Celebrate Lee and Jackson in January, Not MLK

[billy.pilgrim]

Although there had been some disagreements for years, is it not true that the South Carolina hotheads tried to bail out when Lincoln was elected - not because of anything he actually did, but because of what they were afraid he was going to do? Might it be that if cooler heads had prevailed, that Lincoln probably would not have lived up to their fears?

that may be the most sensible post I've ever read about the civil war and slavery

of course lincoln wouldn't have done anything, the emancipation all but came from britain

[O Really]

Good article here on the constitutionality of secession...
http://www.claremont.org/publications/p ... detail.asp

[Bungalow Bill]

Yes, the state right that the Confederacy was interested in was the right to own
people, and the hotheads from SC really screwed themselves by seceding when
it wasn't likely that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery where it already existed.
If they hadn't done that, they likely would have had their human property longer.
Not too smart. In the early days of the war Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union,
later it evolved into freeing the slaves. Neither Lincoln nor the North were in any
way perfect, but the fact remains they did end slavery in the U.S.

Most abolitionists in the north were against the Mexican War, for the very reason
that it would expand slavery.

[O Really]

I suppose all the rich plantation owners should have just freed their slaves, rolled over and declared bankruptcy -

In retrospect, it probably would have been better than the alternative they took.

[mike]

Sounds good, and nicely on point for this thread. Thanks!

[homerfobe]

I was wrong about slavery not being a factor, but billy.pilgrim was wrong about Mexican abolition having anything to do with it and he was wrong about who supported it. In fact, the abolitionists (as Bungalow Bill says) and Abraham Lincoln opposed it, and the slavers supported it.

Funny! The cons are gone, so VDred turns on his own! You go boy; tell him he's a liar!

Had it been a con who made those "wrong" statements, you wouldn't have hesitated to call him/her a liar.

[billy.pilgrim]

...the war was started by the north...

Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter first.

ft sumter was part of the south and was being occupied by the north - a stretch to say that the south started the war and no stretch at all to say that the north invaded the south.

and btw - the first shots were fired at Ft. Pickens - there just wasn't as much publicity

[billy.pilgrim]

I suppose all the rich plantation owners should have just freed their slaves, rolled over and declared bankruptcy -

In retrospect, it probably would have been better than the alternative they took.

in retrospect the alternative to war is almost always better

but to look at history and believe that the ruling class should have evolved their understanding of human rights a hundred years and then walked away from their property (the value of the slaves they owned would have financially destroyed most), is even further from any semblance of reality

history can only be viewed in context. I grew up in jim crow in central alabama in the 50s and 60s and remember all to well the white only signs and the colored around back - looking back, it was awful - growing up, it was normal and change didn't happen overnight

I also remember the feeling of society looking down on us dumb southerners and the labels bestowed on us by the good northerners - I also remember the riots and racism of the 60s and 70s in the north

slavery was/is wrong and in most places died an easy death - the destruction of the south caused great harm and in my humble opinion, lincoln was wrong, very wrong

[billy.pilgrim]

I was wrong about slavery not being a factor, but billy.pilgrim was wrong about Mexican abolition having anything to do with it and he was wrong about who supported it. In fact, the abolitionists (as Bungalow Bill says) and Abraham Lincoln opposed it, and the slavers supported it.

Funny! The cons are gone, so VDred turns on his own! You go boy; tell him he's a liar!

Had it been a con who made those "wrong" statements, you wouldn't have hesitated to call him/her a liar.

dick head



verde didn't "turn" on anyone, he offered his opinion, mostly backed by facts

I offered mine - we disagree on this issue


and you are still a

dick head

because you don't understand


.

[Stinger]

...the war was started by the north...

Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter first.

ft sumter was part of the south and was being occupied by the north - a stretch to say that the south started the war and no stretch at all to say that the north invaded the south. /quote]

If Cuba decides to declare the American lease on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base null and void, and then attacks the base, did we invade Cuba? Did we start the war?

Those forts were legally built on those sites by the U.S. government. For one side to change the rules and attack is one thing. To try to claim that those who were being attacked somehow "invaded" and somehow "initiated" a conflict is ludicrous.

and btw - the first shots were fired at Ft. Pickens - there just wasn't as much publicity

Charleston had a much bigger media market at the time.

[billy.pilgrim]

...but to look at history and believe that the ruling class should have evolved their understanding of human rights a hundred years and then walked away from their property (the value of the slaves they owned would have financially destroyed most), is even further from any semblance of reality...

The notion that slavery was an abomination was not invented in 1860. By 1804 (!), all states north of the Mason-Dixon Line had either abolished slavery outright or passed laws for its gradual abolition. That's 2 or 3 generations. The South could have ended slavery or put in place a plan to slowly transition away from it. Instead, it foolishly chose to hang on to it desperately and destroy itself in the process.

Your arguments about northern failings do nothing to diminish the South's culpability, inhumanity and cruelty. None of us are claiming that Lincoln or the northerners were angels.

no one said anything about 1860


and like way too easy to claim that what happened in the industrialized north should have been equally embraced it the agricultural south

again, slavery was/is wrong, it was dying over most of the world and would have ended in the south soon enough and likely without the kkk, jim crow, and hate that follows a war

if you can condemn the south for not immediately following the north, should we also condemn new york for waiting 2,500 years after greece

context is everything

I can't count the number of dogs I have shot. I reckon a city fella would have me arrested but it was 1965 and wild dog packs were killing the sheep. we had raised sheep for 5 generations before the county installed garbage dumpsters in rural areas and the city folk all imagined that dumping their unwanted pets around a rural dumpster was a good thing.

context

[billy.pilgrim]

...the war was started by the north...

Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter first.

ft sumter was part of the south and was being occupied by the north - a stretch to say that the south started the war and no stretch at all to say that the north invaded the south. /quote]

If Cuba decides to declare the American lease on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base null and void, and then attacks the base, did we invade Cuba? Did we start the war?

Those forts were legally built on those sites by the U.S. government. For one side to change the rules and attack is one thing. To try to claim that those who were being attacked somehow "invaded" and somehow "initiated" a conflict is ludicrous.

and btw - the first shots were fired at Ft. Pickens - there just wasn't as much publicity

Charleston had a much bigger media market at the time.

and verde is right, it was just a bunch of drunks from downtown pensacola who rowed over to the island and spent the night drinking and shooting at the fort

but is was before sumter

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm sure Lincoln considered Fort Sumter a federal fort located in South Carolina, and
that there was no right to secede from the U.S. and thus no right to attack it. It would
have been great if the slaves could have been set free without so many people being
killed in that war, but that just wasn't going to happen.

[mike]

As far as shooting dogs, it's still legal in Ocala, FL if one feels threatened (and not even while the dogs are on one's property) ...

No charges for man who killed 2 Great Danes



It was a long and ongoing thing in these parts (later, the ashes were stolen in a robbery and the thieves actually tried to snort the ashes)

The South seceded unconstitutionally. Fort Sumter was on American soil. It was attacked.
Although, indeed, there are many facets regarding the Civil War, the abolition of slavery, for the South, was the crux.

[rstrong]

If Cuba decides to declare the American lease on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base null and void, and then attacks the base, did we invade Cuba? Did we start the war?...

Hmmm, I think I'll disagree with that comparison. Cuba stopped cashing the checks immediately after the Revolution and the US has committed numerous acts of war against it since then. Plus, Cuba was only a de facto colony of our Mafia and Gitmo is a disputed rental whereas the South was part of the Union and Ft. Sumter was American land.

As I said on the old forum, that depends on whether the South's secession was valid. And the Union made it clear that the South DID in fact secede - otherwise the Southern states would not have had to go through "reconstruction" before being admitted back into the Union.

Assuming then that the South did in fact secede, they would have every right to demand that the Union withdraw it's forces. The occupation question then depends on one question: Did the Union indicate that it would withdraw from Fort Sumter?

Far from it, the Union dug in at Fort Sumter and the first shots came as the Union attempted to resupply and reinforce the garrison with troops and supplies.

Thanks to the slavery issue I think the South got what it deserved. But as near as I can tell they did secede, and they were occupied by another country.

[mike]

...It was a long and ongoing thing in these parts (later, the ashes were stolen in a robbery and the thieves actually tried to snort the ashes)...

...took urns that contained the cremated remains of Holli Tencza’s father and her two beloved Great Danes...

...the men told them they thought the urns contained crushed pills and decided to taste and snort the contents...

I'm not sure about snorting but is the father-tasting cannibalism?

Dunno ... this is the South, after all ...

[mike]

As I said on the old forum, that depends on whether the South's secession was valid. ...

It wasn't.

... And the Union made it clear that the South DID in fact secede - ...

The South attempted to secede. They never succeeded because such was unconstitutional according to what they signed up for, initially, to become a part of the Union.

[O Really]

I'm not sure about NC, but out west it's still legal and accepted to shoot a dog on your property unless there are city laws against discharging firearms. Happened to my roommate's puppy and there wasn't a thing we could do about it.

I'm pretty sure I could have come up with something for somebody who shot my dog. Wouldn't likely be pretty, either.

[rstrong]

Sure, there was Reconstruction, but each ex-rebel state repudiated secession and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

They **repealed** secession and accepted the 13th Amendment - after losing and surrendering. Repealing is something you do to a legitimate law or legal declaration after you change your mind. Say, when someone has cannon pointed at you.

That seems a stretch. The whole point of the war was that the North never recognized that a new country had been formed.

The South attempted to secede. They never succeeded because such was unconstitutional according to what they signed up for, initially, to become a part of the Union.

If they never left the Union, then why did they have to go through the process before rejoining the Union? Why, immediately upon inauguration in 1869, did Grant pressure Congress to readmit Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas into the Union?

The answer, other than "Because we won!":

If I read this correctly, "rejoining the Union" and "being readmitted to the Union" - often used in describing reconstruction - are poor choices of words. The south was still American territory, but had lost statehood by unconstitutionally declaring secession. The Union wasn't so much readmitting the Southern states into the Union; They were re-granting (Led by Grant! Get it?) them statehood and representation in Congress.

Looks like I was (probably) wrong, above. Sorry.

[mike]

I find it interesting that, after so many years, we are still discussing the rights of States to secession from the United States.

Usually, such rhetoric of "secession," in this day and age, is best left to the right-wing wing-nuts (a la homer, Partisan et al).

Even so, it is important to learn from our past.
Some never have (a la homer, Partisan et al).

It's always the "EBIL GUV'MENT!" (elected by the people)