S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 icon19.pngForum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 Other Websites
 Forum
Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:




[ ]
[ ]
Navigation
Forums
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education :: Forums :: General :: Did You Know
 
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
first  4 5 6 7 
Moderator(s): gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
gpthelastrebel
Fri Feb 27 2009, 03:21PM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Redhouse now that we have the introductions behind us, let's get on with the business of posting historical fact. You are more than welcome to post your opinions based on historical fact, and in the context of history you may discuss any subject as long as it is discussed in an appropriate manner. One point I want to make perfectly clear, it is my obligation to protect you on this board as well everyone else. Also in the future I hope that this site and its contents can be allowed in schools as a historically accurate site. We do have a lot riding on our conduct in these forums.

That being said lets drop some of these subjects we have been brushing over and take one or two issues at a time. The reason the threads are just getting to long and unwieldy for my comfort and ease of replying.

As per your statement admitting that you did not know a lot about the Fort Sumter incident, I have no problem with that. You are at least opened minded enough to read what has been posted and have made comments. Rest assured none of here has any agenda except to promote anything other than the truth. That being said I would like to offer this website to visit and read. I'll admit I do not know who wrote it or for whom, but it will verify what Val and I have been saying. This is not as you would suspect a pro Confederate site, but instead in a National Parks site.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf

The only thing I disagree with in this article is the fact they give Lincoln and Davis equal blame for the start of the war. I believe this shows that Davis actually made more effort to avoid war than Lincoln.

Do you read the other forums? We can post info to "General Discussions" if you like since some of these subjects are getting way off topic for this particular thread.

GP
Back to top
8milereb
Fri Feb 27 2009, 05:42PM
8milereb
Admin Registered Member #2 Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1029
Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 01:57AM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
8milereb wrote ...

Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.



Well, that's the thing with secessions; one may be constitutionally entitled to divorce and declare their own independence—but once you do; you become a foreign entity, and the question then becomes one of whether you are friend or foe, ally or adversary. And no amount of secessioning—no matter how finalized or complete—was going to remove the Southern States of the CSA from our borders; hence if we were incompatible neighbors – there was certain to be issues, a quarrel was bound to happen sooner, or later. Israel/Palestine; Jews and Arabs; North and South; Wage-labor and Slave-states = recipes for trouble and lots of hurt feelings.


I honestly feel it's best we got through the worst of it – sooner than later.
Back to top
Lady Val
Sat Feb 28 2009, 03:10AM
Lady Val
Registered Member #75 Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion! Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!

There was never a question that the South would be hostile to those states remaining in the Union. To begin with, what would be the point? The Confederate states simply wished to be left alone. It was the Union - and especially its commercial interests - that could not afford to let the South go in peace. For had the South established a separate nation, the Union knew that it would not buy goods from the North and because of mandated low tariffs, cheaper (and better) European goods would flow into the South, thus increasing its power and decreasing the profits made by Northern commercial interests supported by the Federal Government. As usual, if you follow the money, you find the reason for the war! My first post presented such an argument from a Northern source which makes perfectly clear that the North for reasons of money could not permit the South to secede and form its own nation.

To suggest that the Union would not permit secession because it feared a hostile neighbor on its borders smacks of gross ignorance or worse, intentional deceit. There is nothing in the writings of anyone - North or South - at the time that could lead to that conclusion.

And as for any suggestion that, well, it all might have been "for the best" no matter who was to blame and what was done, I think our present situation with an out of control tyranny in Washington clearly demonstrates that it wasn't "all for the best" and that had the South succeeded, maybe we would not only be one nation today without all the racial bitterness arising from Northern actions during reconstruction, but our personal liberties and the power of the sovereign states might still be intact - something which is certainly not the case today!

Oh, and it really would be nice, dear red house, if you addressed Sherman's quote about murdering men, women and children as a means of bringing them to heel at Washington's feet! How you can blithely ignore that seminal comment delineating the motives and actions of the Union in the person of one of its stellar "heroes" astounds me. Even if you said "I didn't know!" - because I sure in hell didn't until somebody presented me with it - I would be satisfied. But to just pretend it was never said and that that particular mindset did not exist in the Yankee North rather disqualifies all of your arguments regarding the "goodness" of the United States, don't you think? Or do you?

I am reminded of that verse in Innes Randolf's song, "I'm a Good Old Rebel" - "I hates the glorious Union, 'tis drippin' with our blood." Yes, it was - and still is because the nation (Union) still refuses to acknowledge the crimes and injustice perpetrated upon the South. In fact, quite the opposite! There remains a continuing effort to make the South and Southerners - then and now - into villains using the ever present "race card". There can be no "forgiveness" where there is no admission of guilt and the Union adamantly refuses to admit any such thing. Those defending the actions of Lincoln and his criminal cohorts simply repeat the same self-righteous and mendacious clap-trap that has been the standard Yankee response since 1861. Thank God it would seem that more and more Southerners are refusing to be made into the Empire's whipping boys.
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:37AM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion!




