Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Every now & then I revisit issues, talking history here. Lately, have come to doubt what I was taught in school and further reading has supported: the Civil War was about taxes. Always thought it was the import and export tax policy that set it off. Now I wonder.
Seems to me they had something else, more basic, in mind. They were no clearer explaining what their catch phrases meant to them than we are today. So I am in a quandary. Can anybody help me out with a few things?
Why did the original seven states secede?
Why then?
In 1812, the US Navy was largely Southern. By 1860, it was nearly all Northern. What happened?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
That is a real can of worms. Back when the constution was signed some states wanted to secced then because they could'nt get along. There was also the nullification crises in 1832. Getting into the 1850's there was the question of slavery in the newer states. There was also the tariffs put on the souths' goods and products. I've always understood it that the southern states basically wanted to control their own destiny. Look how American socitey has degenerated into what we have today. Except for slavery the souht was right. There is a good book on the subject called ''The fire eaters'' that can really clarify this for you somewhat. I can't remember the authors name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
I think TC is right. The big Problem is these facts are not incitful in that they do not lend themselves to "THE STRUGGLE" in all of it's diluted present forms. These facts do not draw sympathy for, or provide ammunition to those who seek float along, feeding off the efforts of those that strive to better themselves. Racial mongers like thhh Revvvernnnd Jackson need slavey to be the Real motive behind the war to maintain their power. The notion itself enslaves and prevents whole sections of the population from learning to become anything more than whiners and grovelers seeking to cashing on white guilt.
:shock:
Most of the history books writen in the 60,70 and 80's were written by liberal scholars and thus the bias to the real motives behind the war.
cw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
thumbcocker said:
...There was also the nullification crises in 1832. Getting into the 1850's there was the question of slavery in the newer states. ... I've always understood it that the southern states basically wanted to control their own destiny. Look how American socitey has degenerated into what we have today. ... There is a good book on the subject called ''The fire eaters'' that can really clarify this for you somewhat...
Thanks for the reply and recommended book, will try to get hold of a copy.
While we have moved on in some ways in our lifetime, this country is still largely a product of the Civil War, increasingly more so than W.W.II.
Fist attempt at nullification and secession was by Massachusetts around 1813.
Don’t think slavery was as important an issue as reconstructionist historians try make out. Northern states just sold their slaves south when they abolished slavery. South was working on bringing slaves into society when they would abolish slavery. Way different attitudes pre-war and post reconstruction. After the war, Black communities sprung up all over the South with their own schools, churches, business, lawyers, etc. That didn’t just happen, those people were prepared to enter society as full members. Ain’t no stereotype for slavery in the South, it ran the gambit from well educated people of property to the meanest conditions imaginable. Still, don’t make sense that Abe upheld slavery in the North, but wanted to abolish it in the South only? Also, he rescinded the Emancipation Proclamation the day it was to go into effect.
I think you hit it with “wanted to control their own destiny.”
Abe Lincoln came in with a popular vote marginally above George McGovern’s in 1972, and below Michael Dukakis’ in 1988. Doesn’t seem that his election was a pressing issue; what could he have done? Except when given the opportunity to start the Civil War and ignore the constitution, and the part of the country where he didn’t have any support. His actions at Pensacola and Charleston and Maryland are what brought most of the Confederacy into being, as well as the war. What was so pressing to secede right then, so unprepared?
And what happened to Southern representation in the Navy?
I think the pre-war South was a better foundation for our society than our post reconstruction country. In many ways, much more prejudice in the North than the South, much less of the spirit of freedom. Reconstruction killed a lot of positive things we needed. As far as what the war did to our vision of America and our government, that’s what started me on this. The barbarity with which the war was prosecuted is unbelievable; Grant and Sherman were the class of the North, and McClellan of course.
One last rant. Why do people criticize McClellan so? He accomplished almost everything he needed with just maneuver alone. When not killing people, he was a gentleman. Few times he gave battle, his statistics were outstanding. He was trying to bring the Confederacy back into the Republic in time to campaign for their votes in 1864, critical for a Democratic candidate. Rough row to hoe; any of us think we would have done half as well? Also the Little Big Horn, friend is kin to Major Reno (like he’s dead, shouldn’t we now call him General Reno, as is only proper?). Had Generals Custer, Reno and Benteen done anything different, the whole Seventh would have been wiped out, and possibly the last column coming up with General Terry as well. Why does everyone have to be partisan for one officer or another? Can’t they see that none had half the information they needed to make a good decision (or any time), but against all odds, made just the right one? Were it a written test (forget the Indians coming out of nowhere, the bullets, noise, screams of the wounded, discomfort of being in the middle of it), all afternoon; anyone think they would have done as well? What I hate about revisionist historians; they try to rob us of our heroes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Seaweaver, I disagree. I don’t think the slavery reason revision is driven by modern civil rights but to cover the change in balance between state and federal governments; we shifted a whole lot by violence rather than ballot.
Reason the war brought an end to slavery is that the main reason it was still hanging on was all of the paper out on slaves. Couldn’t abolish it without financial collapse. When they had a financial collapse, no one cared enough to try to maintain slavery.* A lot more sentiment to abolish slavery in the South than the North, just it was realistic as to where they were going and how to get there, not simplistic and unrealistic. It was a problem permeated the whole of society, no easy fix but a complex one. North just sold their younger slaves south, paid off the paper and reinvested the rest; no slaves, no debt and very few blacks to deal with. Older slaves, financial liability, were no longer their problem. *Northern factories relying on raw materials produced by slaves did care; after the war, tried to pass laws that free Southern blacks could only work in the fields. Our racial problems are largely due to reconstruction, not slavery. Actually, put eight decent people of whatever racial, religious, ethnic, gender mix in a room, and it’s surprising how much cooperation and little problem there is. I’d have to say decent people don’t have a problem with each other. Indecent people always got problems, always caused by others.
But that’s not what I’m asking; more of a why, especially why just then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
It was about a number of issues, slaverybeing only a small part. Basically the south was unhappy with the way the North wanted to run things, and did not like their representation in CONgress (see 3/5ths compromise) and eventually said "stick it" to the federal government. That's SqS's 10 second history lesson. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Well, gentlemen, I agree that slavery was the smallest factor. Lincoln didn't even sign the Emancipation proclamation until two years after the war began. Not much of a hurry to change things, huh?

