Thumbs up for fighting solely against slavery

Thumbs down for state's rights and against perceived federal oppression.

What say you?

I agree with Redags but because you are the Fonz, I have to give you a thumbs up

AAAAAAYYYYYY!

Weird way to frame the question. Slavery was the cause of the war. Period. That doesn't mean it was the immediate focus of the war.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Weird way to frame the question. Slavery was the cause of the war. Period. That doesn't mean it was the immediate focus of the war.

---

And there's the reason I'm sick of this crap.

---

Too bad. Move on to other topics if you don't like reality. This one has been answered for decades now.

It might sound a bit meticulous but the Civil War was caused by the secession of the southern states and their assault on Fort Sumter. Would there have been a war without secession; it doesn't seem likely. So the better question would be was the secession a direct result of slavery.

Can you just stick to the Politics board? There are those such individuals on this site that are like herpes.

MaroonStain said:

---

Can you just stick to the Politics board? There are those such individuals on this site that are like herpes.

---

I've been on this board since I started posting. And generally avoid anything overtly political since this is not the forum for it. But if you want to drag personal politics into a discussion of history, then it will be brought up.

Why else did they secede? Alexander Stephens, the VP of the CSA, described slavery as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. If they seceded due to slavery I think it is fair to say that slavery was the cause of the war.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Too bad. Move on to other topics if you don't like reality. This one has been answered for decades now.

---

Move on? That's rich, coming from you. On every topic, 24/7/365, you're this guy

---

Cute. No, I'm not. Take your personal problems with me somewhere else. If you don't like that slavery caused the war, tough. Reality sucks sometimes.

hennyj15 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Slavery was the cause of the war. Period. That doesn't mean it was the immediate focus of the war.

---

Maybe for the elite. I'm pretty sure my Virginia and Georgia ancestors were broke AF and just didn't want any Yankees telling them what to do.

---

I'm pretty sure they elected the elites to positions of power and followed them into war. You're also ignoring how pervasive slavery was in most of Southern society. Even among the poorest people who worked as overseers or patrollers.

Not to mention you have to imagine that even poor white laborers, who were for all intents and purposes divorced from slavery, were also keen on seeing slavery continue. After all, if slavery ended that would mean millions of competitors in the job market. This also explains aspects of northern pro-slavery sentiment; newly freed slaves would take manufacturing jobs (especially from recent European immigrants).

States rights and the freedoms prevented by big government.

Always floors me when anyone can't grasp that the war itself was an unnecessary coercion by force. Lincoln raised an army to force the succeeded states back into the union. That was the sole purpose of the war. Pride, narcissism, insecurity, power thirst.

I always thought the war started with Southern aggression in the attack on Fort Sumter.

RPag said:

---

I always thought the war started with Norther aggression in the refusal to vacate South Carolina property, Fort Sumter.

---

Not really a FIFY, just pointing out the other side's thinking.

And in some ways I think that is a good point. The South obviously believed themselves to be an independent nation so it is understandable that they would not want a 'foreign' military base a few miles off shore. But my point was that it was not the invasion of the South that started the war, it was the firing on The Star of the West as it sailed towards the fort. After that is when Northern forces began to mobilize to reinforce Sumter.

If you want to talk small potatos and maneuvers that escalated aggressions, first, Anderson moved his force to Sumter because it was the most defendable, and thereafter refused to surrender the site. Then, Lincoln sent an invasionary force in the Star of the West, and the either feigned or horribly managed a follow-up invasionary force with military vessels. Faced with the prospect of military vessels entering the harbour and creating a foothold at Sumter, the fort was fired upon to force evacuation.

After which, that small thing happened where Lincoln called for the raising of a 75,000 man army and eventually invaded the south to try to force it back into the union.

So we agree then, Lincoln escalated and started the war.

claym711 said:

---

So we agree then, Lincoln escalated and started the war.

---

Nope.

Come on folks this is the history board let's get the history accurate, Buchanan sent the Star of the West Expedition not Lincoln. Lincoln had two relief expeditions one going to Pickens and one to Sumter when Sumter was fired on.

So a President can retaliate against a foriegn power when fired upon but if US troops are fired on by domestic militia they have to turn tail and run? Assuming the Confederacy was legit, that made them a foriegn power shooting at US troops, a legitmate reason to retaliate, no? And if you want to play the occupying forces card, does that mean we need to exit Guantanamo when the Cubans fire a shot across the bow?

Say there was no attack on Fort Sumter or anywhere else, what would have happened? It seems like Lincoln's allegiance to preserving the union became more resolute during the war. This may have been because of the cost of the war (or maybe him burning the boats behind him in a way) but would he had ordered troops south if he had not been provoked militarily?

Because the Confederate hardliners were really peaceful and never wanted war... right? This is an inane hypothetical because it would never happen. The second that secession became a serious possibility the newspapers and leaders were talking war.

Do we invade Cuba when they fire that shot? Hundreds of examples where your analogy works against you.

Lincoln provoked, escalated, started, and prolonged the war until the weight of the advantages were insurmountable, after which he went scorched earth to complete his total victory.

Invading Cuba would certainly be one response and a legitimate one.

As pointed out the state of South Carolina fired the first shots before Lincoln was sworn in, Buchanan just elected to let the new administration figure out the response since he was a doughfaced northener who did not want to reel South Carolina in like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did.

Lincoln did not provoke or escalate the war South Carolina and the Confederacy did that. How should Lincoln have responded to insurrectionists besieging, siezing and firing on Federal troops? Tucking tail and running was not the correct response. I'm curious what you think he should have done when Federal lives and property were threatened. Lincoln the whole time of the secession crisis was in a reactionary mode he was not setting the agenda, Jefferson Davis was doing that.

Lincoln was not at all in reactionary mode. Not from the time he was elected until after he lost the first battle.

Also, you cannot call it an insurrection while also doing several other things Lincoln did, which would have then been unconstitutional. Re: ridiculous assertion of 'war powers'....war against citizens? Ok. It's one way or the other, and if it's putting down an insurrection then he committed many crimes.

But, I'll play, If California seceded, the President sent federal troops in to secure 'federal property', and California took such site by force, with both sides exchanging fire and no lives lost, would the President be justified in invading California, suspending habeas corpus, etc. etc. etc.?

Who started the American Revolution?

Washingtons image remains untarnished since the whisky rebellion was averted, but what an absurd invasion of Pennsylvania.

It's all about power and money. Secession for the southern elite, invasion of the south for the northern elite. However, there is no war without northern invasion, and coercing the southern states back into the union was and is absurd.

claym711 said:

---

Do we invade Cuba when they fire that shot? Hundreds of examples where your analogy works against you.

Lincoln provoked, escalated, started, and prolonged the war until the weight of the advantages were insurmountable, after which he went scorched earth to complete his total victory.

---

It's amazing how the South escapes any and all blame for what happened.