(06-28-2015 01:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 07:57 AM)Cutty102306 Wrote:  This thread is generated from the feelings of how violent today's society has become but wouldn't it be honest to say this thread explains some of the exact reasons it's going on???

Not in the least.

A. Todays "society" is far less violent than it was only a scant 20+- years ago. Look it up. We've just become far less open to opposing viewpoints, perhaps on both sides. Now we can't discuss and have conversation, we must demonize. Disagree with me?!? You MUST be a ..., ..... Whatever that may be.

It's childish, close minded, and counter productive to an open and suppose free society.

B. If we can't have open, civil, perhaps "Oooofensive" discussions without words like racist, bigot, homophobe, or whatever else being tossed out from the git, why don't we all just scream each other is "Hitler", call it a day and go back to tumblr or reddit?

It's gotten to the point of caricature ridiculousness. Not everything's an affront. Not everyone that may have a differing opinion, however slight or considerable, is an "enemy" worthy of destroying.

We haven't gotten more violent in this society,

We have simply lost our collective F%^ing minds.


Chilllll, folks. Just Chill.

If we all do that, we'll all be good, and together, in the end.

This. Exactly this.

(06-26-2015 09:42 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:07 AM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 08:24 AM)JMUskinsCaps Wrote:  "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, 1861

Yeah, I'm really struggling to figure out why people can't just calm down and get off the PC bandwagon. It's was all about states rights!

Oh, you are opening a can with that one.

The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to know how the views of individuals, some who were d-bags like Stephens, would have taken hold (or not).

Before we go any further , please can some one , anyone please tell me why the North entered into a war and invaded the South?

The North did not invade the South. Fort Sumter was a fort owned and operated by the Federal government. When South Carolina seceded, Major Robert Anderson of the US Army moved his small garrison detail from Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island over to Fort Sumter. The Federal government refused to abandoned the fort because they still considered it Federal property which housed Federal troops. Buchanan tried to get a ship down there to resupply Anderson and his men but it was fired upon by the shore batteries. This dragged on for months until the newly appointed General Beauregard made the order to open fire on the fort on April 12th, 1861.

South Carolina (and other slave-holding states) made it VERY clear that if Lincoln was elected, they would take any measure possible to defend their "rights." When Lincoln was elected (without even being on the ballot in 10 southern states), South Carolina made good on their threat and seceded.

All that to say, it isn't as simple as, "The North invaded the South." This had been brewing for years and years and it finally erupted. To say the Civil War was a Northern invasion of the South just isn't right.

In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

(06-28-2015 08:58 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

Revisionist speculation. SC started the war, and slavery wasn't a "tool" used "to keep the fights live."

To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

Yes, because the southern states had successfully succeeded from the union making them a completely separate country. In fact the Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." A union is just that a union of states and if one decides to dissolve ties to the rest of states, then it is their right to do so. Therefore, since the south exercised that right to separate, they were invaded by the northern states and by the United States of America.

(06-28-2015 10:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:58 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

Revisionist speculation. SC started the war, and slavery wasn't a "tool" used "to keep the fights live."

Definitely with Longhorn on this one. Lincoln was attempting to resupply Federal troops on Federal property. The Confederacy sent a delegation to DC and offered to pay for Federal property and seek peace, but Lincoln didn't want to acknowledge them as a sovereign nation so those talks didn't really go anywhere. That's when Lincoln and his cabinet decided to send supplies down. Lincoln's exact instructions to the expedition's commander was to say exactly this to Governor Pickens, "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition [sic], will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort."

Upon receiving this news, Governor Pickens of SC told Beauregard and Davis. Jeff Davis met with his cabinet, who supported his plan of firing on Fort Sumter, so he gave the order to Beauregard to bombard the fort before the supplies got there.

There is no doubt that the South fired the first shots of the Civil War. They fired on a supply ship in January 1861 and then they fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861.

(06-28-2015 08:58 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

Also, slavery was 100% the root cause of the Civil War. The Civil War had been brewing for decades before a single shot was fired. Politicians and presidents (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, etc.) all failed to deal with the overwhelming issues dividing the Northern and Southern states: mainly, slavery. They kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. It all finally came to a head when Lincoln basically said, "You can keep your slaves down South, but new states entering the Union will be free states."

The South knew that that would be the beginning of the end for their "peculiar institution." As more and more states entered the Union that did not practice slavery, they knew that their voice would be drowned out and, eventually, they would lose what they built their economy, social hierarchy, and way of life out of. That's why we saw Kansas and Missouri fight so bitterly over slavery. That's why South Carolina, among others, literally said, "If Lincoln is elected, we are going to leave."

People like to say that the issue of "states rights" was the cause of the Civil War. While that's correct, it was first and foremost, the "right" to own someone else as a slave. That was the right that each seceding government listed in their declarations of secession. People also talk about "economic differences", namely the economic differences of basing an economy of free source of labor. Every issue boils down to slavery. You can mask it in "states rights" or "economic differences" but it all comes back to the Southern aristocracy trying to defend their right to own slaves.