By the way, during that time, because of Lincoln, people lost alot of personal freedoms and rights, especially in travel. See a parallel for today? Look at the Patriot Act. You can't just cry "national emergency" and take away civil liberties- or can you? I don't blame it on any one person, but collectively, we got swept into a darker time- not BECAUSE of 9-11, but because of what we did AFTER 9-11. Over-reaction and fear got to us, and we're losing more every day. REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Skippy1,
Lincoln used Sumter as an excuse to declare martial law and abolish the constitution. He had his reasons, but that is what caused fully half of the Confederacy and the Civil War.
When 9/11 happened, I was thankful that we had our beloved president (that is my shot at all the Democrats I have to listen to, as well as my sentiment and my way of distinguishing him from his dad) at the helm. The Patriot Act is a pain and I think the reason that they haven’t struck again is that they could not come up with a way to do anything worse than what we have done to ourselves. But it is nothing like what Lincoln did!!!! Governor candidates don’t have to run from outside the US. People, in America, aren’t being locked up without any fanfare or rights. At least one of the prosecutions I have heard about, I think the guy was OK and should not have been convicted. But I am thankful that we have a president that has put some brakes on our natural reaction. And I emphasize, our beloved president has put brakes on it. He has been a moderating force on what otherwise might have rivaled the WWII concentration camps for our Japanese compatriots (like they weren’t every bit as American as the rest of us). America is an idea, not a blood test.
There is no comparison between then and now. That is where our national idea took a turn for the worse. I understand how the Confederacy lost the war, even why Lincoln pushed it to war. What I suspect I don’t understand is why the seven states seceded then. The general feeling at the time was that it would be worked out and the country would be whole again, only on the right track. Seems to me, that is exactly what should have happened.
Slavery is/was wrong. Only the South fully appreciated that. But it was not the issue. Neither were taxes the main issue. Something else was. We made a very wrong turn in 1861. We will not be right again until we correct it. We’re still more right than anyone else, just not right compared to us. Not trying to correct it here, just to understand it. So much hogwash out there, still haven’t located a copy of the book thumbcocker mentioned. Thought I might get some insight here.
Anyone here would feel better had president Gore been at the helm?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,343 Posts
If Gore had been at the helm we'd all be reading the Koran and blowing ourselves up everytime we found someone who didn't think the way we did. Hmmmmm..... Guess that would only work once :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
G

