How Can You Call It The War Of Northern Aggression

[BUGEYE]

Joe, people like Hooker can answer questions that makes sense and don't piss anyone off. you on the other hand take all this stuff seriously and the anger can be seen in your words. telling me that abe is my hero, he's not.  I won't try to use all the big words that you did, but I was accused of a lot of things that I'm not.  plus, when you answer WilliamLayton, you use the term Willie.  that shows how angry you are and is very disrespectful.
you start most of the threads here and most lead to a fight of some kind.  you need to get a life that doesn't involve this kind of stuff.

our cannons were better than your cannons.

[subdjoe]

He calls me Joe, as do you.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to shorten his, or your, screen name?  Why is the one familiarity just fine, but the other an expression of "anger?"  A little double standard there, don't you think?

Yeah, maybe I don't beat around the bush with nebulous phrasing that can't be pinned down and that I can weasel my way out of and make the claim that I never actually said what my words plainly mean.  That is not at all even close to "anger."  Really weak there, BUGEYE, having to stoop to pointing a finger and hurling accusations of anger.

Oh, by the way, your claim that I start most of the threads here and most of them lead to fights is well wide of the mark.  Of the 53 or so threads on the first two pages only about ten are ones I started.  Of those five have very few comments, and no significant discussion one way or the other (other than someone complaining about having to scroll past a few pages on one of them    )

And for the most part CS artillery was just fine.  After all, many guns were generously donated by the federal ordnance department at places like Manassas and Chancellorsville.      
On a serious note, the Confederate produced Parrots, bronze and iron Napoleons, and a few others, were equal in service to the northern produced ones.  The biggest problem was there were too few works to produce them. And the south didn't have the manufacturing capability to produce Ordnance Rifles.  The wrought iron reinforce for the Parrott, yes, but the large tubes for the Griffin, no. 

CS fuses were another matter. Sucked big brown horse apples.

Joe, people like Hooker can answer questions that makes sense and don't piss anyone off. you on the other hand take all this stuff seriously and the anger can be seen in your words. telling me that abe is my hero, he's not.  I won't try to use all the big words that you did, but I was accused of a lot of things that I'm not.  plus, when you answer WilliamLayton, you use the term Willie.  that shows how angry you are and is very disrespectful.
you start most of the threads here and most lead to a fight of some kind.  you need to get a life that doesn't involve this kind of stuff.

our cannons were better than your cannons.

[BUGEYE]

Joe,  you must be one of them angels I've always heard about.
not really, you have a lot of anger in you and it boils over at the slightest provocation.
have you thought of counseling?  I had a friend one time that really benefited from it

[subdjoe]

Joe,  you must be one of them angels I've always heard about.
not really, you have a lot of anger in you and it boils over at the slightest provocation.
have you thought of counseling?  I had a friend one time that really benefited from it

I see you are sinking even lower, Bug.  (hey, you can shorten my name, so I should be able to shorten yours, right?).   You should stop digging while you can still see over the edge of the hole you are in.

Care to get back on topic?  Or will you just continue your personal attacks?

[williamlayton]

I have no idea what sub is in joe---I do know what joe is. Call me anything just call me when dinner is served.
Are you a woman? Seems to be the case, you only hear what you want and disregard the rest.
BTW--read all I said and you will find I agree that the north paid slave labor---read the whole of the thought.
Joe, the south fought a war for the very few who would benefit--the slave owners.
There were reagional differences but n &s Carolina, virginia and a couple of others wanted slavery. you keep harping that the south just wanted to leave peaceably. What is it that you don't understand that that was never going to be allowed and they knew it---they prepared for it and they accepted the responsibility for it.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

I have no idea what sub is in joe---I do know what joe is. Call me anything just call me when dinner is served.
Are you a woman? Seems to be the case, you only hear what you want and disregard the rest.
BTW--read all I said and you will find I agree that the north paid slave labor---read the whole of the thought.
Joe, the south fought a war for the very few who would benefit--the slave owners.
There were reagional differences but n &s Carolina, virginia and a couple of others wanted slavery. you keep harping that the south just wanted to leave peaceably. What is it that you don't understand that that was never going to be allowed and they knew it---they prepared for it and they accepted the responsibility for it.
Blessings

That is "subd" not just "sub."  Short for subdeacon.  And you could have found out by asking, couldn't you?  Not that it bothers me to be called "Joe"  but diminutives should be a two way street, shouldn't they?   

