Contrary to standard accounts, the birthplace of American secessionist sentiment was not Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, but the heart of the New England Yankee culture -- Salem, Massachusetts -- more than half a century before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter. From 1800 to 1815, there were three serious attempts at secession orchestrated by New England Federalists, who believed that the policies of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, especially the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812, were so disproportionately harmful to New England that they justified secession.
More here:
http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html
Quote:That's funny, only stupid Southerners would need the emancipation proclamation to end slavery. The rest of the world (outside of the Arabs) figured it out, but damn those stupid white southerners, good thing we had a war over it.
The South played their own role in starting that war, don't act like they were all innocent and just got attacked for no reason.
The emancipation proclamation ONLY freed slaves in the SOUTHERN territories, NOT in the Northern states or northern held areas in the South
Quote:The emancipation proclamation ONLY freed slaves in the SOUTHERN territories, NOT in the Northern states or northern held areas in the South
"Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion -"
" Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the
Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction" This is referring to the non rebelling states or territories occupied by the union.
From wikipedia
Quote:The South played their own role in starting that war, don't act like they were all innocent and just got attacked for no reason.
I've said from the start the South was guilty of committing horribly immoral actions and holding people in slavery. You said the War was to end slavery, to justify the use of War and how it's done all these wonderful things. I get you where probably speaking a little tongue in cheek but my point is War didn't fix slavery.
Quote:There's not much to say, most people buy the entire premise the noble North fought to free black slaves from the evil South. It's a narrative that's pushed in education, and ignores the gross abuse of power Lincoln displayed during the Civil War, the complex social and economical issues that lead to secession, and the result of an unsolvable union.
They don't teach in schools that the civil war was fought to free the slaves.
Quote:The South played their own role in starting that war, don't act like they were all innocent and just got attacked for no reason.
Lincoln actually provoked the incident at Ft. Sumter...
Neoconfederates tend to hold Lincoln to a different standard than Jefferson Davis.
If one is to expect Lincoln to NOT send supplies to Fort Sumter (after notifying the governor of what was happening, and that ONLY supplies were being sent and that so long as the attempt wasn't resisted that men nor arms nor ammunition would be thrown in), then one should also reasonably expect the confederacy to not resist said addition of provisions.
Quote:Neoconfederates tend to hold Lincoln to a different standard than Jefferson Davis.
If one is to expect Lincoln to NOT send supplies to Fort Sumter (after notifying the governor of what was happening, and that ONLY supplies were being sent and that so long as the attempt wasn't resisted that men nor arms nor ammunition would be thrown in), then one should also reasonably expect the confederacy to not resist said addition of provisions.
So I'm a "neoconfederate" for saying that Lincoln provoked the incident? was Lincoln really that naive not to expect that the Confederates would retaliate for the perceived incursion? who said anything about Jefferson Davis? did P.G.T. Beauregard not have a hand in that whole thing as well?
So everyone who opposes Lincon's policies is automatically labeled as a neoconfederate? WOW. Like really, wow. This is why history is so messed up these days. Nobody can have a civil discussion looking at both sides of a historical event; without being labeled something, or being accused of something that they're really not. The South and Jefferson Davis made a lot of boneheaded decisions too.
I said it once and I'll say it again: no other single event has scarred this Country more than the Civil War. The fact that we're having this debate 150 years after the Surrender at Appomattox proves this fact.
Quote:So I'm a "neoconfederate" for saying that Lincoln provoked the incident? was Lincoln really that naive not to expect that the Confederates would retaliate for the perceived incursion? who said anything about Jefferson Davis? did P.G.T. Beauregard not have a hand in that whole thing as well?
So everyone who opposes Lincon's policies is automatically labeled as a neoconfederate? WOW. Like really, wow. This is why history is so messed up these days. Nobody can have a civil discussion looking at both sides of a historical event; without being labeled something, or being accused of something that they're really not. The South and Jefferson Davis made a lot of boneheaded decisions too.
I said it once and I'll say it again: no other single event has scarred this Country more than the Civil War. The fact that we're having this debate 150 years after the Surrender at Appomattox proves this fact.
Everyone who paints the south in a heroic light is a neoconfederate, yes. Just like people who supports socialism are socialists. That's the definition. It's no different than saying "Liberals support the Affordable Care Act" Neo just means 'new'. Those who wish to attach the ideals of libertarianism to the confederates (minus the whole issue of slavery).
Lincoln was not so naive to believe that it wouldn't provoke a retaliation -- he certainly anticipated it as a possible outcome. But why is Lincoln the only one to blame, when the South (which you implied had no blame in the matter with your response to flsprtsgod) was the one who retaliated, when they too could have chosen not to.
