How Can You Call It The War Of Northern Aggression

[Hooker]

William then we are all fools sir

Pat

[BUGEYE]

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.

I thought sub was short for substittute, but while I was away I read up on subdeacon and found that there reallly is such a thing in your church. (my apologies) during my reading I found that a subdeacon should pattern themselves after the bishop, being very humble and being VERY gentle in their interactions with other people.

[BUGEYE]

You express what I see as an unreasonable hate for the south and southerners. 
"words of subdjoe"
you will never find where I said anything bad about the south, I love it here, and only a handful of southerners who show bitterness.

[subdjoe]

I thought sub was short for substittute, but while I was away I read up on subdeacon and found that there reallly is such a thing in your church. (my apologies) during my reading I found that a subdeacon should pattern themselves after the bishop, being very humble and being VERY gentle in their interactions with other people.

Read up on some of the Cappadocian and Nicean fathers.  Also check into St. Nicholas and Arius.  Then get back to me about "very gentle."

[BUGEYE]

I thought sub was short for substittute, but while I was away I read up on subdeacon and found that there reallly is such a thing in your church. (my apologies) during my reading I found that a subdeacon should pattern themselves after the bishop, being very humble and being VERY gentle in their interactions with other people.

Read up on some of the Cappadocian and Nicean fathers.  Also check into St. Nicholas and Arius.  Then get back to me about "very gentle."

hmmm, I apologized but I guess you don't meet those qualifications... oh well.
btw, I thought st. nicholas was santa clause.

[subdjoe]

I thought sub was short for substittute, but while I was away I read up on subdeacon and found that there reallly is such a thing in your church. (my apologies) during my reading I found that a subdeacon should pattern themselves after the bishop, being very humble and being VERY gentle in their interactions with other people.

Read up on some of the Cappadocian and Nicean fathers.  Also check into St. Nicholas and Arius.  Then get back to me about "very gentle."

hmmm, I apologized but I guess you don't meet those qualifications... oh well.
btw, I thought st. nicholas was santa clause.

Yes, you kinda, sorta  apologized while delivering a short lecture on Church history.  Have you bothered to at least look up Nicholas and Arius?

[BUGEYE]

I did apologize, you did not accept, that's your choice.  yes I read up on subdeacons which included bishops as a comparison.  I don't think I need to read further.

[subdjoe]

I did apologize, you did not accept, that's your choice.  yes I read up on subdeacons which included bishops as a comparison.  I don't think I need to read further.

Of course you don't.  Here:

Old Saint Nick has another side to his character. Here he is seen striking down Arius, speaking at the invitation of the assembled bishops at the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325. They had gathered to judge Arius' doctrine, and so watched in astonishment as Bishop Nicholas of Myra rose up and struck him forcefully to the ground.



For acting in this illegal and shocking manner before the Emperor Constantine, the bishops removed Bishop Nicholas from their council and stripped him of his office of bishop. Legend holds that both the Virgin Mary and Jesus visited him that night in jail, asking him why he was behind bars. "Because of my love for you," was the reply.

Mary and Jesus restored to him his bishop's robe and gave him the Holy Scriptures to study while in jail. When Constantine heard of this "miracle," he restored both the bishop's office to Nicholas and his place at the council. Not surprisingly, the council ended up siding with Nicholas and against Arius.

Our fathers in the faith were bold, strong, opinionated, vigorous, passionate men, not the milquetoasts they are portrayed as all too often by Hollywood or modern artists.

So, have at.  I'll not be responding to you again.

[BUGEYE]

subdjoe, I read the current qualification for subdeacon  but you throw in ancient history to try to justify bad behavior.
I'll add you to my prayer list.

[williamlayton]

That is not ancient history--that is ancient legend, which I don't believe--a fairy tale, if you will.
Blessings

[BUGEYE]

WL,  you're not talking about santa clause,  are you?

[littlecanoe]

Thought that this cartoon might best fit this thread.  Enjoy.
lc

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Lincoln-toon1.jpg

[Cabin4]

....when the South fired the first shots?

they fired on an invading force. Invasion, the first act of aggression from the north.

[williamlayton]

Who was there first? Who did it belong to? Who were the newcomers and what were they stealing? Is rebellion an act of treason---no matter what the philosophy behind it?
Now---the South did it, they tried, gave it a shot (not the best shot they could have) and it didn't work out in their favor.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

How could rebellion by a State in the United States be an act of treason? The States joined the Union at free will. The States formed the Union, the Union did not form the States. So it is not possible for a State to be treasonous in the desire and act of separation from that which they had an original option to not union. The real act of treason was the act to stop their desire to leave the Union.
 
If the USA departed from the UN, is that an act of treason? If Germany desired to leave the EU, is that an act of treason?

[williamlayton]

My opinion is, when they joined in they joined for life.
I think if taken before the Supreme Court that is how they would have found the acts of secession and declared it mutiny/treason.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

My opinion is, when they joined in they joined for life.
Blessings

WL, This is where I have to part with you in thought.  The ideas of the Founding fathers won't and don't take us there, for more that one reason.

Cabin4 said it best: "The States formed the Union, the Union did not form the States."

