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
Hey buddy, your belief is incorrect. What the Declaration of Independence said was:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — 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."

That is the basis of your assertion ?
Well, you conveniently leave out the rest of Jefferson's Quote. The part that gives it context and meaning the part that obligated the United States to crush the Confederacy.

The rest of Jefferson's quote is as follows:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


Jefferson took pains to argue that the right of revolution was a limited one, in the sense that one could not do this for weak or frivolous reasons (or “light and transient causes”).

Your argument falls flat unless you realize that the union had the same right under your premise.
Show me where your magical right of secession is enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is not for people not long suffering assaults on liberty to judge when the suffering had had enough. You will note Jefferson said it was not only their right but their duty.
Remember the constitution was enacted via the votes of the states. That that a free people can vote to accept they can vote to unaccept.
Show me that part where it’s ideas accepted the people were bound to it sans recourse. The framers of our country did not aim to replace a human tyrant with a paper one.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
It is not for people not long suffering assaults on liberty to judge when the suffering had had enough.
In many ways that is exactly what happened, the north and the west got tired of the southern monopoly, and slaves had enough of their tyrannical rule.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Were there a lot of southerns living in the north and west?
That’s like saying the Brits got fed up with those unruly colonist and had to punish them. After all it was The United Kingdom the colonist were rebelling against
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
Well, I guess they were all Americans and got fed up with what a small group of elites were doing, owing slaves, starting a rebellion and such.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
I think your the one spinning here. Lincon raised an army for the purpose of invading the south, ‘put down the rebellion. The south raised an army to defend. You can spin all you want to it their remains no evidence that had the union not marched in to bull run the confederate army would have marched onWashington.

Again, you get your "facts" wrong. Actually, your the one spinning and distorting the historical record.

Did you conveniently forget to consider Davis began calling for troops BEFORE Sumter, and to a much larger extent than the Federal Army was before Sumter. Davis' call for troops was in contemplation of starting a war, while Lincoln's calling for troops was because the South had already begun the process of building a larger army, and had started a war.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
Did you conveniently forget to consider Davis began calling for troops BEFORE Sumter,
Actually there were a half dozen to a dozen engagements by the rebels before Sumter, remember Ft. Sumter was Anderson's fall back position. After Ft Sumter the south attacked about another dozen times at various locations before the north got their act together.

If the Civil war happened today exactly as it did then, the members of the confederacy would likely be viewed as terrorists.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Again, you get your "facts" wrong. Actually, your the one spinning and distorting the historical record.

Did you conveniently forget to consider Davis began calling for troops BEFORE Sumter, and to a much larger extent than the Federal Army was before Sumter. Davis' call for troops was in contemplation of starting a war, while Lincoln's calling for troops was because the South had already begun the process of building a larger army, and had started a war.
Davis called out troops to defend, Lincoln called out troops to invade and put down rebellion. Peeping for defense is not the same as threatening invasion. A strong defense has been our nations policy for the last seventy years. And I would point out the amount of regimental militia formed all over the north before the war.
 
Last edited:

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Actually there were a half dozen to a dozen engagements by the rebels before Sumter, remember Ft. Sumter was Anderson's fall back position. After Ft Sumter the south attacked about another dozen times at various locations before the north got their act together.

If the Civil war happened today exactly as it did then, the members of the confederacy would likely be viewed as terrorists.
As would the patriots of 1775... or for that matter ‘73
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Why not?
How do you get to a point that x is ok because you like them but y is not because you don’t like them.
When Indians killed women and children, all over the frontier but I’m thinking the year of there sevens was that better or worse then whits massacring villages
Can we make a hero out of Wallace and a terrorist out of Collins?
Was Lafitte a good guy for helping Jackson or a bad guy for being a pirate? Was he better or worse then Morgan?
Do we say the colonies fighting for self interest, many slave owners, was better then the south doing the same thing? were the founding fathers less of traitors then Arnold?
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
Well it goes back to kindergarten when the teacher said that just because little Billy did it and got away with it doesn't mean I get a free pass.

How do you get to a point that x is ok because you like them but y is not because you don’t like them.
I think that's where you are. At what point do you stop being an American and rooting for the home team, the winning team ? Once an American always an American.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
Davis called out troops to defend, Lincoln called out troops to invade and put down rebellion. Peeping for defense is not the same as threatening invasion. A strong defense has been our nations policy for the last seventy years. And I would point out the amount of regimental militia formed all over the north before the war.
You were spot on the other day when you said you can't quite see things from "through their eyes". Northern eyes that is because you can only see matters from an insulated white southern point of view when it concerns the antebellum south and war years.