The deep south did prepare for war, yes.  It would have been stupid not to, given the voices in the north being raise about forcing them back into the Union.  If I hear neighbors talking about attacking me I'm not just going to sit still and say 'Oh, everything is fine, I don't need to worry.'  I'll make sure I have some means of protection.  By the reasoning of some here that makes me the aggressor.  I don't quite understand that.

But it did not declare war.  Neither did it send troops to invade the north. 

[BUGEYE]

substitutedeaconjoe,  first you call me a northern apologist, wrong!!  you're the one who gets ugly and starts defending your beliefs.  then you trashed lincoln and said he's my hero.wrong!!
then you call ME a bigot.
I was always a southern sympathizer until I moved south.... a few months back I got involved in an argument at walmart where a guy was verbally beating down an older gentleman about the civil war.
I never new the old mans name, but we had coffee there about 3 times a week and since his beatdown he hasn't been back.  probably afraid the guy would get physical if he saw him again.
Hooker made a very astute observation, he said some scars run deep, but sometimes ignorance runs deeper.  I think you fit that last part very well.

[williamlayton]

Joe---one friend to another--dutch uncle talk---you anger is very evident. Take a deep breath and step back and examine it. It would serve you well.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

substitutedeaconjoe,

Cute, and very wrong.  You need to do some research into the different roles.


 first you call me a northern apologist, wrong!!

No.  That is what you are here:

a·pol·o·gist ( -p l -j st). n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. 


 you're the one who gets ugly and starts defending your beliefs.

Again you are calling fact ugly.  The south had no plans to invade the north. 

  then you trashed lincoln and said he's my hero.wrong!!

Calling him your hero is trashing him?   OK, if you say so.  But you do parrot his view.  What am I supposed to think?

then you call ME a bigot.

You express what I see as an unreasonable hate for the south and southerners. 


I was always a southern sympathizer until I moved south

AH!!!


.... a few months back I got involved in an argument at walmart where a guy was verbally beating down an older gentleman about the civil war.
I never new the old mans name, but we had coffee there about 3 times a week and since his beatdown he hasn't been back.  probably afraid the guy would get physical if he saw him again.

Hmmm....so then, using your reasoning here, since I have witnessed, and been subjected to, tirades that bordered on violence by northern sympathizers, I guess expressing hate for anything supporting the north is justified?  Or is that again one of those things that only works one way?   

Hooker made a very astute observation, he said some scars run deep, but sometimes ignorance runs deeper.  I think you fit that last part very well.

So you have no intent of going back on topic, you will just continue your personal attacks.   

So, other than my guesses at your personal opinions about Lincoln, what have I posted that was wrong?  That Lincoln was poised to attack the deep south to force it back into the Union?  Is that wrong?   That the north got benefit from the south providing about 70% of federal revenue, which was mostly spent to benefit northern infrastructure?  Was that wrong?  That the north was a major player in the African slave trade?  Is that wrong? 

You call me ignorant (well, not directly, you commented on a comment about ignorance running deep, and then said that fit me...not you, yourself calling me ignorant).  Ignorance is lack of knowledge, so, inform me. In those things I mentioned in the paragraph above show me what is wrong.

[BUGEYE]

things were going fine until I asked a question of SBG.  I had never heard of that being in the constitution and asked where.  that's when you went on a rant.  you need to go back and read your posts.  everybody here can discuss things as gentlemen except YOU.
you make other southerners look bad by association.  I wish the south HAD won the war and we would probably have seen the changes that were discussed here.  and luckily, most of the southerners here are Not like yourself and it  would have been a great place to live.  I love it down here until I run into people like you.  happily, the vast majority of southerners are your opposite.

