Skip to main content

Confederate States of America forces, by order of President Jefferson Davis, and under the command of General P.G.T. Beauregard, opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC, which was occupied by foreign troops who had refused to vacate the fort.

----------------------------------------------------

Climate doesn’t kill people, weather does.

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by flotown79:
One user often posts his dislike for Black History month and how people should forget about slavery, the Civil Rights Era, ect because it is the past. I am waiting patiently to see his post concerning this event that was over 100 years ago.


Well, here's a little history lesson for you.

In 1860, the federal government was supported by tariffs on cotton. Northern industry depended on cheap cotton because of the the tariffs.

The economy of the entire United States depended on cotton produced by slave labor.

When the South seceded, the cotton they produced would be freely sold on the world market without the US tariff.

The US government, and yankee industry without the tariffs, soon would fail.

That was the cause of the war.
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
quote:
Originally posted by flotown79:
One user often posts his dislike for Black History month and how people should forget about slavery, the Civil Rights Era, ect because it is the past. I am waiting patiently to see his post concerning this event that was over 100 years ago.



Well, here's a little history lesson for you.

In 1860, the federal government was supported by tariffs on cotton. Northern industry depended on cheap cotton because of the the tariffs.

The economy of the entire United States depended on cotton produced by slave labor.

When the South seceded, the cotton they produced would be freely sold on the world market without the US tariff.

The US government, and yankee industry without the tariffs, soon would fail.

That was the cause of the war.



The issue of S L A V E R Y was the CAUSE of the war.

This week's issue of Time Magazine fittingly chides those who try to explain away slavery as the true cause of the war. Those who try to deny such an obvious thing need to get that issue and read the lead story.
quote:
The issue of S L A V E R Y was the CAUSE of the war.

This week's issue of Time Magazine fittingly chides those who try to explain away slavery as the true cause of the war. Those who try to deny such an obvious thing need to get that issue and read the lead story.



Bullspit propaganda from a revisionist 'news' source.

The issue of slavery was a PART of the war. The MAIN CAUSE was the issue of STATES' RIGHTS...an issue that is rearing its head again and again under the present administration.
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
quote:
Originally posted by flotown79:
One user often posts his dislike for Black History month and how people should forget about slavery, the Civil Rights Era, ect because it is the past. I am waiting patiently to see his post concerning this event that was over 100 years ago.


Well, here's a little history lesson for you.

In 1860, the federal government was supported by tariffs on cotton. Northern industry depended on cheap cotton because of the the tariffs.

The economy of the entire United States depended on cotton produced by slave labor.

When the South seceded, the cotton they produced would be freely sold on the world market without the US tariff.

The US government, and yankee industry without the tariffs, soon would fail.

That was the cause of the war.


You mean it wasn't to end slavery?
The South was successful at agriculture because of slavery, and only slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of the wealthy Southern farmers. There were other issues at play, particularly the outlawing of slavery in the western territory, but the slave culture and slave dependent economy of the South was the primary driver to secession.
History is written by those in charge at the time of the writing. Anything else is considered conspiracy theory by the writers and their followers through the generations. As with most or at least many other issues, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

Good examples are:
The Bible
JFK
UFO's
Iraq War
Civil War

There will always be several opinions and theories of the above and many other things as well, but there will be only one "official" historical documentation that slowly evolves into something closer to the truth as time and generations go by.
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

Excerpt:
“Numerous categories of official Confederate documents affirm that slavery was indeed the primary issue that drove the secession movement and was central to the rebellion; it is therefore blatant and unmitigated revisionism to assert – as do Confederate apologists – that ‘one of the most important’ of the ‘truths of history’ is that the War Between the States…was not a rebellion… nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.”

