How Can You Call It The War Of Northern Aggression

[us920669]

That's because DC was basically a southern city as far as the people went, not the authorities, of course.

[SHOOTALL]

The first shots were fired at the ship resupplying the fort. So it would seem like there was cause to fire on an invading ship.

just for bringing in some groceries?

Was a big tatic back in the day to starve the enemy ( note it worked well ) The North used it way more at , Vicksburg , Richmond , Petersburg ,and Georga/South Carolina.

[Hooker]

The aggression of the north started first as a string of attempted underhanded legislative actions. This is what caused the secession.
The north then prepared for war ,but what country would allow such neighbors to reinforce an established beach head inside their borders.
It seems the south did show bad judgment for suffering that occupation at all.
The north had title to nothing for no government by the people owns anything. All the things they lay claim to belongs to the people.
In this case the property belonged to people South Carolina now a foreign country.
So go ahead you northern sympathizers revel in your victory. But know this. Your precious Lincoln raped the Constitution and forever stained it, just as your armies raped the South. Then during Reconstruction the filthy union army, carpet baggers and politicians committed atrocities on the South no different than the worst of  history's villians.

Pat


 
 

[Brewster]

blah, blah blah

[Casull]

 

blah, blah blah

     Brilliant comeback.   

[BUGEYE]

I was a southern sympathizer until I moved south in 69 and the boys down here treated me pretty ugly (not all of them) because I was a yankee.  they made it really hard to continue to sympathize.
why???

[Hooker]

Bugeye some scars run deep but sometimes ignorance runs deeper.
I don't hold any of the past against anyone today.
I do however have a problem with those who promote the actions of the north as a noble and justafiable cause.
 
Pat

[BUGEYE]

Bugeye some scars run deep but sometimes ignorance runs deeper.
I don't hold any of the past against anyone today.
I do however have a problem with those who promote the actions of the north as a noble and justafiable cause.
 
Pat

that's reasonable.  it would be interesting to know what kind of country the south would have become if secession had been successful....  I don't like most yankees even though I am one.

[gstewart44]

I too have often wondered what the south would have been like today if secession had succeeded.   The Confederate states, with their new government would have kept slavery as an institution.   Long term relationships with England or France would  likely have been soured due to slavery.   
 
 I doubt the CS would be able to keep the "peculiar institution" in modern times.   Probably a system that mirrored South Africa's Apartheid would have developed,  making the CS outcast in the world view.   
 
Also the South's economy was agrarian and propped up on the shoulders of human labor - with the industrial revolution coming into play advancements/mechanisation in farming would have displaced the slave labor to a good extent. 
 
Just some thoughts.....

[BUGEYE]

England and France would have dumped then but I'd bet that Spain and some others would have jumped on the southern bandwagon to have exclusive trade with the south.
and slavery would probably have faded when new farming implements came along.

[subdjoe]

England and France would have dumped then but I'd bet that Spain and some others would have jumped on the southern bandwagon to have exclusive trade with the south.
and slavery would probably have faded when new farming implements came along.

Yep...another 20, 30 years and likely it would have died a quiet death by becoming uneconomical.  And then, as in the north when slavery became uneconomical, it would have been outlawed. 

[williamlayton]

It may have taken until well after the turn of the century for slavery to have become untenable in the South---if England or France had not cast greedy eyes on the possibilities.
I really am not sure that England would have left the South to its own devices and there is some justification that the Union would have been needed tostop such an invasion.
It is, of course, all speculation but these what if games do give the mind a chance to get outside the box.
Blessings

[DanChamberlain]

The south would probably have had to raise the debt ceiling and borrow money from China just to stay afloat!


And I'm a Yankee true blue.


Dan

[us920669]

Good one!  They would have clung to plantation agriculture until they wrecked the soil of the Mississippi Valley - only an agronomist could say how long that would have been.  Maybe they would have jumped over the Industrial Age and gone straight to IT.  Silicon Valley - let California grow oranges.   

