Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only thing hostile the Northerners did was elect a president (who had zero power when hostilities started).yes, hostile towards northern aggressions of/for war.Note, too, at that point, the south had already commenced hostilities. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
You can keep squawking till you're blue in the face, but the argument was answered decisively by the results of the rebellion, what happened at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, and later, by the SCOTUS ruling in White v Texas.The union refused to surrender lands that did not rightfully belong to them. Then proceeded to blockade confederate ports, causing crippling economic effects throughout the developing world. Forcing teh confederates into war.
You can keep saying the south is responsible, but the evidence doesn't really provide that distortion as true.
Now you're just Lost Cause babbling. If it makes you feel better blabber on. Won't change the fact of history.
Nor the fact had we not succeeded in keeping the Union together, you wouldn't be here right now, able to babble about what has become the greatest and most powerful country in the world.
Let's hear from another leader at the time:
" I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am will to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.
The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
It is intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.
It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and all the other patriots of the Revolution."
That leader?
Robert E. Lee.
Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.
The war could have been avoided by simply overturning the dred scott decision. But war was much more to the point. Because it was about consoolidation of federal power and perogative, not slavery. The true nature of the war was over removing the idea, through example, that states had the right to leave the union. This idea of State perogative needed to be removed once and for all. So that the federal government wouldn't have to contend with States again. Lincoln caused, and then won his war.
Bad precedent.Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.
Good point.
Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.
All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.
It is almost as if the see the confederates as robin hood fighting against a evil tyrant.....Except the confederates were not doing anything for the people. They were doing it to keep AMERICANS in bondage.Bad precedent.Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.
Good point.
Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.
All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.
Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.
What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.
Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.
Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.
You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.
