The Confederacy is the symbol of racist losers.

[Pookie]

You're the one playing six degrees, not I. I know how silly that is.

I'm just doing the one degree like you now. *nods*

 

[toubab]

Exactly! Succession, slavery, Lincoln, economics, the Captain who asked Ruffin to fire the first shot .... none of those things or people had anything to do with the cause of the Civil War.

It's that simple.

I find it interesting that some people can't understand the simple fact the war, bottom line, was over a disagreement as to whether the Southern states could leave the Union in peace or not. The reason or reasons they had for wanting to leave the Union were totally irrelevant to Abraham Lincoln and many others in the North. They were not going to allow it, no matter what, no matter why, and no matter how many people had to die to preserve the Union. But I'm done discussing this. It's gotten far too ridiculous.

 

[oggbashan]

I find it interesting that some people can't understand the simple fact the war, bottom line, was over a disagreement as to whether the Southern states could leave the Union in peace or not. The reason or reasons they had for wanting to leave the Union were totally irrelevant to Abraham Lincoln and many others in the North. They were not going to allow it, no matter what, no matter why, and no matter how many people had to die to preserve the Union. But I'm done discussing this. It's gotten far too ridiculous.

But there has been some informative discussion among the other posts.

We have moved a long way from the debate about whether displaying a Confederate flag is racist, to which the answer is - It can be.

The discussion about the reasons for the American Civil War has had some reasonable airing.

 

[Queersetti]

I've said repeatedly slavery touched on many of the disagreements between the North and the South. The bottom line is the South got fed up with the North and wanted to secede from the Union, and the North said no, you cannot secede. A war resulted.

That's like saying you divorced your wife because you signed divorce papers. It's a true statement, but it demonstrates no insights into the reasons why the situation developed to that point in the first place.

 

[pointless]

what a fun thread. so many people saying the same thing over and over again as they bang their heads against the wall. good times.

 

[Pookie]

That's like saying you divorced your wife because you signed divorce papers. It's a true statement, but it demonstrates no insights into the reasons why the situation developed to that point in the first place.

If I ask you to marry me again, will you say yes this time?

 

[Queersetti]

South Carolina foolishly fired on Fort Sumter because Lincoln refused to surrender it. He refused to surrender it because he would not recognize South Carolina's secession from the Union. But we are wasting time here. You simply cannot accept that the cause of the war was secession, not slavery. It's that simple.

Even if Lincoln had recognized secession, Fort Sumter was still the property of the federal government.

 

[toubab]

That's like saying you divorced your wife because you signed divorce papers. It's a true statement, but it demonstrates no insights into the reasons why the situation developed to that point in the first place.

You forgot the part about one party preferring a fight to the death over agreeing to the divorce.

 

[Pookie]

I find it interesting that some people can't understand the simple fact the war, bottom line, was over a disagreement as to whether the Southern states could leave the Union in peace or not. The reason or reasons they had for wanting to leave the Union were totally irrelevant to Abraham Lincoln and many others in the North. They were not going to allow it, no matter what, no matter why, and no matter how many people had to die to preserve the Union. But I'm done discussing this. It's gotten far too ridiculous.

Edmund Ruffin says you're full of shit.

 

[toubab]

But there has been some informative discussion among the other posts.

We have moved a long way from the debate about whether displaying a Confederate flag is racist, to which the answer is - It can be.

The discussion about the reasons for the American Civil War has had some reasonable airing.

There was some interesting discussion. A lot of repetition, unfortunately.

 

[Pookie]

You forgot the part about one party preferring a fight to the death over agreeing to the divorce.

That's two degrees. Way too complicated.

 

[toubab]

Edmund Ruffin says you're full of shit.

He would. Crazy bastard.

 

[Pookie]

He would. Crazy bastard.

According to you, he would be right.

Irony.

 

[Queersetti]

If I ask you to marry me again, will you say yes this time?

OK, but we will only be married because we signed the marriage license.

 

[Queersetti]

You forgot the part about one party preferring a fight to the death over agreeing to the divorce.

