[BudW]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JimBob

Sir,I regard that reply as only another example that you hold your views as the only right and paramount one on the root cause of the Civil War and all others that disagree as to it's cause to be in error ie.BS in your opinion.You appear to be the only one holding the view it was a one issue only answer in this thread. To avail myself of your tactics can you furnish proof the ONLY(ie. meaning one) reason the north went to war when the southern states seceded was over the slavery issue as the root cause of the Civil War?Not just in selected quotes proving your view only but showing that view to be the general consensus of the northern states as a whole at the time the south seceded. Your argumentative style is very reminiscent of another forum member, now banned,Troy 2000.An alter ego perhaps. It might be BS but it's my BS.Your opinion in my opinion is of little importance in my opinion concerning your opinion.

Just what I thought you cant, you have to go the liberal route and make it up, when asked for proof you attack because you don't have any thing else just like the left by the way you speak of my selected quotes that to funny you can provide 0 from a historical figure, I did guess the President of both countries and the politicians who wrote the articles of succession didnt know why they went to war, they just put slavery in there for kicks right?

[JimBob]

Quote:       Originally Posted by BudW

Just what I thought you cant, you have to go the liberal route and make it up, when asked for proof you attack because you don't have any thing else just like the left by the way you speak of my selected quotes that to funny you can provide 0 from a historical figure, I did guess the President of both countries and the politicians who wrote the articles of succession didnt know why they went to war, they just put slavery in there for kicks right?

I have no problem with you stating what you perceive to be the historical fact as to the cause of the Civil War.You sir however seem to take exception to anyone who does not see your view as paramount to others who don't see it your way.That it is a well known trait of liberals.

You sir may continue your one sided appraisal of the Civil War alone.I have other more congenial things to occupy my time besides what has turned into a crusade on your part as to the paramount importance of your views vis a vis any other.The original post had more to do with the machinations of the left wing news media than about the cause of the Civil War and slavery.You sir,have turned it into quite something else and I see no point in any further participation.That is after all your true goal wasn't it.To shut up anyone who did not agree with your point of view.Else why take such exception to those views.Another well known trait used by liberals.

[BudW]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JimBob

I have no problem with you stating what you perceive to be the historical fact as to the cause of the Civil War.You sir however seem to take exception to anyone who does not see your view as paramount to others who don't see it your way.That it is a well known trait of liberals. You sir may continue your one sided appraisal of the Civil War alone.I have other more congenial things to occupy my time besides what has turned into a crusade on your part as to the paramount importance of your views vis a vis any other.The original post had more to do with the machinations of the left wing news media than about the cause of the Civil War and slavery.You sir,have turned it into quite something else and I see no point in any further participation.That is after all your true goal wasn't it.To shut up anyone who did not agree with your point of view.Else why take such exception to those views.Another well known trait used by liberals.

The well known trait of a liberal is not to provide anything to support your stance, just carry on and on about the other person that's classic liberal,my goal was to see if the other point of view could provide any historical links to support their argument, some here provided a good view of the other side you however did not.

[grizcty]

The New Intolerance by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted 04/09/2010 ET



"This was a recognition of American terrorists."

That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.

Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields.

So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.

Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment -- at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war.

Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.

But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.

At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.

Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.

Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was -- that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.

Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.

In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.

In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free -- those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.

As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that.

The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux.

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C.

If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city.

What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late?

They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought.

Why are they vilified?

Because they are Southern white Christian men -- none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.

Undeniably, the Civil War ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.

Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

[BudW]

Quote:       Originally Posted by grizcty

The New Intolerance by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted 04/09/2010 ET "This was a recognition of American terrorists." That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined. Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields. So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery. Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment -- at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war. Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders. But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America. At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy. Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk. Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was -- that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again. Nor did Lincoln ever deny it. In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves. In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free -- those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners. As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that. The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C. If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city. What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late? They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought. Why are they vilified? Because they are Southern white Christian men -- none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause. Undeniably, the Civil War ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England. Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Secession caused the war the reason for Secession slavery


Newspapers

The Confederacy


Virginia Vignettes Why did Virginia secede from the Union?

Newspapers

[BudW]

Another one from Virginians at the time just before the Civil War

The Staunton Spectator, January 22, 1861, p. 1, c. 5
For the Spectator.

