The War of Southern Aggression

[JakeStarkey]

The South was morally insane and paid the pain.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did the British fight for their claim to them? Why yes they did.

Was the newly formed United States victorious in the battle? Why yes they were.

Winning. It's what matters.

Might doesn't make right.

But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Might doesn't make right.

But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The states voluntarily ceded sovereignity when they joined the union. If they were to maintain it, the Constitution would have stated it. But it did not. Only did it regulate the entry of new states into the union.

Secessionists are the height of hypocrisy to suggest the same of the union. For shame.

 

[Rogue 9]

Might doesn't make right.

But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The Slave Power didn't fight for the right of self-government, because they already had it; they'd spent the previous eighty years dominating the federal government and had a mass temper tantrum at the very first setback. They fought because the Republican platform called for exclusion of slavery from the territories. They fought to deny the right of self-government to their slaves and those slaves' descendants because they feared abolitionism.

The fire-eaters of the South whipped up the southern body politic by rhetoric about the Republicans freeing the slaves and forcing white women to marry them, not by even creating the belief that the North was going to implement an autocracy. The Confederacy instituted the draft well before the Union and did so with much greater force. The Confederacy used military force to crush pro-Union inhabitants, rigged secession referendums in Tennessee and Missouri (with more success in the former than the latter), and generally followed the same modus operandi they'd used in Kansas for the preceding decade at home. Self-determination had nothing to do with it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The Slave Power didn't fight for the right of self-government, because they already had it; they'd spent the previous eighty years dominating the federal government and had a mass temper tantrum at the very first setback. They fought because the Republican platform called for exclusion of slavery from the territories. They fought to deny the right of self-government to their slaves and those slaves' descendants because they feared abolitionism.

The fire-eaters of the South whipped up the southern body politic by rhetoric about the Republicans freeing the slaves and forcing white women to marry them, not by even creating the belief that the North was going to implement an autocracy. The Confederacy instituted the draft well before the Union and did so with much greater force. The Confederacy used military force to crush pro-Union inhabitants, rigged secession referendums in Tennessee and Missouri (with more success in the former than the latter), and generally followed the same modus operandi they'd used in Kansas for the preceding decade at home. Self-determination had nothing to do with it.

Yes, self-determination had much to do with it. You're right they weren't happy about the Republican platform calling for no slavery in the new territories, but you fail to mention the tariff issue which had plagued the nation for decades prior to secession. Why should the south be forced to pay ridiculous tariffs for the benefit of the north? Lincoln simply wanted the south to stay in the Union because he wanted them to pay their tribute to the federal government, as he states in his Inaugural Address, and because he knew that a protectionist north wouldn't be able to compete with a free trade south. The mayor of New York knew this as well, which is why he wanted the city to secede and become a free trade port in the north.

 

[paperview]

But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The Slave Power didn't fight for the right of self-government, because they already had it; they'd spent the previous eighty years dominating the federal government and had a mass temper tantrum at the very first setback. They fought because the Republican platform called for exclusion of slavery from the territories. They fought to deny the right of self-government to their slaves and those slaves' descendants because they feared abolitionism.

The fire-eaters of the South whipped up the southern body politic by rhetoric about the Republicans freeing the slaves and forcing white women to marry them, not by even creating the belief that the North was going to implement an autocracy. The Confederacy instituted the draft well before the Union and did so with much greater force. The Confederacy used military force to crush pro-Union inhabitants, rigged secession referendums in Tennessee and Missouri (with more success in the former than the latter), and generally followed the same modus operandi they'd used in Kansas for the preceding decade at home. Self-determination had nothing to do with it.

damn you know your history.



What a refreshing new poster you are. A hearty welcome!

 

[paperview]

Kevin: How many 1850's era newspapers have you read?

They are available online.

I beg you to read them.

Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

The tariff was a minor issue, subsumed in the difference among factory industry, market agriculture in the north, and slave monocultures in the South. Ignoring me, KK, does not mean the truth goes away. You are simply and wrongheadedly incorrect.

 

[Oddball]

Tariffs, embargoes and other economic sanctions are first steps to shooting wars.

Although they don't always inevitably lead to hostilities, no hot war ever occurred without them being in place to begin with.

 

[Oddball]

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

~Abraham Lincoln

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, thank you. Abraham Lincoln was about preserving the Union, which was the issue of the war. The cause of the war was race and slavery. The facts have never changed.

 

[Oddball]

Either the cause of the war was slavery or it wasn't...You don't get it both ways.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cause was slavery, the issue was the union. Look up the integrated concepts of 'primary' and 'necessary' causation (or 'requirements', if you wish).

 

[Oddball]

Nonsense.

Once the Confederacahh seceded, slavery was no longer the Union's business.

You're trying to get it both ways here and you're failing....Yet again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The tariff was a minor issue, subsumed in the difference among factory industry, market agriculture in the north, and slave monocultures in the South. Ignoring me, KK, does not mean the truth goes away. You are simply and wrongheadedly incorrect.

I'm not ignoring you, but when you merely state that I'm wrong there's really nothing for me to say in response other than "No I'm not." And that's not really worth posting in my opinion.

 

[paperview]

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

~Abraham Lincoln

 

[Rogue 9]

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

~Abraham Lincoln

"...and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." - Abraham Lincoln, continued.

Really, now? You think no one knows the rest of the letter? As you can see, Lincoln was doing no less than what every President should: Putting his duty ahead of his own personal wishes. Which was an excellent thing for the South, I might add, because of this little gem:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

 

[Oddball]

I know the full text of the letter to Greeley...There's nothing in it to indicate that Lincoln was concerned about the southern slaves anywhere near as much as his own ego and place in history, insofar as letting the Confederacaah go it's own way.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

~Abraham Lincoln

 

[AquaAthena]

Either the cause of the war was slavery or it wasn't...You don't get it both ways.

Don't forget...cotton!

 

[Rogue 9]

And in this he was no worse than the vast majority of his contemporaries, and far better than most. [quote="Abraham Lincoln]Certainly the negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. [/quote]
Lincoln was a free-labor ideologist, and it was for this reason that he opposed slavery. Was he a racist? Hell yes, but try to find me a significant number of people who weren't in 1860.

In any case, this is totally irrelevant and works against you in any case; if you want this to turn into a relative comparison of the racial attitudes of the opposing leaders, it still comes out the worse for the Confederates, because while Lincoln wasn't up in arms to give freedmen full political rights, Davis was up in arms to keep blacks in slavery, and to put ones who weren't in slavery to begin with in it on the bargain. The Confederacy made no distinction between escaped slaves and free blacks whom they captured during the war; all were either put in bondage or shot for the express crime of servile insurrection whether they'd been slaves or not.