Author Topic: What, in your opinion, could the South (Read 5438 times)

Cabin4 · « **Reply #60 on:** February 19, 2011, 01:45:16 PM »

I said it was one of the key reasons, not the only reason.

Swampman · « **Reply #61 on:** February 19, 2011, 01:46:25 PM »

Keep wiggling maybe you'll work your way out of this.

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #62 on:** February 19, 2011, 04:18:44 PM »

Read history. On the eve of war Lincoln told South Carolina they could keep the slaves, but continue paying your taxes. The issue was money.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 19, 2011, 05:07:50 PM »

Quote from: P.A. Myers on February 19, 2011, 04:18:44 PM

Read history. On the eve of war Lincoln told South Carolina they could keep the slaves, but continue paying your taxes. The issue was money.

Ha ha ha,,,Swampman....Like I WROTE: Money was a "KEY" reason for the Union's invasion of the Confederacy. Your the one wiggling to try and put words in peoples mouth. Learn how to read & comprehend what is being written.

williamlayton · « **Reply #64 on:** February 20, 2011, 03:21:18 AM »

Money is always important in war.
In this case the South was as motivated by money as was the North---in different ways.
There were fewer in the South that were in the moneyed class.
They were concerned for their own skins.
Now---this is my opinion---South Carolina engaged in a propaganda war to entice others to fight their war for them.
Blessings

Swampman · « **Reply #65 on:** February 20, 2011, 05:44:49 AM »

Quote from: P.A. Myers on February 19, 2011, 04:18:44 PM

Read history. On the eve of war Lincoln told South Carolina they could keep the slaves, but continue paying your taxes. The issue was money.

Of course they had to pay their taxes. They were a state like all the rest. Slaves were worth billions. So slavery was the primary issue.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #66 on:** February 20, 2011, 08:04:02 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 20, 2011, 05:44:49 AM

Quote from: P.A. Myers on February 19, 2011, 04:18:44 PM
Read history. On the eve of war Lincoln told South Carolina they could keep the slaves, but continue paying your taxes. The issue was money.

Of course they had to pay their taxes. They were a state like all the rest. Slaves were worth billions. So slavery was the primary issue.

I thought you said the the North went to war with the South to end slavery and free the slaves? If this is the case, then how could the slaves be worth Billions of $$ to the North? Uhh!

Swampman · « **Reply #67 on:** February 20, 2011, 10:55:45 AM »

They weren't worth anything to the North.

no guns here · « **Reply #68 on:** February 20, 2011, 11:30:50 AM »

Then why did the emancipation proclamation ONLY apply to slave owned in the south? There were still slaves in northern states at the time but Lincoln didn't "free" them... must have been worth something to some influential northerners...

NGH

Brewster · « **Reply #69 on:** February 20, 2011, 11:49:58 AM »

Back to the original thought on this thread, the answer is "NOT A DAMNED THING". The traitors were doomed from the beginning. As are their apologists today.

Swampman · « **Reply #70 on:** February 20, 2011, 12:46:28 PM »

Quote from: no guns here on February 20, 2011, 11:30:50 AM

Then why did the emancipation proclamation ONLY apply to slave owned in the south? There were still slaves in northern states at the time but Lincoln didn't "free" them... must have been worth something to some influential northerners...

NGH

It didn't apply to slaves in the south. It only applied to the border states.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #71 on:** February 20, 2011, 04:00:38 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 20, 2011, 12:46:28 PM

Quote from: no guns here on February 20, 2011, 11:30:50 AM
Then why did the emancipation proclamation ONLY apply to slave owned in the south? There were still slaves in northern states at the time but Lincoln didn't "free" them... must have been worth something to some influential northerners...

NGH

It didn't apply to slaves in the south. It only applied to the border states.

As usual, you don;t know what your talking about. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, nearing the third year of the war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, free.

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. Just the opposite of what Swampman said. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. So, all those who beleive Lincoln was a hero for slaves, he somehow left slavery untouched in the northern states. Which is rediculous for all those who crown him a God for ending slavery. He simply used the slavery issue as a wedge. Trying to enlist slaves to flee thier owners to come and fight for the Union.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 20, 2011, 05:37:44 PM »

Davis and Lee are the real true American leadership hero's here.

Swampman · « **Reply #73 on:** February 20, 2011, 11:24:25 PM »

And would be ashamed to be associated with your comments.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:06:06 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 20, 2011, 11:24:25 PM

And would be ashamed to be associated with your comments.

