War Of Northern Aggression

[Katzndogz]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

 

[g5000]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

Nope. A complete myth. In fact, the industrial revolution had a lot to do with the explosion in the slavery population, and with the Jim Crow South after the war. Textiles became cheaper, thus increasing the demand for cotton.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

I can make legal arguments both ways. At various times in our history prior to the Civil War, factions in the North and the South suggested seccesion.. The Hartford Convention of 1814-15 suggested the seccision of New England states from the union based upon their oppisition to the War of 1812 and their fear of slave state dominance based upon the Louisana Purchase. Then we have the famous "Nullification Crisis of 1832".

 

[Crackerjaxon]

When it was established that Lincoln was going to re-supply the troops at Ft. Sumter, the Confederates sent an emissary to the fort to announce that Southern forces were going to fire on it. They advised the Union troops to go deep within the recesses of the fort to avoid injury. The Union troops took their advice and the Confederates fired on the fort. After enough fire to satisfy form, the Union troops emerged and surrendered. The only injury during the much-vaunted event was a union cannoneer who was killed when a cannon misfired while the Union troops were firing a salute to the Confederates.

The Confederate troops stood at attention and saluted the Union troops as they left.

Lincoln wanted his war and he got it.

It was the South that wanted war, not Lincoln.

You still hear rednecks today who can't wait for the next one.

If the South wanted a war of aggression against the North, Davis would've sent Confederate troops into Washington DC to hang Abraham Lincoln from a convenient lamp post after routing the Union army at Manassas. The Union capitol lay unprotected and ripe for the taking 20 miles from the Confederacy.

The states comprising the Confederacy wanted to leave the union peacefully.

There is no doubt about it.

As for your redneck comment, I will consider the source and refrain from commenting on it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The South.

The only people to fight a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lose.

 

[BobPlumb]

I think it would take an amendment to allow an individual State(s) to leave the Union, imo.

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Supreme Court has spoken.
I do think that at this time (1869) the court was biased by the bloody war that had just ended and did not come to the ruling through a strict interpretation of the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

When it was established that Lincoln was going to re-supply the troops at Ft. Sumter, the Confederates sent an emissary to the fort to announce that Southern forces were going to fire on it. They advised the Union troops to go deep within the recesses of the fort to avoid injury. The Union troops took their advice and the Confederates fired on the fort. After enough fire to satisfy form, the Union troops emerged and surrendered. The only injury during the much-vaunted event was a union cannoneer who was killed when a cannon misfired while the Union troops were firing a salute to the Confederates.

The Confederate troops stood at attention and saluted the Union troops as they left.

Lincoln wanted his war and he got it.

It was the South that wanted war, not Lincoln.

You still hear rednecks today who can't wait for the next one.

If the South wanted a war of aggression against the North, Davis would've sent Confederate troops into Washington DC to hang Abraham Lincoln from a convenient lamp post after routing the Union army at Manassas. The Union capitol lay unprotected and ripe for the taking 20 miles from the Confederacy.

The states comprising the Confederacy wanted to leave the union peacefully.

There is no doubt about it.

As for your redneck comment, I will consider the source and refrain from commenting on it.

Who shot first? Simple.

 

[PredFan]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

That is what the South called it back then. Nothing racist about it. It was the war of Northern Aggression. Of course these days facts are racist.

 

[PredFan]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Unless I missed it in the article, he didn't say that. He called it the War of Northern Aggression. That is an accurate label.

 

[PredFan]

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Let's see...who fired on who first?

They were fired on in response to their aggression. There is more to "aggression" than pulling a trigger.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

Nope. A complete myth. In fact, the industrial revolution had a lot to do with the explosion in the slavery population, and with the Jim Crow South after the war. Textiles became cheaper, thus increasing the demand for cotton.

At the time of the drafting of our Constituion, slavery was on its way out as it was uneconimical. The invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793 and the already ongoing industrial revolution made slavery economical and greatly incresed the demand for cotton.. but that was only for a relatively short period of time. By the outbreak of the Civil War, the economics of slavery were turning, based in part on the availability of cheap immigrant labor, which actually made it cheaper than slave labor as it eliminated the necessity of caring for the very old and the very young. The first mechanical cotton picker was invented in 1850 but was not that succesful until the Price Campbell Cotton Picker Corporation created one in 1889. That would surely have eliminated the economic foundations of slavery.