(06-28-2015 11:31 PM)hburg Wrote:  Yes, because the southern states had successfully succeeded from the union making them a completely separate country. In fact the Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." A union is just that a union of states and if one decides to dissolve ties to the rest of states, then it is their right to do so. Therefore, since the south exercised that right to separate, they were invaded by the northern states and by the United States of America.

Ummm...considering the Southern states were basically opponents of the very first sentence of that document, I find it hard to accept that they can then choose another sentence to justify their position.

(06-28-2015 11:22 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

You are saying that the US troops "invaded" the South. That would imply that the Southern states were a separate entity from the rest of the US (i.e. - legitimizing the concept of the CSA). Many of us do not recognize the CSA as a (formerly) separate country. They were states run by traitors. (And to be consistent...Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were traitors to England up until the time England surrendered.)

(06-29-2015 01:25 AM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:22 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

You are saying that the US troops "invaded" the South. That would imply that the Southern states were a separate entity from the rest of the US (i.e. - legitimizing the concept of the CSA). Many of us do not recognize the CSA as a (formerly) separate country. They were states run by traitors. (And to be consistent...Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were traitors to England up until the time England surrendered.)

If the southern states were not a separate entity then why did Lincoln invade Virginia? What was his purpose for that? To free the slaves?

(06-29-2015 01:19 AM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:31 PM)hburg Wrote:  Yes, because the southern states had successfully succeeded from the union making them a completely separate country. In fact the Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." A union is just that a union of states and if one decides to dissolve ties to the rest of states, then it is their right to do so. Therefore, since the south exercised that right to separate, they were invaded by the northern states and by the United States of America.

Ummm...considering the Southern states were basically opponents of the very first sentence of that document, I find it hard to accept that they can then choose another sentence to justify their position.

Regardless of what was believed then, especially about the freedom of people is naught. They believed, right or wrong, that the government of these United States no longer represented their needs. They became tired of the tariffs placed on them and felt their way of life threatened. So they separated, which they thought was their legal right to do so. Remember in 1830's? the New England states almost succeeded to join Canada, not only that but many states like Arizona, Texas, Montana have clauses (or have made threats) stating they will succeed from the Union if the 2nd Amendment is done away with.

(06-28-2015 11:55 PM)JMU2014 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:58 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

Also, slavery was 100% the root cause of the Civil War. The Civil War had been brewing for decades before a single shot was fired. Politicians and presidents (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, etc.) all failed to deal with the overwhelming issues dividing the Northern and Southern states: mainly, slavery. They kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. It all finally came to a head when Lincoln basically said, "You can keep your slaves down South, but new states entering the Union will be free states."

The South knew that that would be the beginning of the end for their "peculiar institution." As more and more states entered the Union that did not practice slavery, they knew that their voice would be drowned out and, eventually, they would lose what they built their economy, social hierarchy, and way of life out of. That's why we saw Kansas and Missouri fight so bitterly over slavery. That's why South Carolina, among others, literally said, "If Lincoln is elected, we are going to leave."

People like to say that the issue of "states rights" was the cause of the Civil War. While that's correct, it was first and foremost, the "right" to own someone else as a slave. That was the right that each seceding government listed in their declarations of secession. People also talk about "economic differences", namely the economic differences of basing an economy of free source of labor. Every issue boils down to slavery. You can mask it in "states rights" or "economic differences" but it all comes back to the Southern aristocracy trying to defend their right to own slaves.

So the North went to war over slavery? I challenge you or anyone else to provide ONE document stating and proving this. Go,.. Start, begin ,.. The clock is ticking. !!

Yeah, the war never started over slavery. It wasn't even a consideration. The Southern States succeeded due to lack of influence in US elections.

(06-29-2015 10:07 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Yeah, the war never started over slavery. It wasn't even a consideration. The Southern States succeeded due to lack of influence in US elections.

The best way I heard it explained is that slavery was the cause of secession and secession was the cause of the war. Slavery was only an indirect cause. Lincoln didn't send troops into Virginia to free the slaves, he was trying to re-unite the country. If there was no secession there would have been no war.

When JMU had all those old houses on S. Main across from the Quad, they all had black rectangular signs out front to signify they were university buildings: Zirkle House, Baker House, Lincoln House etc. And there was also a house on the corner of Bluestone and S. Main Street (in the same group of houses), across from JM's, but it was not owned by the school. The guys that lived there put up a homemade sign, painted like the official university signs, and named their rented house "Gutter House". I'm sure the University despised that place.

(06-29-2015 01:25 AM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:22 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

You are saying that the US troops "invaded" the South. That would imply that the Southern states were a separate entity from the rest of the US (i.e. - legitimizing the concept of the CSA). Many of us do not recognize the CSA as a (formerly) separate country. They were states run by traitors. (And to be consistent...Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were traitors to England up until the time England surrendered.)

You better do a little historical research, the southern states were not even allowed to vote in the elections of 1864. If that is not considering them to be a separate entity, then I haven't a clue what would be. I repeat, there was no law in 1861 forbidding a state from seceding from the Union as much as Lincoln tried to stop it, he had no basis to prevent such an action.