Yes, it's funny you should mention Jefferson, as he was the living embodiment of these irreconcilable differences. He was obviously aware and forward thinking enough to recognize the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern colonies for them to consider abandoning it (and that was four years before to the invention of the cotton gin).

I believe that the constitutional compact of 1789 was one that should not have been entered into by the Southern colonies to begin with. I think it is obvious in hindsight that New England, Pennsylvania and the Northwest territories were joined in an unnatural and unsustainable union with the agrarian slave colonies of the South. Industrial societies can not coexist well with bourgeois aristocracies that shun competition and entrepreneurialism. Lincoln did not re-unite the Republic—for all intents and purposes the two behaved as separate societies—each with separate identities and values that continued to grow more alien and apart. And the fact that among the South's most contentious grievances with the North—was their failure to fulfill the fugitive slave clause to the satisfaction of the Southerners – convinces me that these two societies could not have coexisted harmoniously or autonomously. The studies of Robert William Fogel have proven that the plantation regime run by chattel slavery was a far more lucrative and "efficient" enterprise than previously assumed, the institution was not likely to go away peacefully—and I don't think it could have ever coexisted peacefully side-by-side with the free and industrial society along its borders.



Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!



That's incredible..


I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment).
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:46AM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
*edit*


My mistake; I overlooked the 'until' part of your last sentence in your previous post LadyVal. I am able to understand you a little bit better now... though, it still raises questions as to why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with (?) ... I have read enough about the Civil War to understand the reasons why the North was able to win it, but I am still unclear as to what convinced the Southerners that they could succeed if it erupted into a military conflict. Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:58AM
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 07:56AM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
"the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern"

Red House,

Wasn't it through the insistence of Jefferson the Northwest Territory was to be slave free? Wasn't it the New England states that held out joining the United States until the institution of slavery was approved? I think you history is somewhat twisted-- that is my opinion and I will do a bit of research on the subject to educate myself.

Now back to the subject at hand, can you plainly see that Lincoln was a least partly to blame for the war due to either his actions or in actions?

To pose an answer to your question "why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with." Lincoln or someone close to Lincoln let word "slip" to the newspapers about the makeup of the fleet headed to Charleston. It is not believable that this information was not supposed to fall into Confederate hands. Davis and Beauregard knew what was coming at them and were fully prepared to meet this aggressive action. Anyone having this sort of information, regardless of the circumstances would do the same.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 09:12AM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
RedHouse,

"I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment)."

Why don't you show us something that comes close to proving the above statement? Common Sense clause, come on there is no such thing. The South did not violate the constitution becasue they were a free and peaceful country which was attacked by the US Army and Navy.


GP
Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 09:16AM
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 10:48AM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
From what I have read about the events preceding the first shots at Fort Sumter, I'm of the impression that President Lincoln played his hand in the only manner that would have placed the onus on the South—as far as how to proceed. He made a point of notifying the governor prior to the arrival of the resupply convoy... and from what I have read—I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states. Also, as LadyVal alluded to—there were prominent voices from the other Southern states (like those in Virginia) that were still on the fence while waiting to see how things played out, as well as some that had already joined the confederate revolt who were demanding that some decisive action be taken to demonstrate their resolve and 'uphold their honor'—and warning that they would be forced to reconsider their position on whether to remain with the confederacy or rejoin with the union if Davis persisted in his inaction.


Lincoln was of course a master politician; if it was to come to blows—he was not such a fool to initiate the hostilities. I am still left wondering however what the people who fired the first shot were thinking... the North had the military-machine and the might to man it, apparently all they were lacking was the resolve, and the South seems to have handed them this on a silver platter with the preemptive bombardment at Fort Sumter (*and seemingly almost gleefully so: 4,000 shells on one fortress = overkill... no?)
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 03:34PM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
You are right Lincoln played his hand so the blame would be placed on the South. I am sure you and I would have acted the same as Beauregard or Davis if we were put in that same situation. He made a point of notifying Pickens he was going to crisply Fort Sumter, but made a point in notifying the newspapers he was sending and armed armada to Charleston and Pensacola. In short Lincoln was going to have a war one way or the other and if not in Florida then South Carolina

I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states.

Correct again, secession did not matter to most northern people. When Sumter was fired on the call went up to Avenge Sumter and shall we say without casting any slurs toward either side, the rest is history?

Lincoln was indeed a master politician, which is about the only thing I actually admire about him. I will go so far as to say in that respect Lincoln was most likely the best politician this country has ever seen, at least I cannot think of anyone who comes close to him. I think the people of South Carolina were thinking of the chance to throw off a government that they no longer agreed with or a government that no longer cared about them. Remember this was the sons and grandsons of the men who fought in the Revolution and the War of 1812. The ember of freedom and the document in which this freedom was built still burned brightly in their hearts. In short the contract in which they enter to become “the united states” was no longer being honored and they were exercising their right to leave in a peaceful manner. They were no less patriotic than you or I.

Have you ever read the Northern Resolutions for war?



GP

Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 03:35PM
Back to top
first  4 5 6 7 

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
Proudly powered by e107 which is released under the terms of the GNU GPL License.