Posted on 12/28/2023 7:26:59 AM PST by Fiji Hill
I disagree there. I count the Confederate Dims' siege of Ft. Moultrie as starting the Civil War. And the Dims' multiple attempts to assassinate President-Elect Lincoln while he toured Maryland. And Dim Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordering the attack on Ft Sumter. And the Confederate Dims actually carrying out the attack. All of that before the north invaded the south. I mean, money or no money, what would someone expect the Union to do after all of that? Send a telegram to the south thanking them for multiple attacks?
Yes - secession was about slavery. The war was about secession.
The Dim majority SCOTUS decision on Dred Scott said that blacks could never be citizens. Even in states where the Christian abolitionist Republicans won the argument and slavery was outlawed -- the Dred Scott decision meant blacks could never vote and, therefore, have a say in their status. The deck would always be stacked against them, including a possible return to slavery in states that had abolished slavery. Even if they never went back to slavery the blacks would forever be resigned to being less than citizens and never have constitutional rights.
Or another way to say it, just like in our time the SCOTUS decisions in Roe v Wad and Casey v Planned Parenthood removed the ability of pro-life majorities to have their way in their states and made abortion a federal argument -- Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857 undermined the abolitionist movement at the state level and made abolition a federal argument.
The Industrial revolution made slavery obsolete. Rather than suddenly banning slavery the government could have incentivized modernizing agricultural production over time i.e. a decade. Slavery had been a global institution for hundreds of thousands of years and suddenly outlawing slavery, effectively forcing the South into poverty, backed the South into a corner.
Incentivizing modern agricultural production would have introduced competition as a motivating factor in abandoning slavery. With modern plantations being more profitable than slave-based plantations the competition would have forced the conversion.
Regardless I’m noting you were in favor of an ideologically based governmental mandate forced on states without their consent. Instead of offering the south a carrot the north used a stick...
They didn't "siege" Fort Moultrie. Anderson concluded it was indefensible *IF* they decided to attack it, and so wanted the more defensible position that was Fort Sumter. This is why he sneaked his men over there in the dead of night and seized it.
And Dim Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordering the attack on Ft Sumter.
In response to Lincoln sending a fleet of warships to attack them first.
All of that before the north invaded the south. I mean, money or no money, what would someone expect the Union to do after all of that?
Maybe not launching fleets of warships with orders to attack them?
Lincoln deliberately started the war. His entire cabinet told him that if he sent those warships, it would initiate a war. Major Anderson, upon hearing of the plan from Gustavus Fox, wrote that it would start a war.
Lincoln went into this with eyes wide open, and he chose to start a war. Why? Money.
Did Lincoln not run on a platform of no compromise abolition of slavery leaving choice besides accepting economic ruin or war?
What you suggest bodes ill for our own future. When both sides dig in their heels, and refuse to find common ground and by consequence solutions, civil war happens.
The slaveowners in the Deep South didn't want that. They were convinced that the cotton boom would go on and on. In the Upper South there was more moderation, but still, slavery was a part of life and the basis for society and it was hard to imagine what would replace it. It was all the harder because of the fear of abolitionists made Southerners close ranks.
Did Lincoln not run on a platform of no compromise abolition of slavery leaving choice besides accepting economic ruin or war?
He didn't. He wanted no compromise on slavery expansion into the territories, but he wasn't an immediate abolitionist. He was willing to let the South continue with slavery, though slaveowners feared (with reason) that Lincoln and the Republicans would attract supporters in slave states who would eventually do away with slavery in the Border States and Upper South. In the Cotton Belt, they did not want to transition away from slavery.
It seemed pretty clear to me she had no idea what she was talking about, which was pretty scary.
In February 1861 the Dims did the Baltimore Plot -- assignation attempts on President Elect Lincoln. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/spies-lies-and-disguise-abraham-lincoln-and-the-baltimore-plot But I'm supposed to believe Lincoln started the war?
On April 4, 1861 Lincoln told the Confederate Dims that he was sending warships to supply the starving troops at Ft Sumter, since the Dims attacked prior supply ships. Five days later Confederate Dim President ordered the attack on Ft Sumter. I'll give confederate Gen Beauregard credit for talking to the union general first, but Anderson said they weren't leaving. So the Dims fired at Ft Sumter on April 12. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter. But I'm supposed to believe that Lincoln started the war?
I said the Dim majority SCOTUS imposed their Dred Scott decision onto the rest of the nation.
Newsflash: the Dims were the leaders of the confederate south.
