The War Between The States Discussions

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Crow-Feather

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
92
Reaction score
27
Location
Idaho
Someone is getting ridiculous trying to keep this going. I wonder how hard they are laughing when they post such perverted replies. Next, they will call Sherman an arsonist.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
1,865
Wow... I was taught law should apply equally to every one. I mean once an English colonist aren’t you always an English colonist?
Yes, as long as the English colony remains an English colony. The attempted Confederacy died long ago and it's people never left the United states or it's jurisdiction. You do not see British running around america waving their flag, nor the Dutch, nor the Spanish , Nor the french. All who actually had legitimate claims before the Confederacy.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
Someone is getting ridiculous trying to keep this going. I wonder how hard they are laughing when they post such perverted replies. Next, they will call Sherman an arsonist.
I not sure to whom you referring here. On this subject I have a markedly different view then C-6 or Straekat, I doubt it bleeds over in to much other things on this forum. However I can say for me I’m posting my honest feelings about the war. And I feel others are being honest also what they post.
It is a storm in a tea cup. Because no matter what we say it ended in a might makes right decision a century and a half ago.
I recall a drive defensively commercial from when I was a kid,that showed a smashed car with the words’ he was in the right away’.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
However I can say for me I’m posting my honest feelings about the war.
.
Ok, nice to have that statement for the record, because elsewhere in this thread you've told us you were telling us how *they* thought about a range of subjects. You should reflect on what some of those subjects were and how they can be seen in the light of you saying you are posting your "honest feelings." Just sayin'
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
Let me explain, I do not hold the views they held as regards slavery, about race in general or many things held in the nineteenth century. I do seek to understand what they were thinking.
And seek to see history through their eyes.
As regards if the south was in the right to have a nation that looked out for the people of their new nation I believe they had the same rights that any other group had to start a new government to look out for its citizens needs.
To accuse them of being selfish is only applicable if we follow that fairly. The colonies were either in the right or being selfish or the Dutch the Mexicans, The Texicans or the Irish ect ect.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
Just to be clear as my statement seems to be misconstrued.
Riding a motorcycle with out an helmet and protective clothing is stupid. As is drinking too heavy or trying to live on a diet of doughnuts and Mac and cheese.
However I will strongly protect your right to be stupid. I will defend your right to the end.
That doesn’t mean I would jump on a bike with outa helmet. Infact I don’t ride them at all. I do trek alone and that could’ve dangerous. So just as I would defend my right to be stupid I will defend others.
Had the north let the South go free or had second Bull run the people of the north stopped supporting the war and a treaty was made I don’t think the CSA would last twenty years.
However I think the only people who had a right to judge what the south did was the south.
When I say I express my real feelings I’m saying I supported what the south did for the south’s reasons. It does not mean I support those reasons.
The south wanted to live on doughnuts and I don’t think anyone had a right to stop them.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
1,865
To accuse them of being selfish is only applicable if we follow that fairly. The colonies were either in the right or being selfish or the Dutch the Mexicans, The Texicans or the Irish ect ect.
That's a deflection, a "Red Herring". Don't throw honesty out the window.

When I say I express my real feelings I’m saying I supported what the south did for the south’s reasons. It does not mean I support those reasons.
Remember, "feelings" are emotions.

I support the North for the North's reasons, so what's the difference ?
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
1,865
Had the north let the South go free or had second Bull run the people of the north stopped supporting the war and a treaty was made I don’t think the CSA would last twenty years.

I support the North for the North's reasons, so what's the difference ?
One difference is that My foundation is not based on a hypothetical.
The U.S. prevailed and My views were the prevailing views, they were the same views held by the North and many in the south at the time. That's just a plain fact.


However I think the only people who had a right to judge what the south did was the south.
Isn't that exactly the same as letting criminals be their own judges ? How do you not judge them for their acts ?
How is "not judging" not the same as complete acceptance ?
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
Good point. How many people does it take to form a civil society?
The first cities were a few hundred or few thousand. I’m thinking the requirement to become a state was twenty thousand.
Was two million enough in 1776 to forms new nation? Was eight million too few?
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
1,865
Was eight million too few?
Yes, in this case it was, they enslaved almost one person for every free, and they attempted to destroy what at that time was the most free society in the world. Oddly, freedom was not something the leaders of the confederacy wanted people to have. it is immensely hypocritical for them to attempt to make any claim regarding their own freedom.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
I think the number would be one in three.
But the number of slaves was unimportant, by law they were the legal property of their owners. Law pass in the house and senate. People from non slave states voted on fugitive slave act, and passed it. Then Scotus declared slaves could not be citizens.
Then Lincoln declared a policy preventing slave owners entering new territories, over turning by fiat previously compromises.
Like it or not, stare decisis and established law was on the side of slave owning.
The Missouri compromise would have effectively stopped slavery except to Arizona and New Mexico. But that was set aside with the passing through congress and being signed in to law, by Kansas Nebraska act with the goal of opening these lands for aggressive settlement and development.
And Lincoln ran on a platform that said everybody in the country was welcome to settle inthe west and bring any and all of their wealth... except a little less then four hundred thousand Americans who had wealth Lincoln didn’t approve of.
 