I would suggest you all watch Ken Burn's documentary series on the subject. It's on Amazon Video if you have that. It will clear up any confusion you might be afflicted with.
Quote:I've said from the start the South was guilty of committing horribly immoral actions and holding people in slavery. You said the War was to end slavery, to justify the use of War and how it's done all these wonderful things. I get you where probably speaking a little tongue in cheek but my point is War didn't fix slavery.
Again you interpret what I've said into what you mean. The War ended slavery. I've never said the War was intended to end slavery.
Quote:Again you interpret what I've said into what you mean. The War ended slavery. I've never said the War was intended to end slavery.
It ended slavery here. That much is true.
Quote:It ended slavery here. That much is true.
At the very least it expedited it's exit. War tends to be the fastest way to get results, even when it's not the original intent of the war.
Maybe if diplomacy were faster, the world would be a better place.
Quote:Burns is a longtime supporter of the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29'>Democratic Party</a>, with almost $40,000 in political donations.<sup><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#cite_note-12'>[12]</a></sup> In 2008, the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee'>Democratic National Committee</a> chose Burns to produce the introductory video for Senator <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy'>Edward Kennedy</a>'s August 2008 speech to the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention'>Democratic National Convention</a>, a video described by <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico'>Politico</a> as a "Burns-crafted tribute casting him [Kennedy] as the modern <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus'>Ulysses</a> bringing his party home to port."<sup><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#cite_note-13'>[13]</a></sup><sup><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#cite_note-14'>[14]</a></sup> In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Burns produced a short eulogy video at his funeral. In endorsing <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama'>Barack Obama</a> for the U.S. presidency in December 2007, Burns compared Obama to <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln'>Abraham Lincoln</a>.<sup><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#cite_note-15'>[15]</a></sup> He said he had planned to be a regular contributor to <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countdown_with_Keith_Olbermann'>Countdown with Keith Olbermann</a> on <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV'>Current TV</a>.<sup><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#cite_note-16'>[16]</a></sup>
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns</a>
Yea I'm sure he'll be a non-biased completely factual review of the Civil War. 
Lincoln was a republican.
I suggest you watch it. You might learn something for once.
Quote:At the very least it expedited it's exit. War tends to be the fastest way to get results, even when it's not the original intent of the war.
Maybe if diplomacy were faster, the world would be a better place.
That's the same type of consequentialist style of thinking that every ruthless dictator and general has ever used. From Alexander The Great to Julius Caesar, from Hitler to Stalin. War is hell; but even the most barbaric and despicable acts can be pardoned in a time of war. So long as the "ends justify the means". For instance: everyone here will agree that the destruction of personal property is a grievous offense in every circumstance imaginable, but in the case of Sherman's "March to the Sea" that's exactly what his men did. With the capitulation of most Confederate forces by the end of 1864, widespread looting occurred in most parts of the South; and the burning or "scorched earth" tactics of destroying major industrial cities such as Atlanta.
With the South already in disarray after the Fall of Richmond, its acting Government no longer in control of things, and most of its military personnel having either surrendered or fled, one has to ask whether that was really necessary or not. Maybe the South might have fought on a little longer without that, but there were also no insurgencies (at least that I know of) that occurred in the South after the Civil War. The fact is, the South was already exhausted after 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. As in most cases with long bloody conflicts: The war became unpopular, and it no longer had the will to fight against a more heavily industrialized North. The war was already lost.
Moral relativism really is the cancer of all mankind...
Quote:That's the same type of consequentialist style of thinking that every ruthless dictator and general has ever used. From Alexander The Great to Julius Caesar, from Hitler to Stalin. War is hell; but even the most barbaric and despicable acts can be pardoned in a time of war. So long as the "ends justify the means". For instance: everyone here will agree that the destruction of personal property is a grievous offense in every circumstance imaginable, but in the case of Sherman's "March to the Sea" that's exactly what his men did. With the capitulation of most Confederate forces by the end of 1864, widespread looting occurred in most parts of the South; and the burning or "scorched earth" tactics of destroying major industrial cities such as Atlanta.
With the South already in disarray after the Fall of Richmond, its acting Government no longer in control of things, and most of its military personnel having either surrendered or fled, one has to ask whether that was really necessary or not. Maybe the South might have fought on a little longer without that, but there were also no insurgencies (at least that I know of) that occurred in the South after the Civil War. The fact is, the South was already exhausted after 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. As in most cases with long bloody conflicts: The war became unpopular, and it no longer had the will to fight against a more heavily industrialized North. The war was already lost.
Moral relativism really is the cancer of all mankind...
Are you asserting that the fall of Richmond occurred BEFORE Sherman's march to the sea?