Now read the entire article from a right wing source, David Barton, the darling of the neo-theocrats:

http://wallbuilders.com/LIBiss...icles.asp?id=92#FN39
Read Lincoln's first inaugural I know 150 years later Time says he didn't mean what he said but he said what he said! For those that don't know secession was taught at West Point when all of the "War of Northern Aggression" generals that were West Pointers were there. Slavery was indirectly one of the causes although it was protected in the states that became the CSA by the Constitution the south did fear interference from the Feds in future states. If you think Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamtion you should read the document.....It freed slaves where Lincoln had no control but left them in bondage in states that hadn't left the union!Read it anfd tell me I'm wrong!
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The South was successful at agriculture because of slavery, and only slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of the wealthy Southern farmers. There were other issues at play, particularly the outlawing of slavery in the western territory, but the slave culture and slave dependent economy of the South was the primary driver to secession.
Wrong again juan. And the North tried slave labor but it didn't work out as well for them. In parts of the North where owning slaves was illegal they "rented" them from Southern owners. Why is it so important to try to re-write history to paint the North in a good light? Slavery was wrong, but it wasn't just in the South. Old Abe wasn't dead set against it, mostly it was a case of it just not being his "cup of tea" so to speak, and he even said the states that didn't secede could keep their slaves. When that didn't work he took a new route. And in all of it he made it clear he didn't want the blacks to stay in the US after the war. Read what he wrote juan.
quote:
Originally posted by E.Z. Lee Pistoph:
Read Lincoln's first inaugural I know 150 years later Time says he didn't mean what he said but he said what he said! For those that don't know secession was taught at West Point when all of the "War of Northern Aggression" generals that were West Pointers were there. Slavery was indirectly one of the causes although it was protected in the states that became the CSA by the Constitution the south did fear interference from the Feds in future states. If you think Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamtion you should read the document.....It freed slaves where Lincoln had no control but left them in bondage in states that hadn't left the union!Read it anfd tell me I'm wrong!


You correctly interpret the Emancipation Proclamation, but that does not do anything to support the erroneous notion that slavery was not the cause of the war.
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
...There were other issues at play, particularly the outlawing of slavery in the western territory, but the slave culture and slave dependent economy of the South was the primary driver to secession.


I think Mr. Dittohead has accidentally blundered onto an important distinction:

"was the primary driver to secession"

Now if you believe secession was illegal and the ONLY remedy was to start a war to prevent it...then the 5th grade understanding of "Slavery" as the ONLY issue that caused the war has some traction.

But surely war was not the ONLY remedy to secession...(sarcasm alert)...given that good ole Abe was such a great diplomat and all.

But if however, you believe that a sovereign people, as The Declaration of Independence says, has a right to self determenation...then secession is "legal".

To say anything else is to say the colonist seeking separation from Britain was "illegal".
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The issue of S L A V E R Y was the CAUSE of the war.

This week's issue of Time Magazine fittingly chides those who try to explain away slavery as the true cause of the war. Those who try to deny such an obvious thing need to get that issue and read the lead story.


You did make it past the 5th grade right?

OK that was confrontational...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you made it well past the 5th grade and possess critical thinking skills.

Put those skills to use. Saying slavery wasn't the ONLY issue is NOT revisionist...in fact what IS revisionist (in the last 50 some odd years) is the teaching that slavery was the only issue...the north was full of righteous people trying nothing more to remedy a horrible wrong forced upon a race of people and anyone who stood in their way was ignorant, insensitive and the murder of such incompetent people, even if they were fellow citizens, was thus justifed.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
...There were other issues at play, particularly the outlawing of slavery in the western territory, but the slave culture and slave dependent economy of the South was the primary driver to secession.


I think Mr. Dittohead has accidentally blundered onto an important distinction:

"was the primary driver to secession"

Now if you believe secession was illegal and the ONLY remedy was to start a war to prevent it...then the 5th grade understanding of "Slavery" as the ONLY issue that caused the war has some traction.

But surely war was not the ONLY remedy to secession...(sarcasm alert)...given that good ole Abe was such a great diplomat and all.

But if however, you believe that a sovereign people, as The Declaration of Independence says, has a right to self determenation...then secession is "legal".