Mr. Editor:--The North and the South are two different populations, presenting at present a mutual antagonism. The great problem for statesmen, is not to give them unity, but concord. The Union cannot be saved. It may possibly be reconstructed. A reconstruction must henceforth be the aim of the patriot. One drop of blood will blot out that hope forever.-- How may bloodshed be prevented? The first condition is Southern unanimity. Discord among us is folly, madness, wickedness. The general policy of the South will depend upon that of Virginia, and the influence of Virginia will depend upon the consolidation of her sentiments. Division in Virginia on so vital a question would be fatal to herself, to the South, to the entire country. We must lay aside all party prejudices, all preconceived opinions, forget what we have said of one another, in the heat of party strife, and with one mind and heart resolve to preserve the integrity of the Commonwealth and the peace of the nation.
What should Virginia do? That question a Convention must determine. If coercion is abandoned by the aggressive party of the North, we may consult self respect by declining to follow South Carolina, and even adhere to the present confederacy, in the hope of seeing the Constitution remodeled, with permanent guarantees, on a basis equal and acceptable to all the States. These guarantees must be given. Now is the time for a final settlement of the slavery question. The time for legislation or geographical compromise has passed. The North must agree, by a permanent compact, to recognize property in slaves, and to protect it whenever our common soil extends within the limits of the Constitution. She must abandon the claim she has asserted, to exclude Southern property from the common soil, simply because Northern sentiment disapproves of that property. She must agree to act just as she would if that sentiment did not prevail. Allowing Northern men to emigrate to the common territories without forfeiting their possessions, she must consent that Southern men shall do the same. She must execute her solemn engagements for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and give us security for the future that the anti-slavery agitation should not interfere with the rights of the Southern people. If she will thus engage, it may be the glory of Virginia, by timely mediation, to procure a reconstruction of the Union, and a restoration of every star to its place in the grand galaxy of States.
If, on the other hand, a drop of Southern blood should be shed by a Northern Administration in the effort to force back seceding States into the Union, then be it called secession, or revolution, let her people, as one man determine to make common cause with the oppressed. No man should call himself a Virginian who would distract the councils of the State on such an occasion. No false pride should cause us to hesitate, because our advice has been rejected and our delicate interests disregarded by a sister State. The flattering suggestions of those who should seek to embarrass our course by such appeals should not be heeded, or heeded only as the voice of treason.
In such a crisis, a great gulf would divide us from the North. Common interests and a common necessity would bind us to the South. To hesitate on the plea of wounded pride, would be the extreme of folly. One campaign together in arms would obliterate every impression of our differences. Reproach and ridicule would be forgotten amid the anguish of our common distress, or the exultation of a common triumph.--Hush, then, every distracting suggestion. Away with every thought of dividing this glorious Commonwealth directly through the heart!
It has been suggested that Virginia may be divided, to accommodate the varied interests of her people. The author of such a suggestion ought to be rebuked by an indignant people. If dissolution were to be followed by disintegration and anarchy, the alternative would be worse than tyranny itself. There is no hope for the fallen temple, if its ruins be reduced to powder. Their integrity must be preserved, if ever they are to take their place in a noble structure.
No! No! Virginia will not go to pieces at the word of a traitor. She will maintain her integrity, her liberty, and glory, and power, we trust, the guiding star through this night of storm.
When our common dangers are over, it will be time enough to discuss the geographical boundaries of new confederacies; time enough to talk of union with Ohio rather than with Georgia; time enough to plan a campaign against Florida for the purpose of wresting from her Pensacola; time enough to set up Norfolk as a rival to New York and Charleston. My soul! Shall sensible men engage in these petty discussions, when the horrors of a barbaric invasion are already gathered on our northern border, and the warning thunder reverberates from State to State, calling us to measures of immediate defence! Is this statesmanship! Is this patriotism!
In sixty days, according to all human foresight, every Southern man will be compelled by circumstances to take a decided stand for or against the South. The middle ground will then be untenable. We must abandon it then forever. It would be more graceful, more becoming, more manly to abandon it now. We do not advocate extreme opinions, but prompt and decided action--the Union of the South for the sake of the Union!
The prompt decision of our Legislature ought to be sustained by a harmonious public sentiment. Let Whigs and Democrats, gathered around the altar of our country, forgive and forget all past differences, and pledge themselves to deathless fidelity in defence of our common soil. A solid front presented now will make bloodshed improbable, and our ruin impossible. Discord among the Southern States will inevitably plunge us into a gulf from which millions will never rise again. May Heaven interpose!
A.

[petrol]

would you all please stop using the term 'Liberal' as in insult. it's insulting.
Not to mention meaningless.

[6010]

Quote:      

Secession caused the war the reason for Secession slavery

I was hoping I would read this in this discussion. The reason for the war was different for the South than it was for the North. The reason the South went to war is because they felt their livelihood was being threatened. When the abolitionist were stirring up fear in the south with their rhetoric about the need to abolish slavery, the wealthy plantation owners in the South felt their bill folds might in time be emptied.

In contrast, the North really didn't care about slavery, they just wanted to preserve the Union and would do it through war if necessary.

If you get down to the Chicken and Egg argument - the reason for the war was the feeling in the south that the instutition of slavery was being threatened , which made the fighting of the Civil war a war fought for economic reasons - which is why every war I know of was fought when you get right down to it.

You can say it started over slavery, or you can say it started over states rights , or you can say it started over secession... but what it really started over was economics.

[blueice]

Quote:       Originally Posted by DWFan

An interesting read on the causes of the War between the States....including a map of the original proposed States of the Confederacy. The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States

man, but that link is crap...

[blueice]

Quote:       Originally Posted by petrol

would you all please stop using the term 'Liberal' as in insult. it's insulting. Not to mention meaningless.

I agree with Petrol....We are all Liberal at one time or another...

Please substitute it with leftest, the left, lefty or other insults...

[BudW]

Quote:       Originally Posted by 6010

I was hoping I would read this in this discussion. The reason for the war was different for the South than it was for the North. The reason the South went to war is because they felt their livelihood was being threatened. When the abolitionist were stirring up fear in the south with their rhetoric about the need to abolish slavery, the wealthy plantation owners in the South felt their bill folds might in time be emptied. In contrast, the North really didn't care about slavery, they just wanted to preserve the Union and would do it through war if necessary. If you get down to the Chicken and Egg argument - the reason for the war was the feeling in the south that the instutition of slavery was being threatened , which made the fighting of the Civil war a war fought for economic reasons - which is why every war I know of was fought when you get right down to it. You can say it started over slavery, or you can say it started over states rights , or you can say it started over secession... but what it really started over was economics.

True with most wars, in the case of the Civil War the commodity were slaves instead of oil.