The idea of Union cannot be paramount and sacred above all things.  This is to equate large and bloated government with goodness.  I would call to mind the quote, "He governs best who governs lease". 

There was enough tension that the Union could never persevere in the native state in which it was formed.  The southern states sought to preserve that which was won for them by our founding fathers sacred pledge and oath, their sacrifice, by forming or reforming a protected Union.  Let's not forget that sacrifice.  Let's not let that thought be removed from the thinking that forms the base of our understanding of this issue. 

The Civil War, WONA, WFSF was a repeat of the American Revolution on several fronts.  HOW in the world can we decry the one as evil and hold the other up as sacred.  Please, don't go back to slavery here.  There were much deeper issues involved that disallow the slavery argument and I hold slavery as an evil.

[williamlayton]

The states did form the union---there was no union to direct the states to do it---that is a given.
Those states that did form it wrote it up--no one forced them to join----matter of fact a few did take their time.
It was a called a nation--not a confederacy-- a union is indivisable by design.
Now that is looking thru rose colored glasses I agree---because men do mainly what they want--specially after wakeing from a nap and still groggy.
There is nothing that can stop a people from attempting anything--certainly not a piece of paper.
So I agree that they could try it & did try it. Well, they tried and lost.
Kinda like robbing a liquor store and finding the owner armed better than you.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

So then are you agreeing that the tyranny of the northern states through brute force overcame the weaker people and that the weaker brethren were right in their quest for freedom?   

[williamlayton]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a Bubba act---here, hold my beer and watch this, on the part of the South. 
There is nothing illegal about a revolution that works. In the future it will be called a rightous act-----now, IF'N you lose--as did the South---well, just sayin.
Blessings

[gandog56]

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?

Invasion is invasion.

Hard to call it an invasion since they were already there before the war started.

[SHOOTALL]

most when they say that refeer to Bull run and after.

[williamlayton]

YES! I agree with that statement----however---it is to cover their tracks.
Folks---- I was raised in the South, Southwest actually, learned all the untruths as though they were truths---heard all the myths.
I have studied the rebellion from every angle, and, it was a rebellion.
I find no credence to the thought that they had a right---I said they had a right to try---and they did---it was a misinterpreted righ of gross misunderstanding as to the nature of the contract----they tried it in the court of WAR and got their behinds kicked all the way back to Mexico (in some cases) and lost any right of appeal.
We may be on the verge of another attempt---who knows---if it works we will be judged by another court of history somewhere down the line.
The best we can hope for is that we don't pull another Bubba revoltion that is lost before it begins-----one that will have some amount of backing in the courts of world public opinion--not squarely in the minds of a few Bubbas, as was the case in he last.
It was a stupid act by some grossly stupid people and cost the lives of some equally stupid followers to a less than glorious death.
BTW---those stupid people did not go away until the early 20th century---they kept up their stupid acts .
Blessings

[jdt48653]

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

[jdt48653]

kind of the way the indian nation felt after their land was pillaged and raped,but then the pilgrims needed a new start as they were being opressed by england.what a joke!

[SHOOTALL]

....when the South fired the first shots?

they fired on an invading force. Invasion, the first act of aggression from the north.

anyone who has even tried to determine real history knows the fact is the NORTH fired on Southern troops in Fl. a few days before the South fired on the north.

[wncchester]

"our cannons were better than your cannons. "
 
Actually, most of our cannon and powder had originally been 'your' cannon and powder!   
 
Why is it properly called the War of Northern Aggression?  Well, to keep it basic, consider that the South never wished to rule the North, as proven by the fact the South never had designs on capturing Washington.  All we wanted was to be left alone but we weren't allowed that previlidge.  We were first invaded and then delt with as a conquered nation for decades afterwards; in fact, we still are in many respects.
 
 
"anyone who has even tried to determine real history knows the fact is the NORTH fired on Southern troops in Fl. a few days before the South fired on the north."

Well, few people try to determine the 'truth' but such details really don't matter. 
 
Bottom line, after secession Lincoln was going to force a war with the South no matter who did what or where or when AND they all knew the wealth and man power of the North insured who would lose.  It turned out more difficult than they expected but war does generate profits.  The wealthy northern business men and their paid for politicians who originally pushed to control the South's agriculteral economy through Federal taxation were going to be satisfied one way or another.  The war that followed wasn't what they had planned but it provided them far more wealth than their original ideas could have - and it came quicker too.

[oldsoldja]

'Endeavor to persevere'

[gstewart44]

Gotta love LoneWahti!

[Dresden]

Very simple, because it was Northern Aggression. 
The Northern gangsters, especially the New York bunch that still causes trouble today, needed an excuse to crush the South.
Cotton was becoming a world commodity and the Northern mills didn't want any price competition from Europe. 

The other problem was the religious radicals were causing trouble over the slavery issue, just like today with abortion and other issues, the Yankee taliban has to tell somebody else how to live.

I don't blame the Southerners, I hate those yankees myself, they call where I live "Fly over Country" and we are happy as hell they don't land and get off.

Imagine you are calm and happy in your life, then you get bothered by a flock of "Mayor Bloomberg"
types telling you how big a glass of Coke you can have.....I'd shoot too.