what do you mean northen agggression

[Pat/Rick]

Seems to me that Mr Lincoln knowingly and deliberatly set up a false flag scenario to be acted upon. Federal tyranny to oppress southern states right to the breaking point.  He had NO Constitutional authority to make the south remain in the union. That I am aware of anyway.

[williamlayton]

That is the constant point debated.
I would say that all have the ability/right (wheather or not it is wrong is the debating point) to rebel---they did and they lost.
That is the over simplistic answer.
Some saw it as treason--that is really not debateable---it was an uprising over the established government of the nation. That is undebateable.
I still say that they were fools for thinking it was just a walk away and you go your way and we will go ours.
There is still that fact that the South had the same interest in the West that the Union had. In that fact the war was enevitable.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

In my opinion the Union were the ones to rebel. They are the ones that violated the constitution before the actual state secessions began. The seceding states simply wanted to leave intact the actual true meaning of states’ rights under the constitution. The Union further rebelled by taking up arms against the south. The Union won the war but our real constitution lost. Something that we suffer from to this day. All you have to do for proof, is look at what is going on in Washington, what this country has become and what a mess we are in.

[littlecanoe]

In my opinion the Union were the ones to rebel. They are the ones that violated the constitution before the actual state secessions began. The seceding states simply wanted to leave intact the actual true meaning of states’ rights under the constitution. The Union further rebelled by taking up arms against the south. The Union won the war but our real constitution lost. Something that we suffer from to this day. All you have to do for proof, is look at what is going on in Washington, what this country has become and what a mess we are in.

That sums it up well IMO.  Slavery was an issue that could have been settled in a civil manner.  We only have to look to England and Wilberforce to see how.

If the war was inevitable what were the forces behind each faction?  What was the purpose of each faction and which faction had the most power(wealth)?  Which of the sides exhibited the most power to manipulate the system to the advantage of their cause?

[williamlayton]

It is an oversimplification to say that this town is not big enough for both of us, but it is accurate.
Two competing nations with the same desires and same aspirations for the same territories.
This was going to be one nation.
Did the Constitution win or lose is something that will never be known.
We know what it is now. The what ifs are Monday morning quarterbacking.
My opinion, since we are Monday morning quarter backing, is that IF the South would be left to walk away England would have recognized and allied with the South.
When Texas split and West Texas blocked expansion to the rest of the territory--the war would have started in earnest and Britian would have entered on the side of the South.
In that case we would be a part of the British Empire or the same as we are today.
I might add that what we have going on in Washinton now is the fault of the American people--we elected them..
Most of todays social structure is laid directly at the feet of the Democratic party--you know---Dixiecrats.
I, personally, am glad we are a sovereign nation.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

Determining if the constitution won or lost is not about Monday morning quarter backing nor does it involve any speculating. It’s there for the record. Now, you can agree or disagree with my assessment. But when I look at ALL the facts, which is something that our government & public schools (The Winners) won't do/never will do, the constitution lost then and the constitution is still losing. If I'm wrong and the constitution won along with the Union, I would like someone to explain to me how that document in any objective analysis can be correlated to what this country has become.  Someone please do this for me. I’m open.

[williamlayton]

Who and Why are the answers. The people are the who and the why is pretty obvious to me. We found we could bleed a sugartit dry.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

We were not intended to be a sovereign nation in which the control and reign of the central government controlled the state governments.  This restates the obvious but the premise from which we must work is to say that the sovereignty of the states was to be protected by the Federal Government, that this was the sole role of the Federal government.  This allowed concentration of power closest to the people.  This is what we lost with the power and sovereignty of "the nation".  We were to be a group of small nation-states protected by a common interest and purpose.  Liberty!

We may call it Monday morning quarterbacking if we see this as a closed issue.  I don't believe that most see the issue of individual liberty as one which has died.  Rather, we see this issue rising to the forefront right before our eyes.  I am seeing this to a degree that we never anticipated.  As long as men draw breath and other men seek to control the masses this issue, liberty, will be in the hearts of men.

[jdt48653]

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.

THE REAL HISTORY IS YOU & THE YANKS SLAUGHTERED
AND ENSLAVED US,YOU TOOK OUR LAND!   JOE LITTLE EAGLE.

Watch the All Caps posts, JLE

[littlecanoe]

Who did Joe Little Eagle's people take it from?

Caps left off so as not to yell.

[jdt48653]

our people lived with the other creatures,taking only what was needed to live.we took care of nature,we did not destroy it.

[Dee]

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.

THE REAL HISTORY IS YOU & THE YANKS SLAUGHTERED
AND ENSLAVED US,YOU TOOK OUR LAND!   JOE LITTLE EAGLE.

Well Joe, it seems that you don't know as much about history as you think you do in regards to me. As most whom have conversed with me here know, I am Cherokee. Or at least a little more than half. How about you Joe. Oh, and by the way. When Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse, the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and I believe the Seminole did not, as they HAD JOINED THE CONFEDERACY. The Confederacy treated us far better than the North. Or were you even aware of that.

