Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
From the time Abraham Lincoln entered the White House nearly a century and a half ago, there has been an anti-Lincoln tradition in American life. President John Tyler’s son, writing in 1932, seemed to speak for a silent minority: “I think he was a bad man,” wrote Lyon Gardiner Tyler, “a man who forced the country into an unnecessary war and conducted it with great inhumanity.”
Throughout his presidency Lincoln was surrounded by rivals, even among his own cabinet. Outside the White House, his many enemies included conservative Whigs, Democrats, northern copperheads and New England abolitionists. Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy, sniped that Lincoln was a
“worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”
Shortly before his reelection Pomeroy added: “The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.… And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“”You don’t wait until the enemy has fully prepared before attacking.” That’s the problem - the south had already adopted an aggressive war-like attitude. “
General description, not a formal one. When someone starts building up their arms you must consider them a possible enemy. The North was enforcing their positions.
Again, not true. "Cotton is King" rang true in the years leading up to the Civil War and the concentration of wealth was with the slavers. They literally had money to burn, but apparently not to invest.
There wasn't a single state, territory, or region that pro-confed's didn't agitate to become confed states. And all of them pledged that those would be slave states. Combine that with the confed constitution forever enshrining the Peculiar Institution as the lynchpin of their bastard union, conflict - violent conflict - with free people was inevitable.
You have it upside down - again. It was the south who took the “my way or the highway” tone. It was the south who ratched up the hostilities. It was the south who built up the fortifications - when they weren’t stealing them outright.
The SOUTH was enforcing their positions.
Me: “The North had the money, not the South.”
You: “Again, not true. “Cotton is King” rang true in the years leading up to the Civil War and the concentration of wealth was with the slavers. They literally had money to burn, but apparently not to invest.”
They were rolling in dough? Wow, Never heard that before. Cotton was King, but it didn’t bring that much to the region. It was half the revenue, but that isn’t saying much.
GDP: North-$3.6 billion, South-$0.733 billion.
Population: North-27.71 million, South-8.73 million.
Cost of War: North-$3,366 million, South-$3,286 million.
Cost per Capita: North-$148, South-$376
So, per capita, the South paid more than twice the costs and had less than 4 times the revenue.
Your statement doesn’t hold to facts.
Only if you think that the parents of a toddler throwing a tantrum at bedtime are getting slammed pretty hard.
“The SOUTH was enforcing their positions.”
The North held forts in the South. I don’t see any forts of the South in the North. You make no sense.
To start with, Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops was on April 15, 1861. That's three days AFTER the rebels fired on Ft. Sumter. Jefferson Davis's call for 100,000 men was on March 6.
Second, the Star of the West was sent by President Buchanan on January 9, 1861, nearly two months before Lincoln took office.
Not all Yankees are so rude but there always are some.
Not all southerners are so ignorant of the facts, but there are always some.
The United States held forts in the United States. Some places announcing that they were now a different country didn't change that.
The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.There was tremendous wealth in the antebellum south but it was held in very few hands.
“Some places announcing that they were now a different country didn’t change that.”
Yes, it did. The Union had a responsibility to remove their forts.
Twist the numbers however you want, propagandize them, but they remain facts. The north had the wealth to wage war far more than the south. Just because “cotton was at an all time high” means nothing when the total dollars were what they were. It would be like the Soviet Union that claimed there couldn’t possibly be starvation because tractor sales were up.
I know it must be terribly confusing to you.
Did the South have a responsibility to pay for them first?
Nope. The primary reason I say this is that the federal government should always consider such things as forts as temporary, thereby not erecting permanent structures or expensive investments. The lands were taken from the State in the first place and should always be given back.
So no, there is nothing to pay for.
The land wasn’t taken from the South Carolina - it was deeded to the federal government in perpetuity. I thought you knew that.
The lands were deeded to the fedral government by the states and not taken. So it was foolish for the government to defend the country by building forts or shipyards or arsenals because the states could seize them at will? Don't dock a navy ship anywhere because those are fair game? Never mind that revenue from all the states funded the fort or dockyard, those states have no recourse if one state wants to take it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The lands were taken from the State in the first place and should always be given back.
But only through act of Congress. The South didn't wait for that.
“The land wasn’t taken from the South Carolina “
Yes, it was. The federal government doesn’t own land initially. It must get it from the States at some point. DC is the land the federal government owns. That’s it. Everything else they get from the States and owe it back when they no longer need it. I thought you knew that.
“But only through act of Congress. The South didn’t wait for that. “
So you are claiming the Union was in the process of giving back Sumter but the South didn’t wait and just tried to take it?
The Union for fortifying the fort, not in the process of giving it back when the mean old South just got impatient.
“The lands were deeded to the fedral government by the states and not taken.”
Taken, given, sold, loaned. You are trying to split hairs. The fact is the land is always part of a State regardless of the federal use of it.
You anti-Southern bigots are a riot.
“I know it must be terribly confusing to you.”
You’re a anti-Southern bigot. Nothing, not even god himself, could tell you anything about the South without you twisting reality.
You couldn’t even get the GDP numbers right. Simple lookup of information but you want to claim the south had all the money because “cotton prices were high”. Your sense of logic is typical for you, non-sequitur.
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.