What you call defensive thinking can also been seen as a threat from the people who are seeing a larger army directly across a shared border being formed. In the modern world, if you carried an unloaded shotgun around in public on a daily basis, there's no doubt people would be concerned about your intentions, and you might be stopped and questioned by the police as a possible threat to public safety even if it wasn't loaded.

Using modern and recent American thinking about the military to justify the south's raising of an army not only before Lincoln was sworn in, but also much larger than the entire military establishment in the north was not how the majority of Americans thought about having large armies in peacetime or a need for a strong defense. After WWII, the continuation of the former allies stationing large occupation forces in Europe and elsewhere contributed to east/west eyeing the other's possible motives and led to an arms' buildup and arm's race between them.

Prior to the southern rebellion of 1861 and again afterwards, the American military was typically quite small during peacetime and the "strong defense" thinking you mention had it's origins in the aftermath of WWI and became mainstream thinking after WWII, The first hundred years of the mainstream national thinking of civilian-military matters was similar to the British thinking about large standing armies.

Regimental militias all over the north? Many of them existed on paper, and I know from having personally checking geneological data, compiling rolls of community members, that many men who were supposed to be part of their local militia units were never entered on the rolls, took part in drills, etc, even if they were physically capable and of prime military age.

Why didn't you mention southern militia units? They existed throughout the south, and served a purpose that was largely unimportant to the north. Southerners were paranoid about slave revolts, and as a consequence, the focus on militias and para-military training and co-operation was considered far more important in the south (than the north) if there was a threat over slave revolts. Related to the militias were informal parties of men who patrolled roads even during time when there was no obvious threats, and were on the lookout for slaves without papers and possible runaways.

In February 1861, representatives from the seceded states met in Montgomery, Alabama, to formally establish a government, and on February 9, elected Jefferson Davis. On February 28, 1861, the southern congress established a provisional volunteer army and gave control over military operations and authority for mustering state forces and volunteers to the newly chosen Confederate president, Jefferson Davis. One of Davi's first actions was preparing a larger army than the north had.

Lincoln was sworn in on March 4th, and relatively speaking barely in office when on March 8 the southern congress passed a law that authorized Davis to issue proclamations to call up no more than 100,000 men. The southern war department asked for 8,000 volunteers on March 9, 20,000 on April 8, 49,000. One estimate is that by mid-April (during Sumter), there may have been 60,000 men at arms in the southern forces stationed in former American military posts, etc taken over by the southerners.

The size of the American military? When the American Civil War began in April 1861, there were only 16,367 men in the U.S. Army, including 1,108 commissioned officers. Approximately 20% of these officers, most of them Southerners, resigned. Less than a thousand men were stationed in and around DC. The small number of men around DC was not enough to protect bridges and river crossings over the Potomac if there was a large and determined southern attack out of Virginia in order to capture DC and possiblly congressional and administration officials.

Lincoln's did nothing about raising troops or expanding the American military throughout March, and his call for raising troops took place after Sumter, not before.

The sheer size of the southern forces on hand when Sumter was fired on was more than double the size of the regular forces Lincoln had on hand when the south started the war.

Davis did not attempt to build an army of comparable or slightly larger than the North had, he wanted one MUCH MUCH larger instead of parity. If two forces have similar capabilities, defense can be accomplished with far fewer troops than the aggressor or offensive troops need to overcome a defensive one. If Davis was thinking he needed a defensive army, then he'd have been focused on parity, not one that was twice/three times larger than the Federal army.

The south's actions of creating a larger army in peacetime, and in consideration of Davis' planning on attacking Sumter as early as the first week of March can be seen in retrospect as preparing for a war, not as a defensive deterrent. Thinking it was otherwise is a clear failure to see matters from anything other than attempting to justify and rationalize away the aggressive nature of the Davis administration.
 
Last edited:

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
The south's actions of creating a larger army in peacetime, and in consideration of Davis' planning on attacking Sumter as early as the first week of March can be seen in retrospect as preparing for a war, not as a defensive deterrent. Thinking it was otherwise is a clear failure to see matters from anything other than attempting to justify and rationalize away the aggressive nature of the Davis administration.
Sounds a like a coup to me, or at least an attempt at one.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
You were spot on the other day when you said you can't quite see things from "through their eyes". Northern eyes that is because you can only see matters from an insulated white southern point of view when it concerns the antebellum south and war years.

