Author Topic: what do you mean northen agggression (Read 14289 times)

whacker · « **on:** February 16, 2011, 07:49:16 PM »

The north only did what it did because the south attached fort Sumner . And wanting to separate from union. So who was the aggressor.

subdjoe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2011, 03:35:59 AM »

(sigh)

The seven states of the lower south just wanted to leave. How is that an act of aggression? If you want to leave a party, do you start a fight?

As for "attaching" Ft. Sumter, "Honest" Abe had men-of-war sailing to land reinforcements and supplies on SC territory. He could easily have pulled the handful of men there out, he had been offered free passage for ships to do that.

VA, NC, TN, and AR did not pass bills of secession until after "Honest" Abe proposed marching federal troops through them to attack the deep south. "Honest" Abe wanted a war. Or rather, the financial and industrial interests in the north needed the war to keep revenue flowing into federal coffers to finance rail, ports, and roads for their benefit. Ports such as NY, from which in 1859 an average of two slave ships a week sailed to pick up cargos of 'black ivory' I might add.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2011, 09:19:45 AM »

I call it the war of southern rebellion

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:11:56 AM »

Greetings,

'Ol Abe was a tyrant by almost any measure. That point is so obvious it need not be debated. He was also a great orator and writer without a doubt. The comparison with the current tyrant is remarkable.

The War of the States was not a civil war. In a civil war there is conflict between groups to establish a head of state. A classic is the English Civil War, Cromwell vs Charles. Cromwell won and became head-of-state. Charles lost his head. Jeff Davis did not desire to be President of the U.S., He was already President of the Confederacy. The war that followed was a simple war of conquest, to take foreign territory by force of arms. William the Conqueror did this at the Battle of Hastings, defeating and killing King Herold to gain the throne. Not a civil war.

If the Conflict of 1861-1865 was a civil war the Southern combatants would be traitors and criminals. At the end of the war they were treated as honorable men.

I am objective about this because my birth and heritage is Norman, Oklahoma. Neutral territory.

P.A.

Dee · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:31:57 AM »

Quote from: whacker on February 16, 2011, 07:49:16 PM

The north only did what it did because the south attached fort Sumner . And wanting to separate from union. So who was the aggressor.

If you were selling a product to someone, and another group of folks wanted you to sell it to them instead, and for a cheaper price, would you? Of course not.
What if someone of authority told you that if you didn't sell it to these folks that wanted it, you would have to pay a 10% tax on it to continue to sell it to the other folks, and if you still wouldn't sell it to the folks that wanted it cheaper, the man in authority would make you pay a "20%" tax if you still refused.

That was the problem. The Government was nothing more than a cheap bully doing the bidding of the Industrialized North and twisting the arm of the South whom at the time was paying 70% of all the taxes paid into the government.

Do your homework to understand the issues of this "War of Northern Aggression". If instead you think it was about slavery, then you need to study even more to learn that the great humanitarian Lincoln was actually a bigoted racist claiming that America was for the white man, and intended after the war to send the black man to Liberia.
He was to the South, and to the black man, what Jackson was to the American Indian. A socialist tyrant. Hmmmm. Kinda like our president now.

greenmtnboy · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2011, 04:28:55 PM »

The War of Northern Aggression Is obviously the name given to the Civil War by a southerner that just cant let go. Anyone can pick a subject they do or dont like , in this case they dont like, and find information, Documents and whatever else they want to backup there side of the arguement true or not. Some even have access to documents that nobody else has but it sure is the truth and you better believe it.
It seems to me its a lot like the TC rifle to handgun or vise versa discussion. Itll never be settled and itll always end up in an arguement. It doesnt seem right to me that this site would allow a discussion that basicly separates the country. To even allow a name that slams the Northern Americans is hard to believe.
Yes I am a Yankee unlike some But I am an American like us all. But hey I dont have to read it either....
Greenmtnboy

Dee · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2011, 01:31:53 AM »

That's very true greenmtboy. You don't have to read it, and I can understand why you would not be interested in the "real history" of such an event, as it is troublesome, and inconvenient to learn something different you were taught in school, while at the same time finding out your teachers, and you State Education Board, lied to you.
Forget that you, and the former slave embrace a president that was a liar, a scoundrel, a bigoted racist, and a socialist-marxist. Let's make him all warm and fuzzy, and hold him up as an icon of human rights.

You see, we too are TAX PAYING, COUNTRY LOVING, GUN TOTIN, BIBLE BELIEVING, "Americans". But we like the truth of history which "units us" in understanding that many have been "duped" into believing a "false history", which has kept us divided for more than a century.
Are you also a "northern union" member? Perhaps we could send your "northern union" some more money, just as was expected in the era discussed here, and just as is demanded today. The "northerner today" still wants our tax dollars for their job salvation, but wants us not to discuss anything, or give our opinion. Seems not much has changed in that regard in more than a hundred years. Remember greenmtboy: FORGET HISTORY, AND YOU ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT! OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE "REAL" HISTORY FIRST, TO KNOW WHAT TO WATCH FOR.

williamlayton · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2011, 06:29:08 AM »

Then why do we so angrily oppose a foreign coutry taking away american jobs by selling goods that are produced by them at lower cost?
Blessings

Cabin4 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2011, 07:31:59 AM »

Quote from: whacker on February 16, 2011, 07:49:16 PM

The north only did what it did because the south attached fort Sumner . And wanting to separate from union. So who was the aggressor.