To say anything else is to say the colonist seeking separation from Britain was "illegal".


I said exactly what I meant, and you, in your effort to display your perceived sense of intellectual superiority, failed to grasp the entire concept, missing the most important aspect in fact.

Try again skippy.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
I said exactly what I meant, and you, in your effort to display your perceived sense of intellectual superiority, failed to grasp the entire concept, missing the most important aspect in fact...


The fact that secession justified the war? Is that what I missed in your post?

The causes of the war and the causes of secession are two entirely different things.

Secession in no way justifies the war...regardless of what the reasons for secession.

You do know that secession talk...or separation...was threatened first by New England states 60 years before the South?

I don't recall reading about Thomas Jefferson saying the correct response to such threats as being..."invasion"..."force"..."bloodshed". But those are the exact words of Lincoln in his first inaugural address to describe what would happen to any Southern state that seceded.

What did Jefferson say about a possible New England secession?

Ge said that New Englanders, like all other Americans "would all be our children" and he would wish them all well.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

The scalawags who continue to argue that slavery WAS the cause of the war will have a hard time swallowing this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Link

.
Last edited by Winston Niles Rumfoord
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

The scalawags who continue to argue that slavery WAS the cause of the war will have a hard time swallowing this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Link

.


That amendment would have been the 13th Amendment with the full support of Lincoln. That, and the numerous times Lincoln insisted he didn't want to interfere with slavery where it existed should make obvious to anyone without a political axe to grind that the Civil War was far more complex than..."it was all about slavery".

The revisionists "who continue to vainly argue that" slavery was the only "cause of the War of the Rebellion" should "have a hard time showing a straight face" in light of all the evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

Excerpt:
“Numerous categories of official Confederate documents affirm that slavery was indeed the primary issue that drove the secession movement and was central to the rebellion; it is therefore blatant and unmitigated revisionism to assert – as do Confederate apologists – that ‘one of the most important’ of the ‘truths of history’ is that the War Between the States…was not a rebellion… nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.”

Now read the entire article from a right wing source, David Barton, the darling of the neo-theocrats:

http://wallbuilders.com/LIBiss...icles.asp?id=92#FN39


The Causes Of The Civil War
by Kenneth Stampp

This was frequently used by colleges before the PC police...it's 256 pages long...seems a bit much for "slavery was the one and only one cause" of the war.

Just because some Southern states seceded and some southern politicians defended slavery is not "proof" that is was the ONLY cause for the war.

There was NO politician who defended slavery as strongly as Lincoln...read his first inaugural address supporting the amendment to enshrine slavery into the Constitution...this coming from a president! How could there be a stronger defense of slavery?

Some southern politicians believed the white race was supreme...so did Lincoln!

"I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858.

Opposing the extension of slavery in the western territories is surely a sign of Lincoln's and Northern politicians' great compassion for the black race, right?

"We want the territories to be reserved for free white labor" Lincoln said! Sounds pretty white supremacist to me.

Check out the "black codes" of Northern states...particularly Illinois...prior to the war. Wonder were the Jim Crowe laws got their inspiration? White supremacy was not exclusive to the South.

Lincoln was NEVER an abolitionist. In a speech in New York Lincoln said: "we have abolitionists in Illinois; we shot one the other day."

So people voting for Lincoln thought he was going to end Southern slavery? Gimme a break...
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

************************************************
How about YOUR face when you read that Lincoln said he had no opinion on slavery and the states that did not secede could KEEP their slaves? What about his other statements about slavery bettern-nun? Will you also deny that Lincoln wanted the slaves/blacks, out of the country if they were freed???
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The revisionists who continue to vainly argue that slavery was not the cause of the War of the Rebellion will have a hard time showing a straight face after they have read this article!

************************************************
How about YOUR face when you read that Lincoln said he had no opinion on slavery and the states that did not secede could KEEP their slaves? What about his other statements about slavery bettern-nun? Will you also deny that Lincoln wanted the slaves/blacks, out of the country if they were freed???