What you call defensive thinking can also been seen as a threat from the people who are seeing a larger army directly across a shared border being formed. In the modern world, if you carried an unloaded shotgun around in public on a daily basis, there's no doubt people would be concerned about your intentions, and you might be stopped and questioned by the police as a possible threat to public safety even if it wasn't loaded.

Using modern and recent American thinking about the military to justify the south's raising of an army not only before Lincoln was sworn in, but also much larger than the entire military establishment in the north was not how the majority of Americans thought about having large armies in peacetime or a need for a strong defense. After WWII, the continuation of the former allies stationing large occupation forces in Europe and elsewhere contributed to east/west eyeing the other's possible motives and led to an arms' buildup and arm's race between them.

Prior to the southern rebellion of 1861 and again afterwards, the American military was typically quite small during peacetime and the "strong defense" thinking you mention had it's origins in the aftermath of WWI and became mainstream thinking after WWII, The first hundred years of the mainstream national thinking of civilian-military matters was similar to the British thinking about large standing armies.

Regimental militias all over the north? Many of them existed on paper, and I know from having personally checking geneological data, compiling rolls of community members, that many men who were supposed to be part of their local militia units were never entered on the rolls, took part in drills, etc, even if they were physically capable and of prime military age.

Why didn't you mention southern militia units? They existed throughout the south, and served a purpose that was largely unimportant to the north. Southerners were paranoid about slave revolts, and as a consequence, the focus on militias and para-military training and co-operation was considered far more important in the south (than the north) if there was a threat over slave revolts. Related to the militias were informal parties of men who patrolled roads even during time when there was no obvious threats, and were on the lookout for slaves without papers and possible runaways.

In February 1861, representatives from the seceded states met in Montgomery, Alabama, to formally establish a government, and on February 9, elected Jefferson Davis. On February 28, 1861, the southern congress established a provisional volunteer army and gave control over military operations and authority for mustering state forces and volunteers to the newly chosen Confederate president, Jefferson Davis. One of Davi's first actions was preparing a larger army than the north had.

Lincoln was sworn in on March 4th, and relatively speaking barely in office when on March 8 the southern congress passed a law that authorized Davis to issue proclamations to call up no more than 100,000 men. The southern war department asked for 8,000 volunteers on March 9, 20,000 on April 8, 49,000. One estimate is that by mid-April (during Sumter), there may have been 60,000 men at arms in the southern forces stationed in former American military posts, etc taken over by the southerners.

The size of the American military? When the American Civil War began in April 1861, there were only 16,367 men in the U.S. Army, including 1,108 commissioned officers. Approximately 20% of these officers, most of them Southerners, resigned. Less than a thousand men were stationed in and around DC. The small number of men around DC was not enough to protect bridges and river crossings over the Potomac if there was a large and determined southern attack out of Virginia in order to capture DC and possiblly congressional and administration officials.

Lincoln's did nothing about raising troops or expanding the American military throughout March, and his call for raising troops took place after Sumter, not before.

The sheer size of the southern forces on hand when Sumter was fired on was more than double the size of the regular forces Lincoln had on hand when the south started the war.

Davis did not attempt to build an army of comparable or slightly larger than the North had, he wanted one MUCH MUCH larger instead of parity. If two forces have similar capabilities, defense can be accomplished with far fewer troops than the aggressor or offensive troops need to overcome a defensive one. If Davis was thinking he needed a defensive army, then he'd have been focused on parity, not one that was twice/three times larger than the Federal army.

The south's actions of creating a larger army in peacetime, and in consideration of Davis' planning on attacking Sumter as early as the first week of March can be seen in retrospect as preparing for a war, not as a defensive deterrent. Thinking it was otherwise is a clear failure to see matters from anything other than attempting to justify and rationalize away the aggressive nature of the Davis administration.
I’m sorry,you pushed out lots of words to all things I said, the south raised troops to defend itself. Yes they started to establish an army as soon as they declared independence.
Please remember the colonies created an army in 75 before even declaring independence. An army of defense.
As was the south’s.
Yes as the war went on the south tried to shift the theater and take pressure off of the south. However there would have been no Gettysburg, Antietam, no Early’s raid had the north not invaded the southren states.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
Well it goes back to kindergarten when the teacher said that just because little Billy did it and got away with it doesn't mean I get a free pass.