[Hooker]

The south would probably have had to raise the debt ceiling and borrow money from China just to stay afloat!


And I'm a Yankee true blue.


Dan

You know the war could be considered America's first bailout. With the South free of the union they could trade goods as they seen fit with anyone they wished to do so with.  Europe was eager to to purchase goods from the South, but northern money movers pushed for  legislative actions to block this trading by the southern states. Tariffs and taxes were used to make such trading less attractive, and all the while the north controlled prices for the South's goods.  Northern textile and manufacturing would have suffered badly without many of the raw materials from the South.
After secession these northern elite, industrialists and their paid for politicians in order to regain their captive producers of raw materials, and keep their power pushed both countries into war. After all the north had just lost a large part of its agriculture infrastructure it could not afford to have losses in its industrial sectors also. They couldn't let them fail so what's a bunch of greedy materialist yankees to do? Push for war so the country in affect bailed them out.

Pat

[Hooker]

England and France would have dumped then but I'd bet that Spain and some others would have jumped on the southern bandwagon to have exclusive trade with the south.
and slavery would probably have faded when new farming implements came along.

Yep...another 20, 30 years and likely it would have died a quiet death by becoming uneconomical.  And then, as in the north when slavery became uneconomical, it would have been outlawed.

Interesting,
Slavery would have most likely held on just as long had the South not seceded. Had the South remained in the union no ratification of the Constitution would have been possible for some time. Lincoln would not have not have emancipated the slaves as slavery was not that much of an issue until after the war had started.  The industrial revolution would have killed slavery without any bloodshed and we would be looking at whole new history.

Pat

[SHOOTALL]

The north did not need slaves because the factories used steam and water power . When machine power found its way to the fields of the South slavery would die .

[SouthernByGrace]

England and France would have dumped then but I'd bet that Spain and some others would have jumped on the southern bandwagon to have exclusive trade with the south.
and slavery would probably have faded when new farming implements came along.

Interesting, Slavery would have most likely held on just as long had the South not seceded.Had the South remained in the union no ratification of the Constitution would have been possible for some time. Lincoln would not have not have emancipated the slaves as slavery was not that much of an issue until after the war had started. The industrial revolution would have killed slavery without any bloodshed and we would be looking at whole new history.

Pat

You bring up some Great points, Pat. But I do believe a little clarification is due here...


Had the South been determined to hang on to slavery (or expand it, as some believe), all they had to do was stay in the Union! Slavery was legal AND protected by the Constitution. They would have never had to fire a shot to keep the status quo... Had that been their goal in the first place, which it was not.


I couldn't agree more. Slavery would have died out naturally within a decade or so. We wouldn't have the welfare lifestyle that is literally enjoyed by so many in the modern day had the South been allowed the same form of gradual emancipation as in the North. Had the South been allowed to train the slaves so they could provide for themselves and their families upon attaining their freedom, instead of having freedom Forced on them, and literally thrown into the streets, we would definitely be looking at a very different history.   




SBG

[BAGTIC]

The fact is that a lot of  illiterate southern rednecks were conned by 'Massah' up in the 'Big House' to fight and die to maintain the plantation owners lifestyle.
Very few of the southern Big Wigs saw the front, same in the North. The difference is the Civil War conscription in gthe North caused the biggest riots in American history. The Yankees were at least smart enough to realize they were being taken for a ride.

[littlecanoe]

The fact is that a lot of  illiterate southern rednecks were conned by 'Massah' up in the 'Big House' to fight and die to maintain the plantation owners lifestyle.