[subdjoe]

Lincoln, in his inaugural address, seemed perfectly content to allow the deep south to leave the Union with the caveat that federal tariffs be paid.  Isn't that the same as if England had decided to let the colonies go, so long as they continued to pay taxes to England?  How does that make any sense?  He also promised to go in with the bayonet if the states that had left the Union failed to pay up, basically to pay tribute to a foreign country.   

Sumter?  Lincoln's Secretary of State had promised to evacuate it.  The Confederacy had promised to pay for it.  Lincoln refused to honor the promises made by his administration, and sent armed troops and ships of the line to "resupply" Sumter.  How is that not an act of aggression?

SecState Seward said "It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use force to subjugate the South."

[us920669]

I'll be a fool and rush in.  Yes, the Yanks tricked the hotheads into firing the first shot, thereby sealing their fate.


On the Constitutional question, technically the Supreme Court has the last say on such things.  Under Dred Scott, Mr. Scott had no rights and was the property of his owner no matter where he went or anything that happened to him.  Only his owner could free him.  I in no way support Dred Scott, it was terrible law and was zeroed out by the 14th Amendment, but in 1861 a person could say with complete confidence that the Constitution protected slavery.


Let me also point out that the Confederate officer corps, who often led from the front, was drawn largely from the aristocracy.  Many a rich planter had his son come home in a box. 

[BUGEYE]

US92, now THAT was a good answer.  I don't study the civil war because the books of yanks and rebs are biased toward their own side and it's history isn't studied much in school.  sometimes I ask questions of the folks who have studied and make posts that I don't understand. your reference to dred scott triggered a vague memory and gave me something to look up.
thx

[williamlayton]

When conflict broke out---for whatever reason or by whose deeds--the supreme court was taken out of the picture. It then became armed conflict and not a legal matter.
Again---I think it was an inevitable happening.
Blessings

[eastbank]

i still think, john w. booth did more than the war to hurt the souths cause after the war. the presedent would have been a whole lot better towards the south had he not been killed than what followed after his killing. the southern men were told to simply go home after the war,not to reeuducation camps or prisons,but home where ever that was. eastbank.

[BUGEYE]

i still think, john w. booth did more than the war to hurt the souths cause after the war. the presedent would have been a whole lot better towards the south had he not been killed than what followed after his killing. the southern men were told to simply go home after the war,not to reeuducation camps or prisons,but home where ever that was. eastbank.

yeah, a small bunch of radicals ruined things for thousands of southern vets.

[eastbank]

seven of my relitives fought in the GAR and i never heard a bad story from my grandfather who grew up with these and other union veterans of the civil war, only the great admeration they held for the southern fighting men. and what happened when the southren men got home was horrible, as the country was bled dry. it was better in the north,but with the sudden influx of returning army men,it was no picnic for years either. eastbank.

[BUGEYE]

I had a cousin that died at andersonville prison.  they've got their records in good shape.
was able to find cousins grave with no problem.

[subdjoe]

I had a relative that went into Point Lookout.  He never came out.  Of over 14,000 known to have died there, less than 4,000 are listed by the government on the monument there.  He is one of the over 10,000 that isn't on any list.

[BUGEYE]

maybe they wouldn't give their names?

[SouthernByGrace]

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

To answer your 1st question, I'll start here:

Slavery and/or slave owners, as you put it, are protected by the Constitution in several places within that document...

1. Article I, Section II (Slaves count as 3/5 persons)

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 determines 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. [i.e. SLAVES] This section protected the slaves by way of their enumeration, citing them as valuable enough to be protected by the Constitution. It protected the slave owner by adding to his enumeration, which determined his representation in Congress. As a side note: The South tried to have slaves fully enumerated (counted as a full person) but the Northern controlled Congress refused.


2. Article I, Section IX, Clause I (NO Power to Ban Slavery)

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. Congress could not act against importation of slaves until 1808, and even then, slaves were taxed at $10 each, making them a LEGAL Protected commodity, both North and South.  

3. Article IV, Section II (FREE States Cannot Protect Slaves)

No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. The Constitution clearly protects the Slave Owner and requires a Free State to return any escaped Slave (Property) to his owner upon Claim. This is also clearly a Constitutional Protection of Slavery, itself.

