Posted on 11/28/2015 1:04:27 PM PST by bob_denard
You’re just full of ignorance, aren’t you?
Bless your heart.
Nah, but I’m returning the compliment. My side won. Yours lost.
My people weren’t involved, they weren’t here yet. So I don’t have a dog in that fight.
I do have the ability to look at events and analyze what was really happening, and not just believe what got fed to me one day in history class.
Instead of an insult perhaps you could show jmacusa where he is wrong.
Jump right in, my time is limited.
I will take the time to note that the South didn’t invade the North until over 2 years into the war, hoping they could win a defensive war for what they saw as their territory. They were not trying to control the entire country, which would have made it a true civil war in the traditional sense of the term. They were trying to break away as their own group of states.
The basic war aim of the Confederacy, like that of the United States in the Revolution, was to defend a new nation from conquest. Confederates looked for inspiration to the heroes of 1776, who had triumphed over greater odds than southerners faced in 1861.
Ok you dunderhead try to learn something.
The day a moron like you could teach me anything would be a sad day indeed. The South went to war to preserve slavery and lost everything. The North went to war to preserve the Union and won. Tell me something General, if the South had won the war would it have abolished slavery?
My people were here and fought for the Union, ok? So I do have a dog in this fight.
No, it did not, which is the point you are studiously missing.
The point you missing is the one I’ve repeated so often he South went to war to preserve slavery and lost. The North went to war to preserve the Union and won. Anything after that is academic. Here’s a question for you: If the South had won the war it started would it have abolished slavery?
Eventually, I believe they would have, as it was fast becoming an economic drag due to the increasing mechanization of agriculture, as well as being wrong morally.
An economic drag? How so? Mecanhanization was not that prevalent in the 1840’s and 50’s, certainly not with a combustion engine. Wages? Free men were paid a wage, not slaves. If the South would have ended slavery why did it go to war to preserve it?
The rebels were trying to overthrow the government - even if only within one geographical part of the nation. An internal struggle for control of the government is the definition of civil war.
North and south have often found themselves at odds regarding policies and direction of government. But 70+ years of operating as a nation (leading up to the Civil War) shows pretty clearly that the south wished to dominate the nation. Their central focus - their raison d’être - was an economy built upon the backs of slave labor and the southern states always voted en bloc to defend the Particular Institution.
From the inception of the Constitution itself with it’s veiled references to slavery to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, “Gag rule” in Congress from 1831 through 1844, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and even the Crittenden Compromise of 1860 - any and every attempt to minimize or curtail slavery was met with a “my way or the highway” response.
So when the slavers saw the writing on the wall, they didn’t seek a coup where the seized control of all the states, but they seek to breakaway through an insurrection. I agree that they had no plan to take over the northeastern states - but they did make a play for every slave state and all of the western states and territories.
And their plan did include incapacitating as much of the US military as they could.
Just for the record, it’s The Peculiar Institution.
Oops - you’re correct ;’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.