The War Between The States Discussions

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Well let's see, I'd consider giving military information to the enemy treason. What would you call it ?
Most often during war people were shot for that.
Woe, was the south another nation, can ‘sharing info’ with fellow states be called treason?
There were also the plain facts that criticizing the war or Lincoln could close your newspaper
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
Woe, was the south another nation, can ‘sharing info’ with fellow states be called treason?
There were also the plain facts that criticizing the war or Lincoln could close your newspaper
Wow.....

I guess you forgot all about the previous posts pointing out the *PREWAR* southern censorship of the press, censorship of private mail in southern states, jailing of newspaper editors in southern states, and repression of freedom of speech in southern states, when it was adverse to slavery in the south? You seem really concerned about Lincoln's attempting to sniffle the press during the war (a national emergency), while ignoring the southern states quashing First Amendment rights enshrined in the Constitution you are so fond of invoking. Why is that?

Freedom of the Press and speech in the south didn't get any better once Davis got the war he wanted, and started.

Once Davis started the war by firing on Sumter, southern *liberties* went out the window. Davis and other southern politicians violated almost every *liberty* the south pretended to stand for, with the sole exception of making slavery the be and end all of what the south actually stood for.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,450
Reaction score
1,889
Woe, was the south another nation, can ‘sharing info’ with fellow states be called treason?
According to the confederacy they were their own nation, in reality though they were in rebellion. Censorship and even the closing of newspapers during war time has been common since and it was done during the Revolution.
In 1776 the New Hampshire Gazette in Portsmouth was shut down for suspected counterfeiting and printing items against the “cause.”
Other newspapers were forced to close coinciding with troop occupations.
These closings were only temporary.
So I guess Lincoln learned something from the founding fathers.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Yes you can say that, and that was my point.
One can not look at events of the 1850s and 1860 to 61 and say one was similar to twentieth century dictatorships and the other wasn't. When both did the same thing.
Earlier I pointed out Lincoln would have perceived himself as being merciful with regards to the treatment of the Sioux in Minnesota. Sauce for the goose I pointed out.
Or on another thread some years ago I defended Sherman for his march through the south. He had a job to do.... and he did it well.
It is about what about isims. They do count, we can’t condem one and excuse the other. If we are going to condemn x and compare it to dictatorships then that activity on the part of other is equally contemptible.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
According to the confederacy they were their own nation, in reality though they were in rebellion. Censorship and even the closing of newspapers during war time has been common since and it was done during the Revolution.
In 1776 the New Hampshire Gazette in Portsmouth was shut down for suspected counterfeiting and printing items against the “cause.”
Other newspapers were forced to close coinciding with troop occupations.
These closings were only temporary.
So I guess Lincoln learned something from the founding fathers.
You mean people in the colonies that were loyal to the lawful government of the colonies when they were in a state of rebellion?
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
The Confederacy, was clearly a single party dictatorship.
No I don’t think we can say that. A dictatorship would have had a better chance of winning had it been true. Through out the war the southern war effort was handicapped by states putting their own needs over the needs of the confederacy.
Troops and supplies that would have been more useful on the front was held back often until it was too late.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,450
Reaction score
1,889
No I don’t think we can say that. A dictatorship would have had a better chance of winning had it been true. Through out the war the southern war effort was handicapped by states putting their own needs over the needs of the confederacy.
Troops and supplies that would have been more useful on the front was held back often until it was too late.
Merely the consequence of being a fledgling dictatorship.

There is no arguing that their rush to fight was a handicap. Though they were trying to capitalize on the North's unpreparedness.
If the south couldn't win the war in the first battle, they'd never have a chance.
 

Crow-Feather

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
92
Reaction score
27
Location
Idaho
Just thinking on it a bit more. I’m sure it would be laughable to compare killing more then one in ten southern adult males to Stalins Holocaust. And my my my, comparing a northern POW camp to a gulag? Humphhh. And my God, who could possibly compare what Lincoln did to southern property to Stalin’s seizure of property and destruction of wealth. And it’s not like Lincoln disenfranchised every one in the south.
Yup yup yup, bad old southerners were just like Stalin, and not like Lincoln at all:rolleyes:
Lincoln didn't do anything after the war. He was dead. Shot in the back by a true son of the south. Most events in the south were a result of that murder.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Merely the consequence of being a fledgling dictatorship.

There is no arguing that their rush to fight was a handicap. Though they were trying to capitalize on the North's unpreparedness.
If the south couldn't win the war in the first battle, they'd never have a chance.
I don’t know. The south definitely banked on the north losing the will to fight. After Bull Run the south had not the means to press an advantage. Same thing with peninsula , Lee could stop Mac but not beat him.
Grant was in a bad place at Shiloh. He did truly snatch victory from jaws of defeat.
But he was also served by bad generalship, while the south throwaway lives in uncoordinated assaults.
Had the union army been defeated and forced to surrender it would have crippled union for a time in the west, and released men to join Lee. I wonder what Lee would have done with another corps.
How would it have effected the elections of ‘62
From tiny acorns mighty oaks do grow.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Lincoln didn't do anything after the war. He was dead. Shot in the back by a true son of the south. Most events in the south were a result of that murder.
Lincoln was very much alive when one in ten or a bit more adult southren men were killed by his armies. He was alive while northern POW camps made the black hole of Calcutta look like club med.
And the true son of the South sure spent a lot of time near some northern government types.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,450
Reaction score
1,889
Lincoln was very much alive when one in ten or a bit more adult southren men were killed by his armies. He was alive while northern POW camps made the black hole of Calcutta look like club med.
The South bears all responsibility for the loss of life. They chose to fight not the other way round.
 
2
Group Builder
Top