I tend to think Lincoln is a bit overrated like most icons but this is a goood quote

Carp said:
What negotiations did Lincoln have with the South? Please enlighten me.

The South wanted to be left alone. The South did not want to go to war. They were protecting their homes from an invading army.

And I never once said that slavery was not part of the reason for the War. But states rights was the cause, of which slavery certainly consisted of that.
Click to expand...

What a ****ty history teacher you had.

The south started the war by bombarding Ft. Sumter. I guess Lincoln was invading them with ****ing ghosts hahaha.

Slavery was the cause of the civil war. States rights was the rallying cry so the poor folk who didn't own slaves (aka the ones dying in the war) would fight. If they strictly said "We're doing this to own slaves" most people would be like, "Nah, **** you" if slavery wasn't the main reason, then why didn't the resolution to ban importing African SLaves pass? Despite the massive potential boom from it?
 
Hawk said:
I wish that we could step outside of this kind of oversimplified postmodern viewpoint on slavery in the context of the Civil War. I mean, you are seriously going to have trouble finding a sane person who would ever defend slavery -- on any level. However, is it so unfathomable to assert that slavery might have been extinguishable without going to war? We know that abolition was a preeminent issue in the mid-1800s with somewhat broad national support, even in the South. Industrialism was beginning to supplant the agrarian way of life. The tide appeared to be changing, slowly, but surely.

But then you have the war, which came at an enormous cost to the fledgling nation in literally every aspect of its being; lives, money, innovation, global stature, etc. These are effects so profound that they are STILL playing out sociopolitically as well as economically.

Not to detract from the immediate positives of the war, or even to really suggest that Lincoln's strategy wasn't the only path which would have ultimately worked ... it's just sometimes a beneficial academic exploration to revise history.
Click to expand...

Yes, it wouldhave been. It would have died. BUT the South decided to revolt for the right to own slaves cause they saw the writing on the wall as the free states were well on their way to crushing them, especially with the 1850 compromise that wouldn't allow slavery in expansion.
 
zitothebrave said:
What a ****ty history teacher you had.

The south started the war by bombarding Ft. Sumter. I guess Lincoln was invading them with ****ing ghosts hahah
Click to expand...

Except that Fort Sumter (which is 15 minutes from my house by boat) was a Union outpost in Confederate territory which Lincoln not only refused to abandon but also kept trying to supply.
 
Hawk said:
Except that Fort Sumter (which is 15 minutes from my house by boat) was a Union outpost in Confederate territory which Lincoln not only refused to abandon but also kept trying to supply.
Click to expand...

So he kept trying to keep his people in place. If the South was interested in negotiating as Carpe insists, attacking someone isn't a good way to start. I can get to a point turning away aid, but I don't get attacking, unless your goal is to provoke war. If the Germans were to attack our bases in Germany wouldn't we view that as an act of war?
 
Hawk said:
Except that Fort Sumter (which is 15 minutes from my house by boat) was a Union outpost in Confederate territory which Lincoln not only refused to abandon but also kept trying to supply.
Click to expand...

In their eyes, there was no such thing as Confederate territory.
 
zitothebrave said:
So he kept trying to keep his people in place. If the South was interested in negotiating as Carpe insists, attacking someone isn't a good way to start. I can get to a point turning away aid, but I don't get attacking, unless your goal is to provoke war. If the Germans were to attack our bases in Germany wouldn't we view that as an act of war?
Click to expand...

Fort Sumter is at the mouth of Charleston harbor and the Confederacy was concerned about it being used to essentially lay siege to the city by restricting supply lines, etc. The Confederacy actually offered to buy the fort before attacking it. Seward even wanted to give it to the South to placate the rising tensions.
 
Gary82 said:
In their eyes, there was no such thing as Confederate territory.
Click to expand...

In Lincoln's eyes, yes, but this wasn't a view universally shared by everybody in his cabinet. Others wanted to compromise. Abe took a hard line.
 