·
Gore would still be appologizing to the Godless subhuman scum for having the twin towers built in the way of their stolen airplanes. We'd be in a world of hurt right now. I really believe that we'd of been hit several times more if it weren't for the aggressive actions of president Bush. Those scum don't know how to deal with a real man. They judged us by the inactions and immorality of bj bill. They thought we were weak, and wouldn't fight, they were WRONG. POWDERMAN. :x :x :x :x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Actually slavery was the farthest thing from lincoln's mind. His original plan was for slavery to be abolished by 1900. He also said that if he could keep the union together he would'nt free any slaves. Keeping the union together was his main objective. We also have to remember that after the war the south's economy was nonexistent. Reconstruction being the law of the land, the government put pro-northern people in positions of power. This not only fueled the southerners fire, but in it's extreme led to the formation of the klan. This is a very deep subject, and to most people it is a 140 years in our past. On the other hand, most students of true American history believe that the issues are still not resolved. If all of the issues were resolved why is there affirmative action? And why do certain segments of society get treated differently in schools and legal issues?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Gentlemen, I disagree. Remember that it was President Clinton who presided over the debacle at Waco and had legislation ready and waiting for an incident when the Okalahoma bombing occurred. I think ‘President Gore’ would have had a program to crack down on the Bill of Rights ready to go about 9/12/01. Granted the names would have been more politically correct, perhaps the Freedom Act and the Department of Domestic Tranquility. But I shudder to think of the rights and freedoms we would have lost.
Our current President Bush has taken steps to institute a “new culture” at the FBI. Think he was referring to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Powderman,
I strongly disagree with your sentiments on Islam. Many Islamic leaders, and the Islamic press, have denounced terrorism on religious grounds; but that isn’t covered here. Even the Ayatollah Khomeini (son of the one we remember and no friend of ours) has denounced ALL terrorists and stated flatly that none of them could be practicing Moslems. In his address to the last Haj, he went further to quote the Koran on the subject of proper (by any standards) treatment and relations between Moslems and non-Moslems. We should be working together on common goals. Oh, that is what is happening in Iraq.
My point is that Islam is a legitimate religion beset by the same problems as both Judaism and Christianity: radicals with political agendas, anathema to the religion, trying to co-opt the religion; and secularism.
This is not a place for religious posts. I am trying to show you another view to the one you expressed. Just because they claim to be Moslems doesn’t make them Moslems. Don’t help them by accepting their false claims.
Thumbcocker,
Lincoln’s plan was to deport all blacks out of North America; he didn’t have a problem with slavery, but with sharing the continent with blacks. We are not dealing with racial problems, but with reconstruction problems. Civil War issues will not go away until we resolve them. Why we didn’t then was that it gave Lincoln a way to disenfranchise most of his opposition, and follow his own agenda with the land grants of the transcontinental railroad. So what if America went down the drain; not his concern. Had the South been able to vote in 1864, Lincoln would have been a one term footnote.
Why is it OK to have substandard schools as long as we bus students from different neighborhoods to them, by lottery? Why affirmative action in 2005 when President Johnson set out to abolish all unequal opportunity in the 1960’s? Had we achieved equal opportunity then, there would be no auspices now. We ALL had a dream; when will our grandchildren see it? Our whole affirmative action thing is a farce! No one should receive substandard anything from our government. Wasn’t set to be that way before the Civil War.
Reagan was the only Illinois boy to be President. Have to add that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
