Alliedassault           
FAQ Calendar
Go Back   Alliedassault > Lounge > Politics, Current Events & History
Reload this Page April 11, 1865
Politics, Current Events & History Debates on politics, current events, and world history.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#16)
Tripper is Offline
General of the Army
 
Posts: 18,895
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
   
Default 04-12-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
You're denying facts if you think the issue of slavery had no bearing at all on southern secession. I'm not saying it's the only issue at all, but you seem to think it has absolutely no relevance.....
negative is not saying that slavery had no bearing, only that slavery was but one of many issues that led to secession. I think that may be what you are saying too. The difference is the degree of importance. You seem to think it was the number one issue. It was not.
Nah, negative believes that slavery had no bearing at all until 1862. I'm simply trying to point out that it did. That's all, really. It obviously seems like I think that's the number one issue because that's all Ive been referencing, but if you take a look back ove rmy posts you'll see that I'm just pinpointing where mistakes have been made and correcting them. I understand that it wasn't slavery that caused a war on it's own. I just think it's silly to totally deny that it had something to do with the polticial climate before 1862.

They didn't just pull it out of their ass in 1862 and say let's fight the war for this reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
I suggest you read up about your own countries history some more:
[url:76c3e]http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html[/url:76c3e]
Nice site. It is a good idea to read several versions of the events to get a true picture. But be careful, there is alot of revisionist history being written and taught in schools these days. (EDIT - I usually try to read the accounts written by the men who were there. To get a true sense of the Southern perspective you should read "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" By Jefferson Davis, The original is a very long two volume set, but you can get an abridged version from the museum store at Beauvoir)
[/quote]

Yeah, like I said earlier, I did a year on the civil war, which also covered reconstruction and then led into black civil rights. Some interesting stuff out there. I have a bunch of books that I had to buy for the class that I've read over. I was warned by my history teacher about revisionist theories when I was preparing for exams, so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't recommend those books if they were....
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
TGB! is Offline
Command Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 2,644
Join Date: Dec 2003
   
Default 04-12-2005, 01:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
Quote:
Originally Posted by negative
The Civil War was not a war over abolitionism or whatever, it was a war over the different ideas in the country.
...Yeah, different ideas regarding slavery. oOo:
Unfortunately TRIPS - you are wrong here. . .we like to romanticize the Civil as being about Slave Rights. . .but it wasnt. . .it was about States Rights vs Federal Rights. . .slavery just happened to be rolled into all that as part of the debates that led up to the Civil War. . .
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
TiberiusAD is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 289
Join Date: Apr 2005
  Send a message via MSN to TiberiusAD  
Default 04-12-2005, 05:42 AM

I'm afraid I must agree with my Birmingham friend, The Southern States were fighting for thier freedom/Independance. It was a matter of Economics and freedom rather than a matter of Civil Rights.

But nearly 200 years later History remembers the dramatic Civil Rights strides made during and after the Civil War, not so much how the war started. That is the nature of history... hind-sight is very keen.

It could even be said that history, as shall be taught to our children in High School will see our current fight in Iraq as a huge step in the fight of terrorism and spread of freedom... they will likley not learn of the contraversies surrounding the reason for the invasion, or the suggestions that Bush has alternative motives.

I'm sure that somewhere on-line you can find real letters, and newspapers of the times that discuss the true feelings and opinions of the people of the time. This is, in my opinion the best way to begin to understand exactly what was going through the minds of the people of a nation at war with itself.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Duke_of_Ray is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,672
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking for beans and love.
  Send a message via AIM to Duke_of_Ray  
Default 04-12-2005, 07:55 AM

Sad day for the south. annoy:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Sgt>Stackem is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,161
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
   
Default 04-12-2005, 08:48 AM

you want to read a book with a spin on it get "Gettysberg" by Newt Gingrich (my uncle co-wrote it) you southerners would like it. I talked with him about the writing of it and it was very intesting.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
negative is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 967
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Decatur-Atlanta, GA
  Send a message via MSN to negative  
Default 04-12-2005, 10:11 AM

Tripper-the only reference to slavery before 1862 was bleeding Kansas, which was about control in Washington. Listen to the people here.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
Ferich is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Ferich's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,517
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lancaster, Pennsylvania
  Send a message via AIM to Ferich  
Default 04-12-2005, 11:38 AM

Thought I'd bring some neutrality to the discussion. freak:

As with any war, circumstantial evidence and soldier/politician/civ(historian,etc) memoirs always manifest a different opinion and cause for certain things. So I'm going to go out on a limb here posting a few select paragraphs from a worthy site and show how you're all right.

