Lost Cause: What Were They Thinking?

[Unkotare]

Red Herring?

you prefer.

You are correct I prefer that you are wrong.

You might prefer that, but AGAIN you are mistaken.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you prefer.

You are correct I prefer that you are wrong.

You might prefer that, but .

I know it's shocking that you have finally accepted your failed argument.

 

[Unkotare]

You are correct I prefer that you are wrong.

You might prefer that, but .

I know it's shocking that you have finally accepted your failed argument.

Oh, are you going to do this again, troll?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You might prefer that, but .

I know it's shocking that you have finally accepted your failed argument.

Oh, are you going to do this again, troll?

You use a knee jerk reactionary word based on nothing but your opinion. What exactly was the purpose of this thread. It was started by a troll.

 

[MuadDib]

Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?"

- John C. Calhoun, March 4, 1850

Source: John C. Calhoun on the Clay Compromise Measures - 1850

Anyone who thinks that slavery had nothing to do with Civil War is wrong and anyone who thinks that slavery had everything to do with it is just as wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The War of Northern Aggression had just as many moments of "we may not win this" as the south did.

War of Southern Treason is the term being introduced into the 7th, 11th, and college text books.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The War of Northern Aggression had just as many moments of "we may not win this" as the south did.

War of Southern Treason is the term being introduced into the 7th, 11th, and college text books.

If for once you could be right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc is not awake yet. Maybe he will try again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc is not awake yet. Maybe he will try again.

Maybe one day you'll be right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you are awake, just wrong as usual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok, you are awake, just wrong as usual.

can you come up with something original to say other than take from what was said to respond with?

 

[Meathead]

It is akin to calling Washington and those who fought alongside him traitors...

Red Herring, apologist.

You are allowing your justified hatred of the institution of slavery to cloud your judgement of those who fought and died for a cause they believed in. It is schoolboy shit to believe the only catalyst for the war was slavery. Lincoln would not have sent thousands to die for that alone. I believed it myself as a child. Things were much simpler then.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.

Sadly, aren't all wars like that?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Calling generals of the war traitors is quite disgusting. Some of those who served the confederate army did so out of love for their home states, and were not entirely on board with the notions of the state body. But they fought and fought honorably for that in which they believed. And some later returned to union positions and govt. posts. It's extremely ignorant to call anyone of the southern civil war time persuasion, traitors.

That's all

They took an oath to the United States when they accepted a position in the Army of the United States. When they broke that oath and fought for the Confederacy, they were traitors. Had Lincoln been interested in carrying out the letter of the law, he could have had them hung as such. But Lincoln was interested in healing the nation.

As far as the fortunes of the war, the issue never was in doubt. Sam Houston of Texas stated exactly what was going to happen. The South, because of the institution of slavery, lacked any kind of industrial capacity. They had far less people than the northern states. And the average educational level was far lower. They simply could not win. As soon as the North got serious, they simply drove them into the ground.

Lincoln was interested in soldifiying Federal control over the States. He didn't give a damn about healing the nation. His goal was to preserve federal authority over southern states. To change a voluntary union into something else entirely. And he won at his effort. You can see the effects of it today. Federal central authority reigns supreme. Just like the Statists of the North in the civil wartime wanted it, and was pushed when the constitution was ratified. It's been the same fight since day one. Statism vs. Liberty

That's nonsense. The south was relying on recognition from England and France. The the North blockaded their ports as to destroy their revenue. It was only when the south learned that they would not received international recognition due to northern pressure, that it came into question whether the south could win.

The north was serious from day 1. Since they led the aggression.

 

[Unkotare]

It is akin to calling Washington and those who fought alongside him traitors...

Red Herring, apologist.

You are allowing your justified hatred of the institution of slavery to cloud your judgement of those who fought and died for a cause they believed in. I

Believing in your cause doesn't mitigate an act of treason.

 

[Unkotare]

One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.

Sadly, aren't all wars like that?

No.

 

[Unkotare]

Lincoln was interested in soldifiying Federal control over the States. He didn't give a damn about healing the nation. His goal was to preserve federal authority over southern states.

That is obviously not true.

 

[Unkotare]

It was only when the south learned that they would not received international recognition due to northern pressure, that it came into question whether the south could win...

That is obviously not true.

 

[Unkotare]

The north was serious from day 1. Since they led the aggression.

It was southern intransigence that hastened the nation into a war that was long-coming, and an act war on the part of traitors that cast the final die.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok, you are awake, just wrong as usual.

can you come up with something original to say other than take from what was said to respond with?

What is to the point is that you are wrong in philosophy and facts concerning The Event of Southern Treason.