Some of you "rebels" would do well to forget the nonsense you were taught in grade school and read some books about what really happened during the 1860's. Most of your posts are out of touch with reality.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
Some of you "rebels" would do well to forget the nonsense you were taught in grade school and read some books about what really happened during the 1860's. Most of your posts are out of touch with reality.


What happened in the 1860’s? By then the conflicts between the two regions had been going on for several decades.

But if you want to look at "what really happened during the 1860's"...OK, sure:

April 12, 1861

Fort Sumter Death Toll:
1 horse, no humans

Death Toll From Lincoln’s Response to Fort Sumter:
670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern CIVILIANS); and of course thousands of horses.

This certainly seems like a measured, prudent, statesmanlike response by Lincoln, doesn’t it?

At the time of Fort Sumter only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves IN the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”" he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress.

In the 1860’s:

Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, as called for in the Constitution

He declared martial law

blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution

illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus

imprisoned without trial thousands of NORTHERN anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners…censored all newspaper and telegraph communication

deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies on the floor of the House of Representatives

Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians…massive looting and plundering, rape, and the execution of civilians.

By 1865 the Lincoln government had killed one out of every four Southern white males between the ages of 20 and 40. To put these numbers in perspective, standardizing for today's population that would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million deaths…about 100 times the number of Americans who died in the ten-year Vietnam War.

In 1861 federal commanders began taking civilians hostage and sometimes shooting them in retaliation for Confederate guerrilla attacks. As Colonel John Beatty warned the residents of Paint Rock, Alabama: "Every time the telegraph wire is cut we would burn a house; every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man; and we would continue to do this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur and Bridgeport." The town of Paint Rock was burned to the ground.

Early in the war the towns of Randolph, Tennessee, and Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were burned to the ground by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who declared that to all secessionists, women and children included, "death is mercy."

During the bombardment of Atlanta Sherman's chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, implored Sherman to stop the bombing of the UNDEFENDED city because of the grotesque spectacle of the corpses of women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him that such scenes were exactly what he wanted. After destroying 90 percent of the city the federal army evicted all the remaining residents from their homes just as winter was settling in.

Just some of the "nonsense" that is never taught in schools.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
War is always ugly. Being on the losing side, in both the literal sense and the moral question makes it doubly so. Lee should have surrendered.


War has not always been ugly on a civilian poplulation...not until Lincoln. And he paved the way for all the ugly wars of empire on civilians that have happened since.

Moral side? Only if you concede that the war was to end slavery...which it WAS NOT.

Every single country in Europe and the Americas ended slavery without resorting to war...except here of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
War is always ugly. Being on the losing side, in both the literal sense and the moral question makes it doubly so. Lee should have surrendered.


War has not always been ugly on a civilian poplulation...not until Lincoln. And he paved the way for all the ugly wars of empire on civilians that have happened since.

Moral side? Only if you concede that the war was to end slavery...which it WAS NOT.

Every single country in Europe and the Americas ended slavery without resorting to war...except here of course.


The South fired first. The beating they took afterward is their own fault. Accept the consequences or stay at home on the porch.
Lee was an officer and a gentleman, something that i don't believe i have ever heard questioned by anyone with even a little golden book understanding of the war of northern aggression......Grant was a full blown drunk, i have never heard anyone disagree with this. While in an earlier post I mentioned the emancipation proclamation and better couldn't understand it as part of the argument that the cause of the war was slavery....is it not safe to assume that this document would have come out sooner if slavery was the cause. Do some of you folks here not realise that the fathers and grandfathers of many of the southern leaders( Lee's own father Light Horse Harry among them)were the very patriots that "seceeded" if you will from the to powerful English government? The idea of leaving a situation that you felt you were getting the short end of was not a distant proposition to these people. If the English had one I guess some of you people would be talking bad about Washington!!!!!!!!
Anybody with reasonable knowledge of this war knows that the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest and typical do not belong in the same sentence. Grant was a full blown drunk like I said but far ahead of what we see from Charlie Sheen.....but out of curiosity what's your take on Washington and the boys of 1776.....patriots or should they have been hanged in London? guess it's better if you win.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
So Grant was the Charlie Sheen of his era...Wining!!!!