[williamlayton]

 
We the people were to govern ourownselves as a Republic--not nations---or not as nations within a state.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

We the people were to govern ourownselves as a Republic--not nations---or not as nations within a state.
Blessings

Are "We The People" better represented by a central Republic or as individual States?

[williamlayton]

I think by a central government of elected people---not politicians.
I understand your thoughts Cabin. we have let ourownselves down.
There are many things that a central government can do more easily that individual states.
Rails and highways, dams and infrastructure. Certainly the government has overstepped but I would argue that a Confederacy would be a chaotic government. It is evident by the facts of uncooperation of the Southern states in many matters.
Blessings

[yellowtail3]

Someone poasted earlier that the War between the States was not about slavery.

It was about slavery. Slavery, the future of slavery, especially, were right there at the core of it.

Saying it won't about slavery, is like saying the Pacific War had nothing to do with Japan's access to oil or a free hand in Manchuria.

[SHOOTALL]

And to say it was the most important reason at the start was like saying Pearl Harbor was a foot note . Like most wars its either money and wealth or religion . I think this time it was money .

[Dee]

SHOOTALL, when folks refuse to look at Lincoln's racially and bigoted speeches about the black man, and his opinion that the Mexican race was nothing more than sub-human mongrels, and when they then continue to hold to the idea that Lincoln's war was to free the poor slave, is voluntary blindness to the facts. No amount of factual information will change their mind. They are right, and your facts are of no consequence to them.
If Booth had not shot the scoundrel Lincoln, all blacks were Liberia bound when the war ended, and things settled down. It is truly amazing that folks will willingly believe a lie, when the proof is right there, and they simply refuse to look because they like the lie better than the truth, and all the while calling you a liar for believing the blatant archival facts.
Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was yet another desperate effort in breaking the South's economy, as Robert E. Lee and his army were kicking McClellan's ass at every fight. He was getting desperate when he finally hired that drunk we refer to as U.S. Grant, and he and Sherman began their SCORCHED EARTH POLICY of warfare killing non-combatant citizens, and destroying their property.

[Cabin4]

The states seceded because of states’ rights. Slavery was one of many issues on the burner. Anyone that would deny that the full context was states rights must have received their education on this subject in the public schools and never researched this with all the facts.

To deny the states’ rights issue and the role it played leading up to secession, is like denying that the Holocaust existed.

[SHOOTALL]

If you look deep enough it will turn up that the issue of states rights was because the bills were being placed on the South

[williamlayton]

I disagree with that Shotall.
Those economics don't add up. It is true the South wanted more money than they were getting.
Lincoln was not for abolition until the end.
McCleelan was a clerk. The scorched earth policy was not as scorched earth except for South Carolina.
When the Rebs flank was turned the soft underbelly was exposed. What would you have Sherman do? Back off?
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

William they were paying for the war of 1812 . Its not what they wanted to make it was the fact they were paying more than northern states from what they made . That's enomic fact

[Dee]

William Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground. Last time I looked Atlanta was in Georgia. Perhaps AtlLaw could verify Atlanta's geographical location for you.

[Dee]

William they were paying for the war of 1812 . Its not what they wanted to make it was the fact they were paying more than northern states from what they made . That's enomic fact

Yes they were SHOOTALL. They were paying 70% of ALL the taxes paid in the states. Your facts are straight.

[SHOOTALL]

William guess you missed the burnning of the Shenandoah Valley , How did they decribe it ? Oh yea a "crow flying over would need to pack his own lunch as all was burnned "

[williamlayton]

How could they have paid 70% of the import duties when the only received 30% of the imports.
I don't recall Sherman going into the Shenandoah .
Sherman did not burn, pillage and rape nearly as much as the South says---old wives tales.
What did you expect from war?
War of 1812 was paid by import duties--one more time. Northern ports recieved 70% of all imports. It is another old wives tales.
Really the South didn't want to collect any import duties, they wanted free trade.
Blessings

[teamnelson]

Someone poasted earlier that the War between the States was not about slavery.

It wasn't about slavery; slavery was a collateral issue, but not the reason for the war. Historical records prove that out over and over again. Carefully consider the reasons stated for secession, and the response by the North as documented, and you will not find slavery as a causal issue for war.

[williamlayton]

It was a big issue for traders and slave owners.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

I don't recall Sherman going into the Shenandoah .
And you are correct , Sheridan destoried 140 miles of valley . It is thought by many that the destruction denied food for the South , got the pres ( northern one) re-elected and in reality defeated the South . Considering most in the know consider it one if not the most important campain in the war I find it odd that you were not up on it .
BTW the money being taken out of the South was no wives tale either .

[Dee]

As usual facts and documented evidence are ignored, in lue of baseless opinions of what someone heard, or thinks. What's the point to discuss?