Coming from you that is a compliment. I rather be associated with people that used legal means to leave the Union than those that mongered for war and invaded a region that sought nothing more than to preserve our constitution. Your the one that should be ashamed calling Lincoln a hero after the slaughter of nearly 700,000 people and a complete and total violation of our laws. You don't know what your talking about Swampman. You have your facts wrong as proven about your ignorance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Time and time again you have the facts wrong. But your certainly not alone in this department. You have the company of many others who have been brain washed by the public school systems, other government agencies and the news media who warp the facts.

Swampman · « **Reply #75 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:50:19 AM »

You've really embraced the myth that folks spent years creating. There are plenty of good books that explain the history of this time period. Bigotry is no excuse for rewriting history.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:56:48 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 21, 2011, 04:50:19 AM

You've really embraced the myth that folks spent years creating. There are plenty of good books that explain the history of this time period. Bigotry is no excuse for rewriting history.

Yes, of course, read the history books that lack facts or warp facts that justify the unlawfull acts and outcome of the winner

. Another fact you got wrong is you don't even know what a bigot is. In any case, I rather be called a bigot than be a supporter of blood thirsty child killing and a rapist supporter like you.

williamlayton · « **Reply #77 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:29:27 AM »

If you read only one side of the story---and there are many to this epic---you are bound to be incorrect.
It is a complex issue.
Here is the way I see it---no one has to agree.
We had a group leaving the Union--creating a very unstable Confederacy.
We were not long from the last encounter with Great Britain and trusted them like we trusted a snake under the bed.
It was a growing nation and the potential for a great nation was possible.
The Confederacy could not have lasted long--it was weak and a weak form of entity.
There were powers in Europe watching the situation very closely and not at all unwilling to jump at the chance to expand influence (read power and control) over this Confederacy.
England was in a delima---France not so much. France was in Mexico.
They were entangeled and really could not jump with support for the Sout.
The south had overestimated that Great Britain would come with aid because of Cotton.
All these fact need careful review to see the whole picture.
Bottom line----The north could not allow the south to survive.
You can cut that, slice it and dice it, spin it, debate it til the cows comehome, call the north whatever names you want, blame whomever you want---for the sake of the Union it fell as it needed.
I think for the best of all concerned.
Blessings

Cabin4 · « **Reply #78 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:46:04 AM »

There is nothing wrong with bringing facts, opinion and or conjecture to the debate. But when some people just ignore or warp facts, that is the issue that this thread has evolved into. The South’s survival would have been in their hands and that would have been their responsibility, good, bad or indifferent. In any case, what the South would be today is pure conjecture, not fact, not opinion. What Lincoln did in the historical record, is fact, not opinion, not conjecture. Weather you support Lincoln or not, is opinion, not fact, not conjecture. There can be no two ways about it. Lincoln was a criminal. And that is a fact and the historical record is proof. The fact the history books fail to acknowledge this does not diminish the impact/fact. It simply tells us that our government will do or say anything for political expediency. I think we know this to be a concept that our government and others do all the time.

williamlayton · « **Reply #79 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:56:50 AM »

Cabin
I am not really sure it would have been in the hands of the South.
There were a lot of influences out there.A good read is the papers and reports of Seward to Lincoln.
France, while an Allie of the Union was so much because of the ongoing conflicts with England.
Any association with Europe was a dangerous allegiance for a nation that wanted a Republic.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #80 on:** February 21, 2011, 07:10:22 AM »

The Norths biggest ally was distance from Europe and such. Most had learned that to fight a war that far from home was to expensive , something we are learning today .........

Swampman · « **Reply #81 on:** February 21, 2011, 07:10:51 AM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on February 21, 2011, 04:56:48 AM

a supporter of blood thirsty child killing and a rapist supporter like you.

Plenty of this happened on both sides. Neither had a monopoly on evil or cruelty.

Back to the topic.....We never had a prayer of winning. Nothing we could have done would have changed that.

Brewster · « **Reply #82 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:03:08 PM »

Ya know, if the hotheads had not fired on Sumter and had been content to let the legality of secession be determined by the courts, they might have won in the courts rather lost of the battlefield. Dumb F's.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:23:49 PM »

Quote from: Brewster on February 21, 2011, 04:03:08 PM

Ya know, if the hotheads had not fired on Sumter and had been content to let the legality of secession be determined by the courts, they might have won in the courts rather lost of the battlefield. Dumb F's.

Fort Sumter was in the Confederacy. Those Union troops had been an occupying force. They deserved to be attacked.

Graybeard · « **Reply #84 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:51:16 PM »

OK I'm ending this one before I have to ban a few of you. One of you I really should be banning NOW. I'll send you an e-mail and you best pay attention to it or the ban will be placed.