What were Northern Union army troops doing occupying a foriegn countries fort? After all, the Confederacy was a seperate nation and those Union troops refused to leave and they were uninvited. That is an act of aggression. Union troops continued to march into the new southern nation further advancing the acts of aggression.

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2011, 07:32:46 AM »

"To even allow a name that slams the Northern Americans is hard to believe." Allow? What is the option? You must tolerate other points of view. That being said, liberals here are given the pinata treatment and are 'allowed" their seditious fertilizer.

When a normal person feels cheeseburgers are bad for him, he doesn't eat them. Leftist pukes don't want anybody to eat them .

Check that last post. The boy is now an advocate of free speech and common sense. Good.

williamlayton · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2011, 07:52:27 AM »

Well, I am not liberal by any means. I am a realist.
That it was tried and did not work is, really, the last word on the subject.
Blessings

Cabin4 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2011, 01:01:44 PM »

Quote from: williamlayton on February 19, 2011, 07:52:27 AM

Well, I am not liberal by any means. I am a realist.
That it was tried and did not work is, really, the last word on the subject.
Blessings

You must have this auto loaded with one of the function keys. I must have seen this 100 times.

greenmtnboy · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2011, 03:31:09 PM »

HA HA Just the replies I expected Dee. Same ole story. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into a name calling discussion but with some it cant be helped I guess. From most of the replies here it seems this isn't a place for discussion anyway, Like I said before its your way or No way.
One thing for sure, it is what it is Now. I believe if you don't like it your free to express your opinion all you want . Just like I did.
Greenmtnboy

partsproduction · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2011, 04:06:20 PM »

I've heard the old error "It wasn't about slavery" before and it doesn't pass the smell test, without the issue of slavery there would have been no army to fight against it, because the history I've read from Northerners clearly and redundantly mention the plight of slaves and the outrageousness of slavery. If the people who wanted to force states rights had chosen a purer cause than slavery it never would have happened, or, more likely, would have resulted in a win for states rights with a good cause, because Northerners would not have been behind it for a less righteous cause, like gun control for instance. The war was a total waste that should have waited for a good cause, not slavery. Greedy plantation owners caused the whole thing, the blood is on their heads for eternity.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2011, 05:02:34 PM »

Let’s assume your correct and the southern states left the Union only to preserve slavery. Why did they do this? Answer: They did it because they felt they had the State power authority in the constitution to preserve it and the Federal government had no power to stop them. That is still the principal foundation of the decision to secede, slavery would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. States Rights was the reason for secession because that is the legal/constitutional foundation.

subdjoe · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2011, 11:46:29 PM »

Quote from: partsproduction on February 19, 2011, 04:06:20 PM

I've heard the old error "It wasn't about slavery" before and it doesn't pass the smell test, without the issue of slavery there would have been no army to fight against it, because the history I've read from Northerners clearly and redundantly mention the plight of slaves and the outrageousness of slavery. If the people who wanted to force states rights had chosen a purer cause than slavery it never would have happened, or, more likely, would have resulted in a win for states rights with a good cause, because Northerners would not have been behind it for a less righteous cause, like gun control for instance. The war was a total waste that should have waited for a good cause, not slavery. Greedy plantation owners caused the whole thing, the blood is on their heads for eternity.

Then why didn't the passage in the House of the "Perpetual Slavery" amendment bring the deep south back into the Union? Even St. Abe supported it: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Dee · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2011, 01:22:32 AM »

Quote from: greenmtnboy on February 19, 2011, 03:31:09 PM

HA HA Just the replies I expected Dee. Same ole story. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into a name calling discussion but with some it cant be helped I guess. From most of the replies here it seems this isn't a place for discussion anyway, Like I said before its your way or No way.
One thing for sure, it is what it is Now. I believe if you don't like it your free to express your opinion all you want . Just like I did.
Greenmtnboy

Where is this name calling you speak of greenmtnboy? I certainly done none of it. You come here a criticize, and ridicule a discussion you say you have no interest in, and then you make accusations of name calling that I have not made. You say: I was hoping it wouldn't turn into a name calling discussion, but with some it can't be helped. Just whom called you a name. You didn't come here for the discussion. You came here to criticize the topic of discussion. All one has to do is read your original post. You expressed your opinion of OUR OPINION, and I expressed MY OPINION of YOUR OPINION. How is that different? It is not different. You came here trolling, and you got a response, just like you wanted.
You have added absolutely NOTHING to the discussion at hand, only criticism of the topic. You are the divider here, not the topic. If you have an OPINION on the topic based in historical fact by all means present it.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2011, 01:27:17 AM »

