Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Storm Raven]

The south fired first because the commander of the fort was stalling giving the fort up. Since the south had proclaimed that it was no longer apart of the union then those forts that were in their soverign lands belonged to them. And I can understand why they did not want union troops to occupy them.

Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.

 

[Elf Witch]

True, but most Southerners supported the institution of slavery - those who did not own slaves still signed up in droves to fight for a system that espoused it not merely as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. Many Southerners, even those who did not own slaves, believed in the rightness of slavery, supported laws that kept it in place, and even accepted the doctrine that slavery was divinely mandated. You didn't have to own slaves to believe in the practice, and support it. Even acquiescence in such a practice should be considered a crime.

[/i]

I'd argue that the industrial society of the North stemmed from their rejection of slavery, rather than the rejection of slavery stemmed from the industrial character. Certainly, Massachusetts and the surrounding evirons were poorly suited to slavery from the outset (maritime socities having a hard time maintaining slavery in general), but places like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska and so on (even Pennsylvania) could have easily been prime slave holding territory, as they were mostly agricultural strongholds. However, the prevailing religious attitudes of the inhabitants there tended to work against the practice, so it wasn't adopted.

[/i]

Yes it was. The Free Soil movement was not about freeing slaves and making them equal, it was about preserving territory for free farmers. However, the North, under Lincoln's direction, took the ciritical step of emancipation, even though many did not want him to do so. Which is really what makes him the greatest american.

The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.

If you truly want to understand history you have to be able to look at it without so much prejudice. I have said before that I as a modern person find the idea of slavery to be truly evil and wrong. But I don't know what my belief would be if I was born 100 years earlier and raised in the south of that time.

People are a product of their upbring and their enviorment. Unfortunetly most people back then were bigots who really believed that blacks were an inferior species. It was this same mindset that allowed white settlers and Washington to allow the destruction of Indian tribes and to justify stealing their land.

I can study the civil war and understand why the south did what it did. They were fighting for their way of life. And I admire a lot of the southern generals and the soldiers who fought a much larger and better equipped force. The war should have been over a lot sooner but those southern soldiers were fighting for their homes and that made them fight harder and longer. I can admire that.

Just like I can admire the settlers who braved the unkown to head west. And admire the indian tribes who fought to keep what was theres.

 

[billd91]

Exactly the freeing of the slaves came after the war had already been going on.

The south fired first because the commander of the fort was stalling giving the fort up. Since the south had proclaimed that it was no longer apart of the union then those forts that were in their soverign lands belonged to them. And I can understand why they did not want union troops to occupy them.

Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
Cagey guy that Lincoln.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.

Yes it was illegal the same way when a century earlier certain colonies did the same thing when they broke from England and their rightful King to form the United States and I do believe they to seized property that belonged to the rightful goverment. The crown.

 

[Storm Raven]

The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.

Virtually every other Western society had abolished slavery by 1860. The Southern states were so far out of step with the moral attitudes of what was considered to be the "civilized" world of the time that it stretches credulity to argue that there is some sort of pass for morality of their practice based upon the mores of the era.

 

[Elf Witch]

Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
Cagey guy that Lincoln.

Lincoln did not want war. He knew the cost and he was right. He did everything he could to prevent it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes it was illegal the same way when a century earlier certain colonies did the same thing when they broke from England and their rightful King to form the United States and I do believe they to seized property that belonged to the rightful goverment. The crown.

There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.

The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.

By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Their homeland wasn't invaded until after the Confederates had signed up in droves.

Every nation is allowed to have a standing army, with a few exceptions that gave away this right in peace treaties, its one of the things that define a sovereign state so I see no issue with this.

They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the possibility that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement.

Indeed they did but as you have pointed out it was state legislatures and not everyone in the state. Though things have changed since then money was still power, the money still had the slaves, and I'm willing to bet that more than a majority of representatives in the state legislatures had money.

So I still believe that the typical confederate soldier was defending their homeland and not slavery.

 

[diaglo]

Virtually every other Western society had abolished slavery by 1860. The Southern states were so far out of step with the moral attitudes of what was considered to be the "civilized" world of the time that it stretches credulity to argue that there is some sort of pass for morality of their practice based upon the mores of the era.

yet slavery still exists. and did thru the 19th and 20th century too

 

[Storm Raven]

Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
Cagey guy that Lincoln.

If that were so, why did Major Anderson offer to surrender the Fort peacefully if given a few days to do so?