Last edited:

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
1,865
I think the number would be one in three.
I think you are thinking of the number of owners, But the difference is trivial.


But the number of slaves was unimportant, by law they were the legal property of their owners.
How can it be "unimportant" when the fear of changing the law was a factor in secession ? The number is also important because the south wanted to expand slavery to western states, But northern and western states didn't want slavery.
Unimportant ? what's in your pipe Tenn ?

Then Lincoln declared a policy preventing slave owners entering new territories, over turning by fiat previously compromises.
Are you talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the states currently engaged in rebellion against the Union “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” ?

Like it or not, stare decisis and established law was on the side of slave owning.
I guess the south didn't like it. the prospect of the law being legally changed forced them to war, and after Jan 1, 1863 they were in violation of the law.

except a little less then four hundred thousand Americans who had wealth Lincoln didn’t approve of.
That's a lot to pin on one man's shoulders, I'd say the majority of Americans felt slavery should be abolished, because once it happened it was never again challenged. Even if people were apathetic, that doesn't mean supported slavery.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
Just to be clear as my statement seems to be misconstrued.
Riding a motorcycle with out an helmet and protective clothing is stupid. As is drinking too heavy or trying to live on a diet of doughnuts and Mac and cheese.
However I will strongly protect your right to be stupid. I will defend your right to the end.
That doesn’t mean I would jump on a bike with outa helmet. Infact I don’t ride them at all. I do trek alone and that could’ve dangerous. So just as I would defend my right to be stupid I will defend others.
Had the north let the South go free or had second Bull run the people of the north stopped supporting the war and a treaty was made I don’t think the CSA would last twenty years.
However I think the only people who had a right to judge what the south did was the south.
When I say I express my real feelings I’m saying I supported what the south did for the south’s reasons. It does not mean I support those reasons.
The south wanted to live on doughnuts and I don’t think anyone had a right to stop them.
Society in general, doesn't usually care about what -one- person does and their personal choices, provided they are not harmful to other people. A "doughnut" eater that forces his wife and children to eat only doughnuts, or the motorcycle driver who won't let passengers wear helmets demanding no one can or should stop him from forcing his kids or those under his control do do unhealthy or unsafe things they don't want to do, might be crossing lines NORMAL people would see as wrong.

When the doughnut eater and helmet-less bike riders meet others who share the same views, they may form a cult that forces people, particularly children under their control to do things that are detrimental to the kiddies. Add to that kids that were abducted from somewhere else...the situation is not about a single doughnut eater not harming anyone else.

In the United States you can eat doughnuts if it's your choice and yours alone. The moment you force wives, children and others to eat doughnuts and only doughnuts, it may be deemed a cult, there may be complaints by neighbors, school teachers and visits by the police and child services.

Complain to the police and child services, and the shoot at one of them....well, dude, your cult is in trouble,

.....


The matter of letting territories, states, and colonies decide to leave almost never works out well, because it sets a precedent. When the British began letting colonies peacefully leave the Empire, starting with India, a line formed at the proverbial door and very quickly Britain's Empire dissolved because almost everyone wanted out.

The southern states wanting to secede and believing it was legal and a right in 1860/61, took a very different stance on the matter during the war when faced with dissent by people such as J"the Republic of Jones", southern dissenters who didn't want to go to war that fled for the hills or deserted from the army when conscripted, and in general quashed forcefully almost all forms of dissent. The southern states weren't willing to let blacks or even whites dissent, go free, or be left alone. If the southern states felt that way about their own, then why should they have felt entitled to be treated differently from the Federal government?
 
Last edited:

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Republic mo
So are you saying it was a bad thing for the people of India, Canada,NewZealand South Africa ect to have the freedom to have gone their own way?
While bad for the empire it was not bad for the people vehicle went free. Like America, who started it all. People chose a government they approved of, that they thought was no longer serving their needs. Like the thirteen colonies the south wanted to chose its own government.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
So are you saying it was a bad thing for the people of India, Canada,NewZealand South Africa ect to have the freedom to have gone their own way?
While bad for the empire it was not bad for the people vehicle went free. Like America, who started it all. People chose a government they approved of, that they thought was no longer serving their needs. Like the thirteen colonies the south wanted to chose its own government.
India, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other colonies separated with the mutual agreement regarding Britain. It was peaceful and with mutual agreement.

The southern states didn't do that, or even attempt to see if a legal and mutual agreed on process of dissolving the political bonds was possible through Congress or the courts.

Yes, the concept of applying the same thinking also applies to the American Revolution.

You revolt and lose, then don't cry about it afterwards. There's an old adage about when you go for the king and lose. The Americans won, the southern states lost.

You commented on might/right yesterday. Think of your position in terms of your logic and how it doesn't hold up to the actual facts and the chronology of events.
 
Last edited:
2

Latest posts

Group Builder
Top