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

"At the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.

It seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.

But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen.

While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth.

While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.

When Abraham Lincoln was voted in, South Carolina had enough eith Union Politcians. South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.

The sitting President, James Buchanan felt himself powerless to act. Federal arsenals and fortifications throughout the South were occupied by southern authorities without a shot being fired. In the four months between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration the South was allowed to strengthen its position undisturbed.

Lincoln’s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time. When a Federal ship carrying supplies was dispatched to reprovision Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, the secessionist hand was forced. To forestall the resupply of the fort the Rebel batteries ringing it opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861, forcing its rapid capitulation.

President Lincoln immediately called upon the states to supply 75,000 troops to serve for ninety days against “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee promptly seceded.

The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished.
The war was on in earnest. "

In conclusion, my opinion and that website sees fit that the cause of the civil war had to do with the Slavery a little, but it's roots come from Yankee majority in politics ( Congress to be more specific ) and a few more small econonmic things.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
negative is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 967
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Decatur-Atlanta, GA
  Send a message via MSN to negative  
Default 04-12-2005, 11:40 AM

Couldnt agree more with you.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Tripper is Offline
General of the Army
 
Posts: 18,895
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
   
Default 04-12-2005, 01:32 PM

Okay, so you guys all agree that slavery had NO bearing whatsoever, except for "bleeding Kansas" until 1862....?

...Because I disagree, and that's my only claim, which essentially is a counter-claim seeing as negative originally posted it.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my posts....?

I never agreed that slavery was the soul issue or that it even had a majority bearing on events....Everyone seems to think I did.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Ferich is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Ferich's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,517
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lancaster, Pennsylvania
  Send a message via AIM to Ferich  
Default 04-12-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
Okay, so you guys all agree that slavery had NO bearing whatsoever, except for "bleeding Kansas" until 1862....?
I said the exact opposite actually. Either way, there's defintely no "soul" issue as you've said. It stems from many different things.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#26)
Tripper is Offline
General of the Army
 
Posts: 18,895
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
   
Default 04-12-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
Okay, so you guys all agree that slavery had NO bearing whatsoever, except for "bleeding Kansas" until 1862....?
I said the exact opposite actually.
lol sorry....I kinda sped through your post because I had read that stuff from the site you linked....

....and that means negative fully changed his opinion if he "couldn't agree more" with your post.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#27)
negative is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 967
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Decatur-Atlanta, GA
  Send a message via MSN to negative  
Default 04-12-2005, 02:00 PM

you should re-read my posts-why would I change my opinion--I am a Civil War historian cool:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
Tripper is Offline
General of the Army
 
Posts: 18,895
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
   
Default 04-12-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by negative
you should re-read my posts-why would I change my opinion--I am a Civil War historian cool:
I reread them over and over again.... rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by negative
Im not going to argue with you-but you have no idea what your talking about. Slavery wasnt an issue untill 1862. The Civil War started in 1861 when the South seceeded from the Union. The south suceeded because of states rights and taxes.

If you want to talk about slavery as the cause (even though taxes and states rights were) then what can you say. Are you talking about bleeding Kansas? Sure, this involved slavery a little, but it was mainly over the issue of who controlled the house and senate-salve or free states.

I really dont know what to tell you other than the fact that you are wrong.
.......
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
Madmartagen is Offline
Captain
 
Posts: 5,558
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Anaheim, CA
   
Default 04-12-2005, 08:25 PM

slavery is a minute part of the civil war, trippster. although it was tagged the 'war to end slavery' with the signing of the emanciapation proclamation, it was given that coverage to dissuade Britain from intervening on the side of the Confederacy. still, i in no way mean to degrade the image of Abraham Lincoln, he was an abolitionist since day one. point being, slavery has as much to do with the civil war as much as terrorism has to do with the war in iraq.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#30)
Pyro is Offline
Chief of Staff General
 
Pyro's Avatar
 
Posts: 20,691
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brampton Ontario Canada
  Send a message via AIM to Pyro Send a message via MSN to Pyro  
Default 04-12-2005, 10:02 PM

Besides the fact that I like the enfield rifle over the springfield rifle because i own two of them...Im all for the north.


  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.