I am a very conservative person, and as a soldier, I support my commander in chief. However, I vehemently oppose the Patriot Act as it is written. I do not think it was a way of "putting the brakes on", but a very strong blow to our civil liberties. I don't like terrorists, and unlike most on this board, have been in battle against them, however, how long can we hold somebody, citizen or not, without charging them with a crime? As the Patriot Act is written, if you are suspected to be a terrorist, than all the regular rights you have as a defendant are gone. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I handload. I make ammunition for myself. I own firearms. Between Clinton signing the UN Small Arms treaties, his executive order that all local law enforcement could be bolstered by federal agencies during times of "Emergency", and the Patriot Act's ambiguous language, we could all on this board be considered terrorists, taken from our homes with no explanation, and held with no lawyer or person to plead our case until they're done with us.
Add to this the religious persecution that is going on in America today, perpetrated by Liberal Federal Judges, and tell me that we're any better off than in the 1860's. I think we've reverted, and whether peaceful or by arms, we need a revolution. Does this line of thinking make me a terrorist? A rebel? Two years ago, I could type this message without fear that the government was watching, but because of the Patriot Act, certain "key words" transmitted over the internet can peak government agencies interest. Doesn't that scare anybody? I love my country, and have and will continue to put myself in harms way, but our government is making some scary decisions. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT. I voted both times for Bush. I support him. But the Patriot act is exactly the same type of thing Lincoln did during the 1860's. These well meaning documents can become the things that erode our rights and freedoms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Skippy1,
AS an Idaho resident, I have been well aware of the potential for abuse. Single white males from Idaho were originally one of the profiles for terrorists (2001). Know people stopped and searched several times in the same airport back then. Was apprehensive last trip back to Illinois. Was searched more thoroughly than seemed necessary at every airport except one. It was asinine and irritating. The behavior of the people doing the searching made keeping myself civil much easier. They were always courteous, respectful and professional. My hat’s off to them! Hard to enforce such things, deal with irate people constantly and still keep courteous. The act is set to expire shortly. That is a good thing.
2001, we were attacked by foreign murderous terrorists. The inclination to over react is human. Our congress and our courts were involved. Our president did not initially support the act and has been willing to review it for abuse. This act could be greatly abused. I don’t think it has been (greatly, yet). I believe he has been a moderating influence on what would have been worse. The conduct has been to protect, and retain rights. We were stopped and searched, then progressed on our way able to do what we intended. How do you think a ‘president Gore or Kerry’ would have used it? Do you think they would have had reservations? Where would we be now?
1861 was a question of whether states had a constitutional right to secede. Both the courts and the congress were bypassed. Military law was declared in areas that had not seceded. The provisions were used against people acting lawfully, to deprive them of their rights, not protection. The targets were political, the opposition party. Rude ain’t in it, the conduct was absolutely barbarous. The “emergency” expired when Lincoln said it did. Interesting to note that after the war, the charges against Confederates, and property confiscations, were dropped rather than let a court rule on the right to secede. Our government has followed procedure to act within the law; and been concerned to not over react. Lincoln and associates seem to have believed they were acting outside the law.
The 9/11 actions of the terrorists are strictly forbidden by the Koran. What is known of their actions before does not indicate even a passing familiarity with Islam. The hijackers were not Moslems but, some of the New York City police and firefighters who responded were. The Patriot Act recognizes American Moslems, affirms their rights and goes to lengths to protect them.
 