Julio3000 said:
I mentioned it in another thread, but it bears repeating: fortunes were made North, South, and overseas on the slave economy. I hope nobody is glossing that over in the discussion. But that's isn't really at issue here.
Click to expand...

It usually does get glossed over in these discussions. I make it a point to not let us forget. ;-) Damn Yankees and all.
 
zitothebrave said:
What a ****ty history teacher you had.

The south started the war by bombarding Ft. Sumter. I guess Lincoln was invading them with ****ing ghosts hahaha.

Slavery was the cause of the civil war. States rights was the rallying cry so the poor folk who didn't own slaves (aka the ones dying in the war) would fight. If they strictly said "We're doing this to own slaves" most people would be like, "Nah, **** you" if slavery wasn't the main reason, then why didn't the resolution to ban importing African SLaves pass? Despite the massive potential boom from it?
Click to expand...

South Carolina was 1 state acting alone at Ft. Sumter. And SC tried numerous times to negotiate the forfeit of Fort Sumter without a shot being fired.
 
Hawk said:
Except that Fort Sumter (which is 15 minutes from my house by boat) was a Union outpost in Confederate territory which Lincoln not only refused to abandon but also kept trying to supply.
Click to expand...

This. The Union was trying to reinforce Ft. Sumter well before the 1st shots were fired. That certainly seemed like a threatening act to the civilians of SC.
 
Hawk said:
Fort Sumter is at the mouth of Charleston harbor and the Confederacy was concerned about it being used to essentially lay siege to the city by restricting supply lines, etc. The Confederacy actually offered to buy the fort before attacking it. Seward even wanted to give it to the South to placate the rising tensions.
Click to expand...

As I said, if they wanted to refuse aid, that's one thing. They attacked it. You attack a fort it's a declaration of war. I agree there were potentially other ways to go about it. The South chose to attack. Rather than wait it out.
 
zitothebrave said:
So he kept trying to keep his people in place. If the South was interested in negotiating as Carpe insists, attacking someone isn't a good way to start. I can get to a point turning away aid, but I don't get attacking, unless your goal is to provoke war. If the Germans were to attack our bases in Germany wouldn't we view that as an act of war?
Click to expand...

Sending reinforcements to a place that does not want you there is certainly not sending a message that you want to negotiate. More like a display of force.
 
zitothebrave said:
Except the orders came from Montgomery to use any means necessary to repel the union from the fort. So yay for you and your continual being wrong about the Civil War.
Click to expand...

This is false, or at the very least misleading. The "order" from Montgomery came after SC had already demanded that the Union turnover the fort.
 
zitothebrave said:
As I said, if they wanted to refuse aid, that's one thing. They attacked it. You attack a fort it's a declaration of war. I agree there were potentially other ways to go about it. The South chose to attack. Rather than wait it out.
Click to expand...

They exhausted every peaceable avenue available before resorting to an attack, which was really more than one might have expected given that Sumter was an enemy base smack dab in the middle of Confederate territory.

Plus, no one died.
 
BedellBrave said:
It usually does get glossed over in these discussions. I make it a point to not let us forget. ;-) Damn Yankees and all.
Click to expand...
I believe the early slave ships came from England and were largely manned by Brits. A lot of people got rich off the slave trade.

Anybody watching The Book of Negroes?
 
Runnin said:
I believe the early slave ships came from England and were largely manned by Brits. A lot of people got rich off the slave trade.

Anybody watching The Book of Negroes?
Click to expand...

didn't England abolish slavery and make the slave trade illegal like 40 years before the Civil War even happened?
 
goldfly said:
didn't England abolish slavery and make the slave trade illegal like 40 years before the Civil War even happened?
Click to expand...
That's why I said "early". The point was that England deserves blame as well, as do African warlords who gladly participated for guns to rid themselves of enemies.
 
goldfly said:
didn't England abolish slavery and make the slave trade illegal like 40 years before the Civil War even happened?
Click to expand...

The Dutch were involved from pretty much the beginning of the slave trade and kept on after the English left the business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top