Can you expand this statement?  Give it some legs?
lc

[williamlayton]

The Southern system of slavery did not benefit anyone but the slave owners--that is pretty simple.
The fact that English slave traders formed the West Indies company to perpetrate slavery for them is also a clue as to the thinking of slave traders in GB.
How can any here deny--with a clear conscious--that the Slave owners and slave traders had any desire to give up slavery and not expand it.
The declarations presented clearly show that was their goal.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

The Southern system of slavery did not benefit anyone but the slave owners--that is pretty simple.
The fact that English slave traders formed the West Indies company to perpetrate slavery for them is also a clue as to the thinking of slave traders in GB.
How can any here deny--with a clear conscious--that the Slave owners and slave traders had any desire to give up slavery and not expand it.
The declarations presented clearly show that was their goal.
Blessings

It was also of great benefit to northern capital and industry.  Cheap southern cotton was the grist for the mills in the north.  Brought a lot of income for northern industrialists.  Which was one of the other reasons for going to war to force the south to stay in the Union. 

Willie, I'm sure that the northern slave traders would have loved to see slavery expand.  And the laws against the importation of slaves struck from the books.  After all, it wasn't southern shipwrights who built the slave ships or converted others into slavers.  It wasn't southern distilleries that made the rum, nor southern mills or factories that turned out the cloth and other goods to trade for human flesh.  Nor did southerners in any great numbers crew slave ships.  So I'm sure that a great number of northerners would have loved to see slavery expanded. 

 

[BUGEYE]

SBG,  I'm confused.  where in the constitution does it protect slave owners?   I was under the impression that all men were created equal.

[subdjoe]

SBG,  I'm confused.  where in the constitution does it protect slave owners?   I was under the impression that all men were created equal.

Simple, the northern slave traders needed slaves to be considered property, so that got written into the Constitution.  And, during the Continental Congress (which to be consistent, the northern apologists here should condemn as a meeting of traitors plotting treason), there was much dissent from the north on the section written by that Southern gentleman and scholar Thomas Jefferson condemning black chattel slavery in the Declaration of Independence (from which the phrase you trumpet comes).

By the way. 
Art 1, sec 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.)

Art 1, sec. 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

You are making the mistake most northern apologists make of applying well developed egalitarian 21st century mores to the emerging ideals of late 18th century.  A bit of news for you, what is the reality now is not the reality of our ancestors. 

Heck, even your hero, St. Abe the Honest, thought Blacks to be untermenchen not to be trusted with the rights and responsibilities of free men.

[BUGEYE]

well Joe, I have 3 heros.... Jesus, my dad and Roy Rogers, in that order.  abe is not in that group.
the part of the constitution you pasted refers to indentured servants who owed money for passage to america etc.  there has never been anything in the constitution saying it's okay to own slaves.
you are really grasping on this one.
the first ancestor of mine to hit these shores came from france as an indentured servant and worked several years to pay off his passage.

[williamlayton]

Let's be honest here.
There were a number of folks--north and south--who maade a living off the slave trade. There were a number of folks in the north who did not disagree with slavery.
in the same vein--there were a number of folks in the south who disagreed with slavery. Some by moral conviction and some by financial thought. Slavery hindered the south in producing labor and jobs to white southerners.
The fact is the south produced cheap cotton---that is about all they produced, well, and fortunes for select southern gentlemen--I use that term in the most demeaning way it can sound.
They had no interest in anyone but their own well being--not one human other than their greed.
They used the blood of white southern boys to protect their greed, without one tear for the loss of any life it took.
The north, while just as greedy, at least provided jobs and opportunity for the labor market at slave wages. It would take another 60 years---about the time slavery would have become worthless--at which time the slave owners would have just turned to white slavery, using those men, boys and children for the jobs, while paying slave wages for them.
The north was forced, by the shedding of blood, and organized labor to adjust from slave wages to living wages.
Now you can bitch about labor unions today--with some amount of honesty---but the industrialist could have avoided this if they had just thought about anybody but their fat wallets. Greed was and is the creator of most conflicts in this world--and--wars, which are heaped on the back of the average citizen in the name of anything except what it is--greed.
As soon as we figger this out--and--we will not--wars will cease.
Soap box is clear.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Of course, Willy, you could also say that northern industrialists used the blood of ignorant northern boys to protect their greed, without one tear for the loss of any life it took.  And with greater honesty, since the south wanted to peacefully leave the Union, while the north was willing to go to war to support the greed of northern bankers and industrialists. 