(06-29-2015 10:36 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:25 AM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:22 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

You are saying that the US troops "invaded" the South. That would imply that the Southern states were a separate entity from the rest of the US (i.e. - legitimizing the concept of the CSA). Many of us do not recognize the CSA as a (formerly) separate country. They were states run by traitors. (And to be consistent...Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were traitors to England up until the time England surrendered.)

You better do a little historical research, the southern states were not even allowed to vote in the elections of 1864. If that is not considering them to be a separate entity, then I haven't a clue what would be. I repeat, there was no law in 1861 forbidding a state from seceding from the Union as much as Lincoln tried to stop it, he had no basis to prevent such an action.

If the states never left the union then why did they have to be re-admitted after the war?

(06-29-2015 10:39 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:36 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:25 AM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:22 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To date no one has answered my original question. Still waiting.

But Ft. Sumter was not a "small installation" because it collected all the taxes for the Federal Govt coming into the port.

You are saying that the US troops "invaded" the South. That would imply that the Southern states were a separate entity from the rest of the US (i.e. - legitimizing the concept of the CSA). Many of us do not recognize the CSA as a (formerly) separate country. They were states run by traitors. (And to be consistent...Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were traitors to England up until the time England surrendered.)

You better do a little historical research, the southern states were not even allowed to vote in the elections of 1864. If that is not considering them to be a separate entity, then I haven't a clue what would be. I repeat, there was no law in 1861 forbidding a state from seceding from the Union as much as Lincoln tried to stop it, he had no basis to prevent such an action.

If the states never left the union then why did they have to be re-admitted after the war?

Good point.

(06-29-2015 09:57 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:55 PM)JMU2014 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:58 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  In taking it a little further, this is my understanding.

Though, the south did fire upon the federally owned Ft. Sumter as the first act of violence, had Lincoln not announced plans to stock it with supplies and equip it for war, SC would have left this little fort alone. Lincoln was needing to make the south appear the aggressor, and it worked. SC did throw that first punch. Had they not fallen for his ploy, it can be debated if war would have ever erupted.

Prior to the actions that took place at Ft. Sumter, Lincoln had been trying to make a case that a state's secession was illegal, but had no basis in which to argue. When in fact it was not illegal in 1861. It wasn't until 1869 that unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional.

Lincoln could not have given a rats a$$ about slavery when trying to make a case for calling secession illegal, he simply didn't want to lose the resources the south had been providing the country. It would be no different if Alaska decided they wanted out, the sole reason for keeping it as a part of the US, is for the resources it provides.

Once Lincoln proved the confederate states were willing to draw blood, he no longer needed to prove secession illegal in order to attack the South. He then needed to bring attention to anything that could keep the people he represented engaged and slavery became a necessary tool to keep the fight alive. It simply was not the root cause of the Civil War, but rather a means in which to abolish the practice.

Also, slavery was 100% the root cause of the Civil War. The Civil War had been brewing for decades before a single shot was fired. Politicians and presidents (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, etc.) all failed to deal with the overwhelming issues dividing the Northern and Southern states: mainly, slavery. They kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. It all finally came to a head when Lincoln basically said, "You can keep your slaves down South, but new states entering the Union will be free states."

The South knew that that would be the beginning of the end for their "peculiar institution." As more and more states entered the Union that did not practice slavery, they knew that their voice would be drowned out and, eventually, they would lose what they built their economy, social hierarchy, and way of life out of. That's why we saw Kansas and Missouri fight so bitterly over slavery. That's why South Carolina, among others, literally said, "If Lincoln is elected, we are going to leave."

People like to say that the issue of "states rights" was the cause of the Civil War. While that's correct, it was first and foremost, the "right" to own someone else as a slave. That was the right that each seceding government listed in their declarations of secession. People also talk about "economic differences", namely the economic differences of basing an economy of free source of labor. Every issue boils down to slavery. You can mask it in "states rights" or "economic differences" but it all comes back to the Southern aristocracy trying to defend their right to own slaves.

So the North went to war over slavery? I challenge you or anyone else to provide ONE document stating and proving this. Go,.. Start, begin ,.. The clock is ticking. !!

The North went to war because Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union. He specifically campaigned on the fact that he didn't want to free the slaves in the South. He just wanted to limit the expansion of slavery.

The Southern states seceded because they felt their slavery was threatened. That is indisputable. Look at any of the Declarations of Secession from the states that seceded. Here are the Declarations of Secession for Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...auses.html Each of them says that disagreements about "African slavery" were the primary reason for secession. Of course the war was about slavery. The Southern states seceded because they realized that Lincoln's presidency would be the beginning of the end for slavery. Each state that entered the Union would be a free state, thus diminishing their power and influence in the Federal government. It would only be a matter of time before a president came along that wanted to abolish Southern slavery, and had the votes to do it.

It's ridiculous to say that slavery did not cause the war because slavery was the primary reason for secession, which directly started the war. Saying that slavery did not cause the Civil War is arguing semantics. Yes, the proximate cause of the Civil War was Confederate batteries firing on Fort Sumter. But none of that happens if slavery wasn't the issue that it was. Without slavery, we don't have a Civil War.