Posted on 04/24/2017 5:49:29 AM PDT by rktman
What is wrong with you?
The local population and the South in general had been led to believe that the Union forces would peaceably give up those installations which were of no use to the Union except for the purpose of attacking the South.
That they burned the guns at fort Moultrie was the first indication that they regarded the South as adversaries from which these weapons were to be prevented falling into their hands.
It was a wake up call to the South indicating that they would not leave peaceably and without a fight.
What you here call defensive "survival mode", "co-exist" or "stalemate" to everyone else looked like pure offense.
Consider:
Sure, you can call that "survival mode", "stalemate" or "co-exist", but the 14 Union states & territories molested by Confederates were somehow just not feeling the love.
Indeed, if you'll take just a moment to consider this: there were more Union states & territories invaded by Confederates than there were Confederate states invaded by the Union!
And you call that "stalemate", "co-exist" or "survival mode"?
Looks like pure offense to me.
Had the Colonies been subjugated, the British would have declared that they were "never really an independent sovereign nation."
Fortunately for the US, King George III was not willing to kill 750,000 people to impose his will on the Colonies. I suppose if you murder enough people, you can force the history to say whatever it is that you wish for the History to say.
Depends on which side you're referring to. For the North, it was not over slavery. For the South, it was.
Since the North was insisting on invading, it is only their reasons that matter. It is safe to say that whatever the South's reasons for seceding, it is the North's reasons alone that resulted in a war.
So you keep saying. I'm mildly surprised that you haven't hauled out that tariff collection picture of yours.
Will evidence suddenly matter to you if I do? Why bother. You don't want to look at the money flow, and the money flow is the only thing that really mattered. There was far more slavery going on in the Caribbean, but rather than use those gunboats to stop it, the Union wanted to make sure there was no economic activity between the South and Europe.
Again, follow the money, and you will find the truth. *ONLY* the money will tell you the truth.
Lee becomes the centerpiece of the work as he takes over command. While no official plan of attack was placed on paper, Lee’s time with Davis helped him understand what the government wanted and what was needed for success. Though he originally favored a more defensive approach, Lee changed course when he became commander because he recognized the problems faced by the Confederacy in conducting a defensive war. Eventually, resources would run scarce, and Lee did not put much hop in the possibility of outside intervention. Lee, therefore, advocated “aggressive offensive maneuvering,” (144) which would help the Confederacy choose when and how to attack and help lead to war weariness in the North. This strategy involved large-scale turning movements, which came to epitomize Lee’s strategy. A series of rapid decisive victories against Union forces would push the northern public to sue for peace. The victories needed to cost the Union dearly while keeping Confederate losses at a minimum. Harsh describes this overall tactic as offensive-defensive; a term used by military theorist Antoine-Henri Jomini. If viewing Lee from this vantage point, he acted correctly in his aggressiveness at the Seven Days, Second Bull Run, and invasion of Maryland because aggressive tactics were the only way to bring about the Confederacy’s independence.
Opinions are like bungholes CVA - everybody has one (and some are smellier than others)
The local garrison had been led to believe that South Carolina was not interested in a peaceful resolution and that the local militia would be moving on the forts soon. Hence the need for the move to Sumter.
That they burned the guns at fort Moultrie was the first indication that they regarded the South as adversaries from which these weapons were to be prevented falling into their hands.
The locals had made that clear for some time.
So long as Article IV section II remained in the constitution, they couldn't even do that effectively. So long as the Constitution guaranteed that slaves must be returned back to their owners, and so longas it guaranteed that no state law can interfere with the process, how are you going to stop slavery in the territories?
Under the constitutional law of that time period, it was an impossibility. Only through a constitutional amendment could any law overturn or undermine Article IV Section II.
Funny thing is, they promised them they wouldn't interfere with Slavery, they even went so far as to offer to pass an amendment protecting it in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) and yet the first thing they did when they actually achieved power over the South was to do exactly the thing that they said they wouldn't do.
Their stated reasons for doing so was "moral reasons", but I cannot help but notice that it not only evaporates 4.5 billion dollars worth of Capital in the South, it crippled them economically as well. Not only that, it caused a massive surge in political power in Washington because they just added millions of former slaves to the Voting roles and disenfranchised the White citizens.
Money/Power. Money/Power. Money/Power. It all comes back to money and power.
Of course the next thing that happened was massive corruption in Washington DC and that has lingered in that City ever since.
Didn't the founders do that?
Thank you for that. I didn’t know he had written anything on the subject, and I have read quite a lot of his stories.
The Union had given up countless other fortresses, so much bloodshed might have been avoided had they simply remained consistent to their past actions.
What made this fortress different?
MONEY.
Here is another excerpt (from his analysis of the British Utilitarians): Edgar Allan Poe's Insight On Utilitarians.
Incidentally, there was a mistake in the link to his analysis of Fanaticism. Here is a correction:
True enough. But the difference is that several European powers recognized the colonies as an independent, sovereign nation and dealt with the U.S. as such. Nobody recognized the Confederacy as anything but a rebellious part of the U.S.
Fortunately for the US, King George III was not willing to kill 750,000 people to impose his will on the Colonies. I suppose if you murder enough people, you can force the history to say whatever it is that you wish for the History to say.
But Jeff Davis was. And in a losing cause, too.
Since the North was insisting on invading, it is only their reasons that matter. It is safe to say that whatever the South's reasons for seceding, it is the North's reasons alone that resulted in a war.
I've noticed that people keep talking about the North invading the South or the South invading the North, how do you invade your own country? Regardless, and regardless of their motivation, the Southern secession was met basically by crickets from Washington. No hostile acts were taken by either the Buchanan administration or the Lincoln administration. No troops were called up. No embargo enacted or pressure applied. Not until the Confederacy, for reasons that they alone determined, decided to initiate hostilities by firing on Sumter. You can claim that the South had been lied to or that the garrison posed a threat. You can cook up any excuse to justify it that you want. The fact is that the war broke out with the firing on Sumter and that the South alone was responsible for that decision. The South was responsible for the war and the deaths that followed.
Will evidence suddenly matter to you if I do? Why bother.
Why bother indeed?
Again, follow the money, and you will find the truth. *ONLY* the money will tell you the truth.
So the South started the war for financial reasons and not slavery? Since slavery was the pillar of their economy and their society how would you separate the two?
So I see you agree 100% with my argument.
Thanks so much, must say that's unusual on these threads.
Yes, I know you call it "defensive", "stalemate", "co-exist" & "survival mode", but to anybody else it looks like pure offense, and that's because: it was.
Reminds me of the old "joke" about the rapist telling his victim, "It's gonna happen whether you want it or not so you may as well enjoy it".
I don't believe that I've ever encountered anyone on FreeRepublic as thoroughly anti-American as you.
Really? What was it about Sumter in particular?
“Stupid” is the only word I can think of...
Although, “zot” comes to mind.
5.56mm
The things you believe about the US Civil War are really just plain false. Rip off the protective mental coating you received in school and look at the raw historical data. Take some time off and really read history from the Southern point of view for once because clearly you have not. Be objective about it and dump your preconceived ideas. Take month or so. Much of the Richmond Daily Dispatch from the war years is on line. Cruise thru that for a start.
Read up and get back in the game with proper knowledge.
If you really believe what you are saying then I think you are mentally disturbed. I would not let you baby sit any of my children. I do not trust you at all. You are delusional, deranged. You are ill. Seek help. May God bless you.
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.