Quote from: greenmtnboy on February 18, 2011, 04:28:55 PM

The War of Northern Aggression Is obviously the name given to the Civil War by a southerner that just cant let go. It doesnt seem right to me that this site would allow a discussion that basicly separates the country. To even allow a name that slams the Northern Americans is hard to believe.
Yes I am a Yankee unlike some But I am an American like us all.
Greenmtnboy

Name calling, and complaining, and criticizing the Website for allow freedom of discussion just because you don't like the topic. Hmmmmmm.
TRYING TO "START" AN ARGUEMENT? OR JUST TROLLING?

williamlayton · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2011, 03:15:39 AM »

Cabin
I just see the need to remind folks that the discussion is good but the results are finished.
Some are not aware that it is a finished piece of business and assume, I guess, that it will rise again.
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2011, 03:55:50 AM »

I am one that doesn't see it as a finished piece of business. One has only to look at what is going on at the present to see that. I see it as an evolving, continuing process of the few wanting special treatment from the working class tax payers. We have fought a war concerning the matter, and came to a shaky peace, which once again seems on the verge of collapsing. At the present we have bailed out the northern banks, unions, car makers, and so on. And still they want more. This has been a constant, and on going struggle since the United States inception. One group wants more than what they can produce, and at a price they want to pay, and the government will TAKE IT, from the producers and give it to the group wanting it, whether the producers want to sell it, or give it to them or not. That was exactly what caused the "war of northern aggression, the UNCIVIL War, the war between the states, or whatever other title you want to pin on it. History points this out. At the present Wisconsin unions want more than the State can pay, and the unions do not care. They want what they want. Once again there is a growing protest from both sides. One side tries to justify their money demands, while the other side says save your money, and yourself. We didn't cause your predicament.

williamlayton · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2011, 07:29:09 AM »

What is the solution---break into 50 countries?
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2011, 08:06:30 AM »

William apparently there is no solution. The south attempted to exercise states rights, and withdraw from the union, which they had every right to do, and the north attacked and killed them, bringing them back under D.C.'s control by brute force and fear of further deaths. When Sherman marched thru the south, those were American civilians he was killing, not illegal immigrants, and those were American homes he was burning. But it is a matter of freedom and the rights that go with it. It is the difference between democracy, and a Republic.
If you and I live long enough, you will wish that they had been successful, as this present assault on your pocketbook by the northern unions will cost you dearly, along with your children, and their children. Like before, the north is forcing Texas and other southern states, into a situation that Texas did not put them in. The car companies in the south have not had the same problemsas the unionized northern car companies, and as of late the United States government owes Toyota a huge apology, along with reimbursement for a huge fine on a car defect that turned out not to exist.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2011, 08:08:49 AM »

Potentially yes because that is thier Right as a State. More likly a scenario is a break up of regional states that form thier own new seperate Union. Example, Maine, Vermont, NH consolidate to a Union. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming....ect. Something like this is doable.

Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2011, 08:12:41 AM »

Yes it is Cabin4, and starting to make more sense all the time. We're going to go broke in Texas because of a bunch of corrupt unions in the north, that want our tax dollars for their golden retirement plans, and WISCONSIN STATE APPROVED pay plans. I never signed on to finance them.

jmortimer · « **Reply #24 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:51:55 AM »

Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa so he really was the "great expatriator." States were always supposed to be able to leave the "Union" and regardless of one's position on slavery, it was "Northern Aggression" and wrong. The beginning of the end of the 10th Amendment.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2011, 07:30:08 AM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on February 17, 2011, 09:19:45 AM

I call it the war of southern rebellion

Yes The SOUTH rebelled aginst agression , Glay you agree !

williamlayton · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2011, 09:26:03 AM »

It is a thorny issue, this Union thing.
It is good to be big and united as we have proven.
Federalism is not a bad thing, done properly. Just as cities build roads and bridges, there are projects that constitute the betterment of the nation and impossible for individual states to accomplish--much less agree on.
Socialism is not one of those things--it really helps no one.
Democrats started it all---you know--those Southern politicians. Pork barrel politics was never a good thing and statesmen would never consider selling out even if there was something that could be gained in it for their constituency.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2011, 01:56:12 AM »

The northern states ganged up on the Southern states before the war how can you blame the Southern democrats for getting what they could after that and the war ? The Southern states are here by force !

williamlayton · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2011, 02:51:57 AM »

How do you see that the North ganged up on the South, Cabin?
Tariff's ?
Routing of the RR's?
Infastructure?
I am not sure of the thought.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2011, 03:13:03 AM »

William the taxes that were forced on the South's sale of raw materials to pay off debt from the War of 1812 had little to do with infastructure. It like the Health Care Bill govt is telling us we have to have it , they provide it and then can decide if they will use the money we were forced to pay them to treat us . Call it my Southern roots but I still don't care for govt. like this.