I think that's where you are. At what point do you stop being an American and rooting for the home team, the winning team ? Once an American always an American.
Wow... I was taught law should apply equally to every one. I mean once an English colonist aren’t you always an English colonist?
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
Sounds a like a coup to me, or at least an attempt at one.
"Coup" is a word that means "a blow". Yes, it was more than an attempt, it was an actual one. Davis struck a blow against the United States by attacking Sumter, and started a war.

Something that has been suggested by a few historians, is Davis was concerned about the southern states that seceded backsliding on their position. The attempt at negotiations before Sumter changed the political and military situation represented a problem to Davis' wanting to keep the southern coalition together. He feared some states would reconcile with the Lincoln administration and his coalition would shrink and the most hard-core states would then be isolated and the North could deal with them individually.

Records of private meeting held by Davis' administration show a unanimous vote to take Sumter by storm in early March 1861. The implication that this could result in a war had to be obvious to those who discussed the matter and then voted unanimously for proceeding on that thinking. Sumter was not an accident, and in retrospect was clearly premeditated and additional plans were made.

It has been suggested Davis ordering Sumter to be taken by force was to start a deliberate war that would create a point of no-return for the states that had seceded and could find making peace with the North difficult or even impossible.

Davis may very well have feared a peaceful reconciliation by some of the wavering southern states and a subsequent break up and isolation of his position, than an outright war that would bind those states closer to him and his cause.

Davis doesn't appear to have attempted to tap or hit the proverbial brakes at all, and a good case can be made that he gunned the motor as hard as he could instead.

Davis may have wanted -and needed- a war more than Lincoln did, and Davis clearly did far more to provoke one when he ordered the attack on Sumter.
 

DaveC

32 Cal.
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
382
Reaction score
177
Location
San Antonio, Texas
At the time of bombarding Fort Sumter, there were seven southern states--all slave states wedded to cotton, sugar, rice, etc. After Sumter, with a combination too large to suppress, Lincoln called for volunteers, and four more states--again, all slave states--seceded. The move to force Maj. Anderson's surrender "crossed the Rubicon" and forced the hand of other would-be secessionists to emulate those in the deep south, no?
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Republic mo
"Coup" is a word that means "a blow". Yes, it was more than an attempt, it was an actual one. Davis struck a blow against the United States by attacking Sumter, and started a war.

Something that has been suggested by a few historians, is Davis was concerned about the southern states that seceded backsliding on their position. The attempt at negotiations before Sumter changed the political and military situation represented a problem to Davis' wanting to keep the southern coalition together. He feared some states would reconcile with the Lincoln administration and his coalition would shrink and the most hard-core states would then be isolated and the North could deal with them individually.

Records of private meeting held by Davis' administration show a unanimous vote to take Sumter by storm in early March 1861. The implication that this could result in a war had to be obvious to those who discussed the matter and then voted unanimously for proceeding on that thinking. Sumter was not an accident, and in retrospect was clearly premeditated and additional plans were made.

It has been suggested Davis ordering Sumter to be taken by force was to start a deliberate war that would create a point of no-return for the states that had seceded and could find making peace with the North difficult or even impossible.

Davis may very well have feared a peaceful reconciliation by some of the wavering southern states and a subsequent break up and isolation of his position, than an outright war that would bind those states closer to him and his cause.

Davis doesn't appear to have attempted to tap or hit the proverbial brakes at all, and a good case can be made that he gunned the motor as hard as he could instead.

Davis may have wanted -and needed- a war more than Lincoln did, and Davis clearly did far more to provoke one when he ordered the attack on Sumter.
OMG!!!! Who ever heard of a coalition falling apart. What newly formed one ever took steps to prevent that at the beginning of a crisis.
Oh I mean besides the new United States that saw all sorts of fear the new country would collapse.
And there was that short guy in Europe who faced and defeated one coalition after another. In fact I think he said words to the effect ‘give me a coalition to fight’.
Lincoln was given ample opportunity to withdrawing from the fort. First he even negotiated then refused.
He advanced a pawn and the south took it, and Lincoln used that as an excuse to invade Virginia.
If your going to say the south fired first you also have to say exactly as Lincoln hoped.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,461
Reaction score
1,892
Oh I mean besides the new United States that saw all sorts of fear the new country would collapse.

That fear was realized in 1861 and corrective measures had to be taken.

Lincoln was given ample opportunity to withdrawing from the fort. First he even negotiated then refused.
Boy, have you got that twisted and ass backwards.
 
2
Group Builder
Top