 4 eight years I've been enjoying this place That's my right. Prove me wrong with something that doesn't have an agenda or that isn't just your opinion. If that doesn't work for you, just ignore me. You won't lose a thing and I know I won't, apart from some entertainment.

Actually I don't recall reading any of you past posts. So for my benefit please cite some of those sources again. The unbiased ones, of course.

While you are being industrious, look up when and where the slaves were emancipated. Just so you know what to look for, in 1862 slaves in states controlled by the Confederacy were freed. The slaves in Maryland, Kentucky and other areas that allowed slavery but were generally under the control of the Federals did not get to be free yet.

Not entirely true. Slavery was ended in the District of Columbia in April 1862 because constitutionally Congress had the power to do so. Slavery could not legally be ended in those states not in rebellion because the President and the Congress lacked the authority to do so. In a strict legal sense, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the southern states as well, it merely freed all slaves held there on the grounds that they were used to support the rebellion. It took an amendment to end slavery, North and south, and Lincoln pushed hard to have it adopted.

Are you sure you are not a DemocRAT? Just give in to us and everything will be fine. That sounds much like the RATs and the antiwar movement.

Aren't you parroting the Democrat line then? All Anderson had to do was surrender. Just give in, and everything would be fine and dandy. Nice and peaceful and, by your definition, very Democrat. But there was no reason why Anderson should have left Sumter. It was his post, he was an officer in the U.S. Army defending a U.S. fort in a U.S. city. He had every right to be there, and Lincoln was well within his authority to send him supplies and prevent him from being starved into submission.