Author Topic: Could the South have won?  (Read 19183 times)

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2012, 02:09:48 PM »
YOu said this:

"Sorry, Elmer, Old Top, but just you saying those are the plain facts, does not make it true. The War was over the concept of whether a state, having determined the union is not in it's best interest, has a right, nay, even an obligation, to withdraw from that union."

I said this:

The war was about secession.


I said the same thing you did in far fewer words.  Plus I added the issue that made the question arise in the first place: the perceived threat to slavery.  Just read the speeches.  If it was tariffs, don't you think somebody would have said something about it in the speeches? RAther than focusing on slavery when only (according your figures) about 5% of the population owned slaves? But 100% suffered these "onerous" tariffs?

Next you'll be telling me that the fact that Japs enlisted in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team proves they were supportive of interning Japanese Americans during WWII.

The war was about states rights, ( a misnomer, I know ) of which secession was a part. The South would still, in my opinion, have seceded, even if slavery was not prevalent.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9348
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2012, 04:51:20 PM »
Well, we can both suppose, kinda sorta maybes, and guess to our hearts content, but it means little. It has been shown only about 4.8% of the people living in the South owned slaves. Why, then did the others fight so vehemently to defend their homelands against invasion? It certainly couldn't have been over slavery, could it?

I would also suggest there were Black slave owners, some quite large by the standards of the day. I'm sure you may find some way to spin that, as well.
Because it was the dream of every Southern boy to someday be rich an own a plantation full of slaves. That's along the lines of asking why factory workers defended capitalism against communism. One would think that the idea of a "workers paradise" would appeal to them.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9348
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2012, 05:03:11 PM »
BTW, the South held the "wage slaves" of the North in contempt - in the South manual labor was something a slave did. But those factory workers of the North understood technology in a way that Southerners didn't. Hence the North's better usage of such technology as the telegraph and the railroad. The union cavalry at Gettysburg, held up the Lee's army for vital hours because they were armed with repeating carbines and the South had single shot muskets. The North also tended to be better at organization. Although the South did perform wonders in starting from a smaller industrial base. In many ways, the South reminds me of the Japanese in the second world war, in their belief that bravery and spiritual elements would overcome industrial might. The minute the North started getting generals who understood modern warfare, the South was doomed.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2012, 07:15:01 PM »
Because it was the dream of every Southern boy to someday be rich an own a plantation full of slaves.

That seems a mite of a stretch, MD.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2012, 06:30:48 AM »
The war was about states rights, ( a misnomer, I know ) of which secession was a part. The South would still, in my opinion, have seceded, even if slavery was not prevalent.

I know that's your opinion, and it's the opinion of every "it was tarrifs, not slavery!" person I have ever met.  The thing is, they all have to ignore the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence that indicates it WAS about slavery, starting with the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, innumerable speeches and canings in the Congress, and the secession speeches themselves.  I imagine that every "it was tarrifs, not slavery" person that arrives in heaven might be met by God Himself Who says "You know, it really WAS about slavery" to which the response would be "Oh no! You mean those revisionists got to you, TOO?"

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2012, 08:48:46 AM »
I know that's your opinion, and it's the opinion of every "it was tarrifs, not slavery!" person I have ever met.  The thing is, they all have to ignore the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence that indicates it WAS about slavery, starting with the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, innumerable speeches and canings in the Congress, and the secession speeches themselves.  I imagine that every "it was tarrifs, not slavery" person that arrives in heaven might be met by God Himself Who says "You know, it really WAS about slavery" to which the response would be "Oh no! You mean those revisionists got to you, TOO?"

Why would it be about slavery when the Constitution protected slavery and Lincoln argued for an amendment guaranteeing perpetual slavery, in the states it already existed in, for all time to come? The abolitionists, of course, wanted the slaves freed, but like everyone else, they did not want the cheap Black labor in the states that did not have it nor in the new states carved from the territories. Otherwise, compensating the owners for their slaves, giving them freedom, and letting them travel freely, would have been much cheaper than a war.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2012, 10:37:42 AM »
Why would it be about slavery when the Constitution protected slavery and Lincoln argued for an amendment guaranteeing perpetual slavery, in the states it already existed in, for all time to come? The abolitionists, of course, wanted the slaves freed, but like everyone else, they did not want the cheap Black labor in the states that did not have it nor in the new states carved from the territories. Otherwise, compensating the owners for their slaves, giving them freedom, and letting them travel freely, would have been much cheaper than a war.
You guys really crack me up. 