I think NBForrest, the original Grand Wizard, accurately represented the feelings of the typical Southerner.
Grand Wizard? You mean Sen. Byrd the democrite? And juan, was it morally OK for the North to own and later "rent" slaves? How about all over the country when they owned slaves? Was that OK in your book? Keep trying to re-write history juan. Maybe with practice you'll get a little better at it.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The South fired first. The beating they took afterward is their own fault. Accept the consequences or stay at home on the porch.


Wow...you are really something...they "the beating they afterward is their own fault".

Look, you are really showing your inability to actually debate any points that I or anyone else has made...you just pull **** out your ass and that is supposed to be the final word on the subject.

You have failed to address any point directly and you seemingly ignore any previous post that disproves your statements.

As futile as it is...Concerning the "first" shots. Lincoln illegally blockaded the southern ports to goad the South into making the first move...Lincoln is on record saying this was his goal.

And concerning that "first" shot, I'll quote my earlier post, since you seemed to completey ignored it:

Fort Sumter Death Toll:
1 horse, no humans

Death Toll From Lincoln’s Response to Fort Sumter:
670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern CIVILIANS); and of course thousands of horses.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
War has not always been ugly on a civilian poplulation...not until Lincoln.



quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The beating they took afterward is their own fault. Accept the consequences or stay at home on the porch.


Yes, it was the civilian populations own fault...they deserved it, right? Here is what they "deserved":

As a matter of policy (not just random collateral damage) Lincoln instituted a war of terrorism to be waged systematically against women and children in the South...but of course they "deserved" it.

The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports starving the Southern civilians. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southernern civilians...but of course that's what they "deserved".

General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter asking him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. What did Lincoln do? Heed the advice? Naw he replaced McClellan a few months later and got somebody who would give the Southern civilians what they "deserved".

General Sherman writes General Grant:

"the amount of plundering, burning, and stealing done by our own army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service if I could for I fear we are drifting toward vandalism . . . .thus you and I and every commander must go through the war justly chargeable of crimes at which we blush."

Why blush General Sherman, they "deserved" it.

Sherman soon got with program and started giving the civilian population what they "deserved".

General William Tecumseh Sherman's "march to the sea" his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians while facing very little Confederate Army resistance...but of course the people of Georgia "deserved" it.

In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. So he began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or simply executing them..."deservedly" so...

Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were burned to the ground by Sherman's troops even though there was NO Confederate army to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists."

But of course as we all know, the citizens of Meridian "deserved" it.

In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South.

In October of 1864 Sherman ordered troops to go to Fairmount, Georgia...to give them what they "deserved" and "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."

The University of South Carolina's library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that were brutally raped by Union soldiers...but I'm sure Mr. Dittohead that these women "deserved" it.

According to a Sherman biographer: "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked. A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners' valuables were hidden."

But I guess they deserved it.

General Philip Sheridan troops essentially burned the entire Shenandoah Valley to the ground...as he described it, they "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."

One of his soldiers wrote home saying he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year."...that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy by defenseless women... I never saw or want to see again."

Why did this soldier worry so? I'm sure they all "deserved" it.

And since they "deserved" it, after it was over in the Shennandoah Valley, Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."

Sherman admitted after the war, that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did.

Sherman biographer Lee Kennett wrote: "Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified...in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."

Oh surely they "deserved" it...
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The South fired first. The beating they took afterward is their own fault. Accept the consequences or stay at home on the porch.


See what I wrote there. I said "fired first", which does not imply anything to do with civilians.

Just because the Southerners were too inept to cause any casualties does not mean there should be any mitigation to the response.

I guess God was punishing the civilians for their complicity to slavery. What else could it be?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×