| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
21st Post |
|
ole Member 
|
It should be clear that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 made war inevitable, regardless of what actions the southerners took regarding federal property. His re-election sealed the fate of the Confederacy. Ooof! It was not Lincoln hisself, it was the election of a republican. Any other republican carring that platform would have sufficed. The republican platform made it clear that expanding slavery into the territories would not be tolerated. Abe was picked over Cameron and others because he was moderate. The south seceded because a republican president was elected. And it did its damndest to make sure that there was no democratic candidate to oppose him. And the idea that there was no facility in any of the southern states to vote republican starts to smell a little. Secession was a given before the election. That was just the frosting on the cake. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
22nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Ole- I don't think that there was some giant plot to throw the election of 1860. The southern democrats did not see eye to eye with Mr. Douglas, and the party was split. That allowed Mr. Lincoln to be elected. That led to secession, I agree. But it was the particular republican who was elected, Abraham Lincoln, who decided that there would be war, because he would not accept secession. He had the option of letting the: "wayward sisters" leave. Of course, he would never have done so. So- if you wish, we can spread the blame around. There was a war because the southerners were the southerners, and Mr. Lincoln was Mr. Lincoln.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:48 am |
|
23rd Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
Texas Defender wrote: Johan- Was Lincoln right? I don't know for certain but I do think he was right to fight instead of rolling over onto his back and surrendering. I firmly believe that his wait and see policy was working, Secession popularity was fading it was seen by many as an effete joke before Ft Sumter when all were forced to understand that the CS was serious about it and were willing to go to war to get what they wanted.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:56 am |
|
24th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
I've been reading alot about Logan and the 1860 Democratic Convention and that gave me reason to look at some other things and writings from it. From the start Southern Democrats seemed to be purposefully sabotaging any solidarity w/ Northern Democrats. There was to be no comprimise from the start. I do believe there was a conspiracy w/ both unknowing and knowing assistance of quite a few 1860 Southern Democrats and I do believe Davis was well and truly in the thick of it. Was he the originator? I don't believe so, but looking at 140 year old political machinations and trying to figure it all is not my cup of java. Now I apologize to all if I hijacked my thread... wanted to make sure all knew where I was coming from. Javal, I do apologize for bringing modern politics into the thread and board. I hate it when others do it and here I did it. Bad Shane, no Scotch... ok maybe no donut; gotta have my Black Label.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
25th Post |
|
ole Member
|
TD: There is ample, albeit inconclusive, evidence that the fire-eaters did sabotage the democratic convention so as to guarantee a republican victory. And we agree that it was the election of Abraham Lincoln that set off secession. But it could have as easily been Cameron or any other republican because the platform of the republican party did have a plank that opposed expansion in the territories. This plank was the killer. I still do not understand why the question of expansion was so crucial. The territories were not hospitable to the use of slaves. Cain't grow cotton in Kansas. Or Nebraska. Or New Mexico. Or Arizona. It was more like, "You can't tell me what I can't do." Even though it was a specious argument. So then we come back to the idea that there was a powerful will to secede, no matter what. Reason had nothing to do with it. Lincoln's election had nothing to do with it. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
26th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:05 am by ole |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:04 am |
|
28th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Bad mouse. Gonna have to go to Staples tomorrow. ole\
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:08 am |
|
29th Post |
|
ole Member
|
That would be too good to be true, Bama. Only in our dreams. ole Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:10 am by ole |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:12 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Johan- Of course, those who chose secession didn't go to any court, because they felt that they didn't have to. Their position was that they had a Constitutional right to leave the Union. I've never seen any evidence of any plot to overthrow a duly elected US Government. If there had been, there might have been an actual civil war, instead of the war we call by that name now. The southerners weren't trying to destroy the US Government, only to leave it. I don't see how a :"reasoned argument" could have been made between those who chose to secede and Mr. Lincoln. Seven states seceded before he took office. If he had accepted that action, I have no idea what other states might have done. But those states were bent on leaving, and he was bent on forcing them to stay. That is why they came to blows. You see the Ft. Sumter incident as a : "win-win" for Mr. Davis. I see it as a total disaster for the Confederate cause. I believe that if Mr. Davis was here now, that he would agree with me. Chief Justice Taney never spent a day in jail, but I have read some sources that maintain that Mr. Lincoln considered having him arrested. It was much easier to arrest and imprison many thousands of others. Putting the Chief Justice behind bars would not have been a good political move. Mr. Taney eventually had to back down on ex parte Merryman, and he had no power after that. Without the cooperation of the Legislative Branch, the Judiciary cannot rein in an Executive branch that abuses its powers. I do not believe that the southern democrats purposely blew the 1860 election, as I stated earlier. But thery could not reconcile with the northern democrats. As a result, the party was split. So, Mr. Lincoln was the result. There are many examples in American History where politicians have refused to make compromises, and ended up with a result much more deleterious to their cause than the compromise would have been.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
West Virginia provided the US 17-18 Regiments of Infantry, 8 Batteries of Arty and 6-7 Regiments of Cavalry. More troops than Rhode Island, New Hampshire or Vermont which were states well and truly in the heart of the situation. West Virginians who served certainly didn't think they were part of an illegally formed state but part of the US. I don't think they saw the hypocricy; I think they saw themselves fighting to preserve & defend their country.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
ole Member
|
So how do we make slave state senators from states that can't support slaves? ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:16 am |
|
34th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Bama46 wrote: We are all in agreement....Let Chicago Go!...In fact, if it doesn't want to, ....Make It! Foot n fist tooth n nail send em home in a pail! Ra Ra Ra. Bama you start a movement to expel Chicago from Illinois and I'll help or at least donate the first dollar!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:39 am |
|
37th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Please... tarriffs are a smokescreen. Someone please refresh my memory was the average $2 or $3 per citizen of the US. $2 or $3... most on goods the average Southerner & Northerner had nothing to do w/. In short the tarriffs are pure smoke. Prefer Staples to Office Max or Office Depot but can't agree w/ you more. Heck $6 at Best Buy and you'll probably see a DVD you can't talk yourself out of.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
39th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Staples, Office Max and Office depot are closer than McGrath's. When I want some envelopes or pens or those little pointy stickies, I go to the closest place. With a v10 as my casual vehicle, I don't traipse around lightly. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:26 am |
|
40th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Then those damned southern rednecks leave the union! they are responsible for what 70..80% of the tarriffs collected to fund the government and now that money is gone.. WTH? How am I gonna run a government with no money...and how am I gonna keep the Repbulican party going? I've been waiting for years for someone to show me how the southerners paid 70 or 80 percent of the tariffs. It has been established that the tariffs were paid by the consumer. Now how does 30 percent of the population of a country consume 80 percent of the imported goods? The money collected from southern ports was not the point. It was a piddly sum compared to what was collected from northern ports. It was a matter of law. If Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah refused to collect duties, how could the collection be enforced in New York, Philadelphia and Boston? ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 11:48 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? | Top |