What is oft overlooked however, is the cultural factors in the South which relied upon slavery. This was extremely powerful and would have kept the instituion alive in the South regardless of economics. However, the tide of history was against slavery. Economic and political factors together with international pressure would have resulted in the end of slavery in the South. IMHO the latest possible date for the abolition of slavery would be right around 1914 with the addition of Arizona as the 48th state allowing for the passage of an Constituional Amend over the objections of a unified deep south rejection.

 

[PredFan]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

The South started it by seceding and occupying Federal Forts after the election of 1860 but before Lincoln's inauguration. Then after the inauguration South Carolina attacked Federal troops in Ft. Sumter.

Secession isn't an act of war. Forts within the boundaries of South Carolina were not federal territory. They were Carolina territory. The federal government committed an act of war when it declined to evacuate them when asked to do so.

This stupid argument has been posted in the forum at least 1000 times and has been shot down every time. But, hey, what else can the Lincoln sycophants use to justify blatant acts of war committed by their savior?

Irregardless of who fired first, there is more to aggression than pulling a trigger. His calling the civil war "The War of Northern Aggression" is not wrong nor racist.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It was the South that wanted war, not Lincoln.

You still hear rednecks today who can't wait for the next one.

If the South wanted a war of aggression against the North, Davis would've sent Confederate troops into Washington DC to hang Abraham Lincoln from a convenient lamp post after routing the Union army at Manassas. The Union capitol lay unprotected and ripe for the taking 20 miles from the Confederacy.

The states comprising the Confederacy wanted to leave the union peacefully.

There is no doubt about it.

As for your redneck comment, I will consider the source and refrain from commenting on it.

Who shot first? Simple.

Union forces invaded Virginia. Yes, simple.

 

[PredFan]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

What a goddamned race baiter you are!

You are a little behind the times. I'm 65 and have heard it called The War of Northern Aggression my entire life. In fact I call it The War of Northern Aggression, and have my entire life. I have even posted that on this forum. And you might do a little research on how blacks feel about Lincoln. He is NOT their hero by any stretch. So stop your stupid race baiting. It could have been anyone who defaced that monument. Most likely a bunch of kids high on something.


And FYI: Lincoln didn't free the northern slaves. He only freed the southern slaves.

No conservative would deface a monument like that. That kind of childish vandalism is the stock in trade of the democrat party.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why does the South continue to fight the Civil War?

 

[legaleagle_45]

I think it would take an amendment to allow an individual State(s) to leave the Union, imo.

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A post Civil War decision made by a court filled with a majority of justices appointed post 1862. It would have been real interesting to have a case heard on seccesion by the same Supreme Court which gave us the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

 

[g5000]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

Nope. A complete myth. In fact, the industrial revolution had a lot to do with the explosion in the slavery population, and with the Jim Crow South after the war. Textiles became cheaper, thus increasing the demand for cotton.

At the time of the drafting of our Constituion, slavery was on its way out as it was uneconimical. The invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793 and the already ongoing industrial revolution made slavery economical and greatly incresed the demand for cotton.. but that was only for a relatively short period of time.

Nonsense. Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. That is NOT a "relatively short period of time". You can see from the chart below that cotton was responsible for 57 percent of all US exports when the war broke out. You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.

As I stated earlier, the slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English and US textile industries exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. Everyone has heard of Eli Whitney, but few have heard of Samual Slater, "Father of the American Industrial revolution". This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton. The demand for cotton drove the invention of the cotton gin, not the other way around.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

Only a fool claims slavery was dying out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why are we doing this again? Some send for PaperView, who will come with her loads and loads of primary documents with which she will yet again beat bripat's ass for the 83rd time, make him cry, and he will, for the 83rd time, admit, "damn you, PaperView, you are right. Again. Curses."

 

[Steven_R]

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A post Civil War decision made by a court filled with a majority of justices appointed post 1862. It would have been real interesting to have a case heard on seccesion by the same Supreme Court which gave us the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Yes, it would have been interesting and the Taney court would likely have gone with secession is legal. Unfortunately, Texas and ten other states decided to not take the legal path before taking the shooting path.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it would take an amendment to allow an individual State(s) to leave the Union, imo.

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I've already discussed that piece of shit. A bunch of sycophants Lincoln placed on the court ruled that Texas had remained a state since it had joined the union despite the fact that it had no Senators or Representatives in Congress since 1861. Anyone who believes that will also believe Obama is a big supporter of capitalism.