[littlecanoe]

The Southern system of slavery did not benefit anyone but the slave owners--that is pretty simple.
The fact that English slave traders formed the West Indies company to perpetrate slavery for them is also a clue as to the thinking of slave traders in GB.
How can any here deny--with a clear conscious--that the Slave owners and slave traders had any desire to give up slavery and not expand it.
The declarations presented clearly show that was their goal.
Blessings

WL, I won't say that they wouldn't benefit.  Many did benefit on both sides of the Mason Dixon.  Slavery was wrong.  My biggest concern in these discussions is the continued insisting that slavery was the primary issue whether directly or indirectly. 

I'd still like Bagtic to explain his statement, "  illiterate southern rednecks were conned by 'Massah'".  Obviously a statement to stir the pot rather than add to the discussion.  Such statements also fly in the face of reason and the simple ability that each now has to resource information.  Such statements reflect a lack of reading and study or a refusal to study the issues and understand them.  SDJ pointed out that such a view as BT made could be made on both sides.

To say that the northern states were fighting for the freedom of the slave alone is a monumental stretch of the imagination and bends reason to the point of breaking.  We need go no further than the title "Union Army" to see the purpose of the men in Blue.  They were fighting to stop secession.   

What man in this discussion would willingly put his life on the line for those that he did not know?  Did the Dough Boys in WWI or the GI's in WWII go to war to fight for those poor oppressed Europeans, Chinese, Phillipino's? (sp?).  We know enough of that history to know that they did not.  They were fighting for country seeing our Liberty in peril.   In the same way, how can we project feelings and emotions on the men in Blue and Gray that we have not witnessed in any recent war that we have observed and studied? 

The Unionists saw Liberty defined in terms of preserving the nation as a whole as it had looked prior to the Southern Declaration of Independence.  The Secessionists saw Liberty in terms of preserving the right to self government.  These are the primary causes of the war.  This is backed up by the reasons that the men who fought left us in their writings.  To make the primary reason something else is revision of history.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with the hard cold fact that either way, war fought or war averted, the nation has gone down hill since that time in terms of Liberty.

That's mho.  However, YMMV. 

Striving for consistency,
lc

[BUGEYE]

I asked SBG a question and Joe answered it with a pretty ugly reply, so here is the truth.

Our new government is founded on the opposite idea of the equality of the races... its cornerstone rests upon the great TRUTH that the negro is not equal to the white man.  this government is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical and moral TRUTH.

from A.H. Stephens, confederate vice president.

government founded on slavery.

[subdjoe]

Yes, the truth can be ugly, Bugeye. Especially when it knocks your bigoted notions over like ten pins.  What was ugly about it?  I pointed out the history, that the north benefited as much from slavery as did the south, maybe more, and the sections of the Constitution that gave sanction to slavery.  And you call that "ugly." 


You are conflating one of the reasons for secession with why the north wanted, in fact needed, the War.  Again, if it were only about slavery, all the deep south needed to do was to stay in the Union and ratify the Corwin Amendment.  Done deal, perpetual slavery in the US.  Why would it risk war if it were only about slavery when it would have been so simple to keep it?  Amazing that none of the northern apologists ever attempt an answer to that question.

From the GA bill of secession:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Yep....it was ONLY about slavery.

Which the War was not.  The WAR was northern capital needing to force the south to remain in the Union in order to keep financing the north with southern gold. 

I asked SBG a question and Joe answered it with a pretty ugly reply, so here is the truth.

Our new government is founded on the opposite idea of the equality of the races... its cornerstone rests upon the great TRUTH that the negro is not equal to the white man.  this government is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical and moral TRUTH.

from A.H. Stephens, confederate vice president.

government founded on slavery.