My Alabama ancestors weren't responsible for it. (Especially since they hail from a union friendly section in north Alabama that owned almost no slaves and hated competing with slave labor.) Your ancestors may not be responsible. But the Democrat Party that controlled the south in the 1850s is the time is the same Democrat Party that imposed Dred Scott onto the nation at that time.
Not a fan of hers, but she totally got this one right.
The only outraged folks are leaning left.
Thank You Lord for helping blind squirrels find enough acorns.
😉
Tatt
Not until March of 1861 when they got word of what Lincoln was planning.
The Dims fired on the ship Star of the West on Jan 9, 1861 -- two months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
The ship that was trying to sneak in hundreds of Union soldiers into the fort? Yeah, they did that.
You may not be aware of this part of history, but the Brooklyn was ordered to transfer the troops to the Star of the West out in the ocean. They were spotted moving the troops by several Southern ships who then quickly sailed into port and informed the Confederate authorities that they had just witnessed a large contingent of men and munitions being offloaded from the Brooklyn onto the Star of the West.
The troops onboard the Star of the West were ordered to remain below decks so as not to be seen while they were making the transit up the channel, but unbeknownst to them, the word had already arrived by telegraph of the troops presence on board the ship.
So once again, the first belligerent move was by the Union government.
But I'm supposed to believe that Lincoln started the war?
Well he did send those warships, and he did order them to attack if the Confederates resisted their efforts, so yeah, you should believe it because that's what happened. And if you want a list of the names of the ships, they are "Powhatan", "Pocahontas", "Pawnee", "Yankee", "Harriet Lane", "Uncle Ben", "Thomas Freeborn" and an ocean going passenger ship was rented to transport the contingent of soldiers and munitions they intended to place in the fort. It's name was "The Baltic."
So yes, Lincoln *DID* send a fleet of warships, and their orders *WERE* to attack if resisted. (Which they would have been.)
It was the arrival of the Harriet Lane and the Baltic that convinced General Beauregard that the messages he had received about the warships was true.
And *THAT* is why they attacked Sumter. Their goal was to neutralize it before the rest of the warships could arrive, so they wouldn't have to face shelling from both the fort and the ships at the same time.
Had Lincoln not sent those ships, the war would not have started there at that time and on that date.
On April 4, 1861 Lincoln told the Confederate Dims that he was sending warships to supply the starving troops at Ft Sumter,
If a single supply ship was adequate in January of 1861, (Star of the West), then why did he need something like five warships, three tug boats and a troop transport to do the same job?
Warships fight wars. They don't make good supply ships.
My ancestors were certainly not responsible. They were in Denmark in 1861, and didn't arrive in the US until after 1900. I don't have a dog in this fight, and that's why I can be objective.
But the Democrat Party that controlled the south in the 1850s is the time is the same Democrat Party that imposed Dred Scott onto the nation at that time.
You keep saying "impose" as if the Supreme court doesn't have the legal authority to impose what they interpret to be the law.
Are you trying to deny the authority of the Supreme court to rule on matters of law? Isn't that seditious? Verging on secession I think. :)
Woodpusher did an excellent Job of explaining exactly what the Dred Scott ruling was. I wish I could find it so you could read it.
I just recall it wasn't what everyone thinks it was.
Again NOT a Nikki fan, but the slavery angle is overused and pounded into whites like a sword. The war was not started or about slavery when it started.
Most Southerners did NOT own slaves or want to. Yes it became an issue AFTER the war started but even then, Lincoln was willing to let it stay if the South gave up by a certain date.
So, even the North wasn’t willing to continue the war to free slaves.
Nikki is NOT an option for me, but I refuse to attack people when they are correct.
We have plenty of other reasons to attack her. Use those instead of straw mans.
That's my take. Most people today overlook the fact that the Dred Scott decision had the blurb that blacks could never ever be American citizens. Most people today just look at the argument of if a slave becomes free if he and his master travel to an abolition state for a while then travel back to a slave state.
But to the abolitionists in the 1850's the Dred Scott decision was as much of a national blow against abolition as the Roe v Wade decision was a national blow against pro-lifers. Remember how the pro-lifers went from trying to win the argument at the state level to having to win it at the federal level (now with it being back at the states due to the Dobbs decision)? That's pretty much how the abolitionists saw the Dred Scott decision, except they didn't wait 50 years for a new SCOTUS decision to overturn it.
If she had said that, she would have been correct.
But I still am not and never will vote for her.
Dicta, not holding. Judge Taney's opinion, nothing else.
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.