The war was fought over the right of states to secede. Statess rights.  Whatever you want to call it.  The overwhelming preponderence of the evidence clearly indcates that the southern states asserted their right to secede because of the perceived threat to slavery.  I don't see how any intelligent being can deny it, but you're proof that they do.  So be it. 

You are absolutely right that compensation would have been cheaper than a war.  And if both sides had had perfect ESP, they would have done it.  But the fire eaters in the south held sway as did the radicals in the north.  The southerners were convinced any southern boy could whip ten limp wristed yankees.  Not so, but they believed it.  Neither side would give.  The result was war. 

Offline hokiewoodchuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2012, 04:32:17 AM »
You guys really crack me up. 

The war was fought over the right of states to secede. States rights.    So be it.

Finally you understand 

The southerners were convinced any southern boy could whip ten limp wristed yankees. 

Today this applies to ten limp wrist liberals.....

Its amazing how a few truthful statements makes you feel good all over....you get sort of that fuzzy feeling. Feels good doesn't it ELMER.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2012, 10:30:30 AM »
Finally you understand 

Today this applies to ten limp wrist liberals.....

Its amazing how a few truthful statements makes you feel good all over....you get sort of that fuzzy feeling. Feels good doesn't it ELMER.

Nice editing job on the first quote.  Typical conservatard action. If you can't debate, spin.

Offline hokiewoodchuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2012, 12:58:34 PM »
Nice editing job on the first quote.  Typical conservatard action. If you can't debate, spin.

It wasn't 'editing' it was correcting, ya know like the red marks the teacher left on your work at school......and you are welcome.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2012, 01:52:06 PM »
I hate to see a good civil war thread peter out.  Here's a simple exam for all those who think the Civil War was not about slavery.

FACTS:  the civil war erupted because the southern states seceded.  The southern states believed they had that constitutional right and exercised it.

QUESTION: But why did the southern states decide to exercise that constitutional right they beleived they had?  Multiple choice:

a.  The perceived threat to the existence of slavery if they remained in the union
b.  Those stinking, onerous tariffs.
c.   Other (please write it here) ___________________

Now, read the secession speeches and then take the quiz.  No time limit.  If you need a link to the secession speeches, let me know and I will furnish a link. 

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2012, 07:46:51 AM »
I hate to see a good civil war thread peter out.  Here's a simple exam for all those who think the Civil War was not about slavery.

FACTS:  the civil war erupted because the southern states seceded.  The southern states believed they had that constitutional right and exercised it.

QUESTION: But why did the southern states decide to exercise that constitutional right they beleived they had?  Multiple choice:

a.  The perceived threat to the existence of slavery if they remained in the union
b.  Those stinking, onerous tariffs.
c.   Other (please write it here) ___________________

Now, read the secession speeches and then take the quiz.  No time limit.  If you need a link to the secession speeches, let me know and I will furnish a link.

The test must be too hard. No one has taken it. 

The correct answer is "a."

Offline hokiewoodchuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2012, 02:33:35 AM »
And Lincoln was a closet racist...........why else do you think he sugeested Liberia to the leader of the black race at the time.

Slavery was not high on his list of things to eliminate.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2012, 05:40:09 AM »
The test must be too hard. No one has taken it. 

The correct answer is "a."

That is what you say.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2012, 05:51:15 AM »
And Lincoln was a closet racist...........why else do you think he sugeested Liberia to the leader of the black race at the time.

Slavery was not high on his list of things to eliminate.

Actually, there was nothing closet about his racism. As with probably 99% of the country, racism, or the belief that Blacks were an inferior race ( at the time they were ) was a paramount thought in the country.

You are quite correct, Hokie, in that plans were made to buy slaves, give them manumission, or even to ask free Blacks to go to Liberia. Some did.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

 

Powered by EzPortal