4. Article V (NO Constitutional Amendment)

...NO Amendment which may be made prior to the Year (1808) shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the ninth Section of the first Article. This one is self-explanatory...



Now, for your Second question, you are confused on the Meaning of "all men are created equal." Do you feel a murderer is equal to you in every aspect? Or maybe a rapist? Or someone who cheats on his/her taxes? Or a child molester? Or that you are equal to them in every aspect? Race has absolutely Nothing to do with the meaning of this phrase. 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." -Thomas Jefferson
No single phrase in American history contains as much hope and promise and, at the same time, causes so much anger, frustration, and despair!! To promise an entire population that all will be equal (i.e., enjoy equal wealth, influence, services received, etc.) is to guarantee a communist existence. Such a thought has always been and continues to be anathema to the individualistic heritage of the South. What then did Thomas Jefferson mean when he penned this "self-evident" phrase?

In the early days of the American Republic, the term referred to equality before God and the law. It was an open attack against the then-prevalent concept of the divine right of kings. Later in the American setting, it came to mean equality of opportunity (i.e., that no one should be arbitrarily barred from the rights protected by law or from access to public services). In short, it was and still is good public policy to encourage all to compete in the marketplace because such free enterprise leads to lower prices and a better quality of goods and services.

Jefferson did not mean that all people are endowed with the same qualities, characteristics, and talents. As part of the American aristocracy, he knew that some people possessed skills and talents superior to others. But this fact did not change their standing before God and the law. The concept of equality encourages and protects liberty.

Equality of Opportunity does not mean Equality of Outcome. Many Southern slaves who gained their freedom (from whatever means) had the same Equality of Opportunity as any white man did. That equality could never be the same for the outcome. As with any American, the outcome is directly related to the effort put into, say, a business. Many free Southern blacks prospered in business and even owned land. They enjoyed the exact same Equality of Opportunity as whites.

To assume "all men are created equal" (in the context of Jefferson, and in the time in which it was written) means anything other than what I have stated here is irresponsible thinking and downright dangerous.


SouthernByGrace
DEO VINDICE
 

[Brewster]

so,in levying War against the United States, or in adhering to our Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort the southern firebrands burned down their own houses

[williamlayton]

War is hell Brewster--it is fought to be won.
Blessings
 

[Brewster]

Agreed.  And the south brought down hell upon themselves.

[Hooker]

Yankees will never get it.
Because of the things that were done on both side before during and after the war there was no victory.
You think that South brought down hell on it's self.
Things that the north did to the Constitution and to the liberty of all Americans did not stop when the war ended.
We still suffer from those things on both sides of the Mason Dixon.
So don't salute your self to much remember what happen at Fort Sumter. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_sumter.html

Pat

[Brewster]

Why is it then that the south piss and whine about it more?

[Hooker]

Brewster you have no idea what the South endured during and after the war do you ?
Why don't you study the subject then tell me why the north gloats about it.

Pat

[williamlayton]

I know what the South suffered and all the hell that it went thru---the better part of it they brought in theirownselves for the things they did after the war was over.
The South has never let it die.
Nobody outside the South cares anymore and nothing the South brings up will change anything.
You can cry about the constitution---but blame most all of that on the Dixiecrats who did it after the war---talk about a socialist bunch of folks.
Blessings

[Hooker]

talk about a socialist bunch of folks.
Blessings

William you are right atrocities always mean more to the folks they were performed upon than the folks who performed them.
And the South did make a lot of bad decisions that came back to bite them in the shorts.
But really? socialists? That's a funny name to call folks who were living under the boot heels tyrants, murderers, thieves and rapists posing as patriots and representing a "government of the people and by the people"  .

Pat

[williamlayton]

They took the Phrase "By the people and FOR the people" to a whole new level. You can blame roosevelt and His misses for it but he didn't start legislation of welfare--his henchmen, the Dixiecrats went whole hog on it---still do. You forget your favorite  Dixiecrat, th Senator from NC, the famous bigot who pushed this socialist legislation ?
AND, yes, we Texans had a great part to play in this also--TWO LONGTIME SENATORS AND A LIFELONG SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. We were fools and I voted for them so that makes me a bigger fool than them.
Blessings