G

·
SILVERTIP. I see islam as a fast growing cancer, and not a religion so much as a cult. They teach hatred and intolerance from birth. By the time many, if not most of them, reach 12 years old they are so full of hatred that they will never be able to function in any kind of a civilized society. They idolize a self proclaimed prophet named muhammed. A warrior, a butcher, a murderer, yes, but certainly not one of Gods prophets. He taught hatred, murder, intolerance, and death to all non muslims. Jesus Christ taught love, and forgiveness. All of Gods prophets performed miracles. Healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, etc. Their muhamed did none of those things. After he proclaimed himself a prophet, muhamed was run out of mecca, he fled to medina and built his army. He butchered thousands of Christians. Prophet???. I don't think so. A deranged killer??. Thats a much better description than prophet. The man who fragged the officers, shot another in the back. The so called snipers killing at random in Washington and Va? The one thing they had in common? They were all recent converts to islam. A religion of peace? Not so. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. POWDERMAN. :( :( :( :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
The only Conferate that was tried and sentenced to hang was Henry Wirz. Commandant of Andersonville prison. Present day America is so far removed from what the founding Fathers envisioned, they would'nt even recognize America today. I say it again the South was right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I’m not too sure about great disagreement, powderman. We both seem to have about the same opinion of the murderous hate mongers claiming to be Moslems. Our difference is that I have known and lived in communities with significant Moslem populations. I know those hate mongers are not Moslems, but the antithesis of Islam; and it’s greatest threat. I am a Christian and not an Islamic scholar so I will not dispute your rendition of Mohammed except to say I have never before heard of him killing any Christians, let alone thousands. And you didn’t mention anything that Moslems remember him for. Neither will I name Prophets I’ve never heard miracles attributed to. That is beyond this forum. Subject is our dealing with a threat of malevolence and ignorance; our actions, not theirs. I know that practicing Moslems are our ally in this.
 
G

·
SILVERTIP. I ran accross a lot of info from a book called, HALLEYS BIBLE HANDBOOK. A lot of interesting reading there. I'm sure there are some peaceful muslims, but they too are taught that all non muslims are infidels. They preach hatred in their mosques and intolerance of any other religion. I believe that muhamed was a false prophet, and that islam is a false religion. Any so called religion that basicly turns it's back on Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour is no more than a cult to me. There are undoubtedly many thousands, maybe millions, of muslims that bear us no real harm. Mostly though, I believe they hate us, as they have been taught from birth. What kind of a man would teach his children to hate all non muslims? A muslim. What kind of a man would strap TNT on his childs back and point him towards a bus loaded with Jewish school children? A muslim. Their religion is filled with hatred and death. They claim to murder in Gods name, but they don't even know him. They are doing the devils work, not Gods. They claim to worship a God of hatred and intolerance. My God is loving, caring, and forgiving. Since there is but ONE God, I see them as Godless, because theirs does not exist as they see him.
In all fairness I must say this. After muhamed declared himself a prophet and he rounded up his army, he first attacked and destroyed the idol worshippers. After he completed that task he turned on the Christians, and everyone else that refused to convert to what they called muhammedism. Many thousands were slaughtered. I don't trust any of them, but if you have muslim friends thats good for you. Can't have too many friends. Being peaceful and leading a good, clean life, is great, but if they don't have Jesus, they are in trouble when they die because Christ said that no one comes to the father but by me. It's bedtime, thank you for your response. POWDERMAN. :D :D :D :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Well. This has been fun, but we’ve gotten off the original subject.
Does anyone out there have ideas why the original seven states seceded just when they did?
What happened to Southern participation in the US Navy between 1812 and 1861?
I was hoping Hobie would jump into this. Seems a student of our history and thought he could shed some light.
I deal with our federal bureaucracy every day and I’m convinced that the Civil War is where we went wrong.

The more I know about how our government used to be, the more I appreciate the government we have now. Our government is getting better in a lot of ways. The most depressing aspects of our modern government are a reflection of our modern society. We have lost a lot of spirit.

The joy of history is the spirit of the people. Our people are far more wanting than our government. I’m, of course, excluding all here.

This is not a place to discuss religion, odd since most of us are religious. But that is off bounds for good reason; we’d get carried away (see first sentence this paragraph). Besides, we’re mostly in agreement on the points of our religion. It’s not as entertaining as discussing the Remington 405 or meplat size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
The seven states that seceded first all had what was called fire eaters in them. They went around their respective states and basically inflammed the citizenry. In a sense like the democrats do today saying the Republicans want to take your social security. These fire eaters came from all walks of life. Their credo was that it was the manifest destiny of the white man to keep in subjugation the black man. By the way I found my book called The Fire eaters. It was written by Eric H. Walther. An example of their mindset- Edmund Ruffin, Virginian fire eater said after the war that he could not live under the yankee race. Then blew his brains out. Edmund Ruffin fired the first cannon at Fort Sumter.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top