Go Home People

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870

    Yes, the South fired on Sumter. After the move was made from Ft Moultrie. There is a whole lot more to the situation than most history books tell you. The only historical precedent we have is "might makes right" which is a pretty poor way to resolve constitutional issues.
  2. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    Secession is a pretty poor way to resolve constitutional issues too. In the case of Sumter, we have a military installation legally owned by the US that was fired upon by the south. So what's the issue here? It's just really basic to me. If you don't want war, then don't fire upon another country's military.
  3. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870

    It may be basic to you but that does not necessarily mean, it is, in actuality, basic to all. We may also add that if you don't want war you don't make an aggressive move which you would know can bring on military conflict. That is exactly what occurred in Charleston Harbor prior to Sumter being fired upon. This is one of those parts left out of our common history books or at least the ones we were given in school. It is said the victors get to write the history and there is no greater truth than that which is the history of the conflict between the states. I do not absolve those officials in SC of their part but neither do I absolve the part the North played in bringing the war about. This is not some dichotomous conflict where one side is strictly in the right and the other side strictly in the wrong, although that is what is often believed by many and has been strongly portrayed for the last 150 +/- years.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    67,544
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,537

    yeah I read that as 1904- my bad
  5. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    I tend to think the side that seceded to maintain the institution of slavery was mostly in the wrong. But that's just me.

    Speaking of, seeing white southerners who are still emotional and resentful of the north's treatment of the south during and after the civil war, just think how black people must feel about slavery. Yet I've seen it many times here and elsewhere where black bitterness and resentment is downplayed as something they should get over since the slavery occurred so long ago. Not accusing you of this Hall, as you are not a hypocrite. But I have seen it from others many times.
  6. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    67,544
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,537
    for someone living in Texas you sure seem to deride southerners alot-you must be a transplanted nawthinuh

    the only issue I have ever had with black people is there undying support of prezBO mostly because he is black-I have had way to manny issues with yankees who move down here and 1-tell us how much better it is up nawth and 2- how we should be doing things-I give them the same answer to both things- I-95 runs both ways
  7. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    Born and raised in Florida.
  8. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870
    The South seceded to get away from the attempt by the North to lord it over them. The Constitution allowed slavery and even included a way for them to be counted but not as a full person so any high and mighty attitude the North had about slavery was so much BS. There was no great love for Black people in the North they were just not needed to run the industrial base. The North sure as heck didn't have any problem making bunches of money off of the profits from the cotton those same slaves were used to pick.

    As far as bitterness goes the ability to understand the way the South was treated during, and after, the war is not bitterness but rather understanding how both races suffered from reconstruction. Of course most people who take up the cause of the North and attempt to justify all of their actions immediately have to move to the issue of slavery or their argument starts to lose ground. Doesn't matter if there were a myriad amount of other issues which arose before and after the war occurred. Nor does it take long for them to gloss over the real fact that Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves.

    All of this meant in a general sense rather than personal
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    The South seceded because Lincoln was elected. The Republicans were the abolitionist party and were very clearly opposed to slavery. Lincoln, for reasons of political reality, did not run on abolishing slavery, but he did run on preventing the spread of slavery. You don't think that was a good thing? If you want to call this 'lording it over' the South then so be it.
  10. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    And I've gotten into plenty of debates with southerners over the civil war. While perhaps it isn't an emotional issue for you, it very obviously is for many of your fellow southerners.
  11. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    67,544
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,537
    So you were born and raised in Florida but do not consider yiurself a southerner- hmmm
  12. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    When did I say I didn't consider myself a southerner?
  13. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    67,544
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,537
    Your post above said to hall-your fellow southerners which said to me you do not consider yourself one
  14. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870
    I have never taking up for slavery nor do I intend to start. It was an abomination but it was an abomination that benefited the North and the South. The South saw the handwriting on the wall. The North wanted their cotton but a certain segment wanted them to do away with slavery. I doubt most Northerners cared either way. The South decided they would not allow the feds to dictate how they would use what was considered property and treated as such under the Constitution. Slaves had a real monetary value and as abhorrent as it is today it was one of the reasons the country prospered as much as it did. Yes, I do believe Lincoln, and others, wanted to strengthen the power of the federal government and dictate to the South what they could and could not do. You can call it anything you wish to but that is what it amounted to in that day and age when most people thought the states should have most of the authority when it come to their governing.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  15. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    Whatever makes you feel better about it, Hall. I've run into many southerners who want to 'euphemize' the past, trying to emphasize that it was all about 'states rights' and not slavery (as if there were any other states rights that mattered anywhere near as much as slavery). I don't need it. It is what it is. The south wanted slavery and Lincoln wanted to limit it and eventually eliminate it. The south left the union over it and Lincoln forced them back into the union, abolishing slavery in the process. Beat around the bush all you want. Won't change the facts.
  16. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870

    Who is trying to change facts? It appears to me you are trying to avoid them. The South wanted what was vital to their economy and had been allowable since the Constitution was put into place. It was Lincoln that was trying to change that and the South didn't buy it. Forcing them back into the Union by force of arms and then further decimating their economy showed nothing but that the North had more men and armaments. It did not prove the North, or Lincoln, to be right.
  17. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    And you don't mention the word 'slavery' once above, instead referring to it as 'what was vital to their economy'. It's always like that when I get into debates with pro Confederacy southerners. What Lincoln was 'trying to change' as you openly admit, was to limit slavery to only where it currently existed.
  18. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,486
    Likes Received:
    839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,870
    Let's try this once again from the top since you can't seem to address it with any real substance.

    Lincoln did not invade the South over slavery. That's a bottom line dyed-in-the-wool fact that we both know to be true. Now if you would like to debate that point that's fine. Or we can further debate the point that the aggressive movements by the North also helped bring on hostilities. Or we can debate the fact that the EP was not issued until two years after the war started.

    The North had no real high ground to stand on with respect to slavery they just had no need of it to keep their economy. They also had no great love for the Black man and if you have done some reading on the draft riots in NYC you would see how quickly they turned on them. It was also shown, fairly accurately, in the movie Gangs of New York. Had Lincoln put out a call for troops to invade the South to free the slaves he would have been hard pressed to gather enough forces to do so. So he called it an insurrection and most thought it would be a short engagement then the South would fall back into line. Didn't quite work out that way though. Four years later over 600,000 Americans lay dead and well over a 100 years later the effects are still being felt.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +520
    Pretty standard pro Confederacy response -- 'the North was no better than the South'. Well, there were apparently enough people in the North, Lincoln included, who knew slavery was wrong and who were actively trying to limit it, that the South felt compelled to secede. Bottom line, Lincoln got the 13th Amendment passed through great effort and political peril. Since you're bringing up movies, maybe you should check out Spielberg's Lincoln.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. chompalot
    Offline

    chompalot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,952
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +304
    The South wasn't going to give up slavery without killing a bunch of people first. The South supported on evil institution. All of the antislavery people were in the North. God is against evil and therefore he was against the South's cause of protecting slavery. Believe it when I say if there wouldn't have been slavery there wouldn't have been a Civil War.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2014
    • Disagree Disagree x 2

Share This Page