The nature of the response is not relevant to the cause.

 

[Pookie]

OK, but we will only be married because we signed the marriage license.

 

[toubab]

Even if Lincoln had recognized secession, Fort Sumter was still the property of the federal government.

Debatable, but not worth firing on. Stupid to have done so.

 

[Yardley]

But there has been some informative discussion among the other posts.

We have moved a long way from the debate about whether displaying a Confederate flag is racist, to which the answer is - It can be.

The discussion about the reasons for the American Civil War has had some reasonable airing.

It definitely is used as a symbol by racists now but it is absolutely silly to suggest that the South seceded because they were "racist." Everyone was racist then. The North's motives were as racist as any. There were many people of good conscience (North and South) that abhorred the owning of human beings, usually for religious reasons, Quakers and such.

The Northern Democrats were the ones disseminating the idea that if Lincoln and the Republicans got in, the slaves would be freed. I don't think they actually believed that. It was standard, campaign hyperbole, looking for an edge in the election.

If the South had not seceded, Lincoln did not have the votes to do any such thing. The whole thing became a self-fulling prophecy.

 

[toubab]

The nature of the response is not relevant to the cause.

If the divorce is amicable, the cause is irrelevant. The question remains, why didn't Lincoln and the North wave goodbye and good riddance to the South?

 

[toubab]

It definitely is used as a symbol by racists now but it is absolutely silly to suggest that the South seceded because they were "racist." Everyone was racist then. The North's motives were as racist as any. There were many people of good conscience (North and South) that abhorred the owning of human beings, usually for religious reasons, Quakers and such.

The Northern Democrats were the ones disseminating the idea that if Lincoln and the Republicans got in, the slaves would be freed. I don't think they actually believed that. It was standard, campaign hyperbole, looking for an edge in the election.

If the South had not seceded, Lincoln did not have the votes to do any such thing. The whole thing became a self-fulling prophecy.

Lincoln was a hard core racist, by today's standards.

 

[Yardley]

Debatable, but not worth firing on. Stupid to have done so.

Needed to have been done. The North could (and was already planning to) strangle the South if they could curtail the movement of cotton by water.

South didn't have steel and could not hope to fight on the sea. They needed the fort.

 

[Queersetti]

Debatable, but not worth firing on. Stupid to have done so.

The dispensation of federal property was a very serious concern. The lion's share of federal revenues came from duties collected at custom's houses, one of the largest of which was in Charleston (Other major customs houses were located in Savannah and New Orleans). South Carolina, desiring those revenues for themselves, took the position that all federal property should revert to the state, and demanded withdrawal from Sumter to create a fait accompli that would prove that point. When the federals refused to withdraw, they had no other options other than to fire on the fort, or cede the right of the federal government to maintain control of all federal property in the state, including the customs houses and post offices.

 

[toubab]

Needed to have been done. The North could (and was already planning to) strangle the South if they could curtail the movement of cotton by water.

South didn't have steel and could not hope to fight on the sea. They needed the fort.

The fort was going to be surrendered soon enough. All that was necessary was keeping it from receiving supplies.

 

[toubab]

The dispensation of federal property was a very serious concern. The lion's share of federal revenues came from duties collected at custom's houses, one of the largest of which was in Charleston (Other major customs houses were located in Savannah and New Orleans). South Carolina, desiring those revenues for themselves, took the position that all federal property should revert to the state, and demanded withdrawal from Sumter to create a fait accompli that would prove that point. When the federals refused to withdraw, they had no other options other than to fire on the fort, or cede the right of the federal government to maintain control of all federal property in the state, including the customs houses and post offices.

Could have starved them out.

 

[Yardley]

Lincoln was a hard core racist, by today's standards.

Of course. Even those that strongly objected to the inhumanity of slavery did so because they found it cruel, not because they understood that the accident of being born in Africa made one no lesser man.

People always talk about the 3/5ths compromise as if it was the slave states that wanted slaves to be counted as less than. The slave states wanted them counted as people because it benefited them. The North wanted slaves to count as zero.