Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:38 AM   #451

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
There have been many negotiated peaces agree to under threat of war. If the north accepted the secession of the south, I am sure the captured US soldiers would have been released and the Confederacy would have made other concessions. The US invaded the Confederacy. The Confederacy would not have invaded the US.
The whole reason the Confederate leaders seceded in the first place was because they wanted more territory to expand slavery into, and the Republicans cut them off. They demanded their "right" to the western territories. They wanted to expand into Mexico, the Carribean, and Central America.

In the first year of the war the Confederacy DID invade the US. They invaded Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico and Arizona. They sent weapons into Maryland and encouraged insurrection there. And before Lincoln even called up a single troop, the Confederate Secretary of War threatened to invade Washington D.C.:

Quote:
"No man can tell where the war this day commenced will end, but I will prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here will float over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington before the first of May. Let them try southern chivalry and test the extent of southern resources, and it may float eventually over Faneuil Hall itself." - Leroy P. Walker, April 12, 1861

Source: Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Years - Google Books
The people of the North might have been willing to accept a peaceful neighbor on their Southern border. But the Confederates demonstrated from the very first day that they would not be a peaceful neighbor.
Rongo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:55 AM   #452

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,425

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The Confederacy was willing to negotiate.
Interesting methods of negotiating.


Click the image to open in full size.Click the image to open in full size.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:56 AM   #453

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Just for clarification - does "The myth that the ACW was not over slavery" imply that it was actually over slavery?

e.g. issued by Lincoln preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a military move, giving the South states 4 months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate the slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North. In other words the goal was not the very abolition but the diminishing of the industrial capacity of the South. It couldn't be otherwise considering how racist the North was at that time. William Walker, a sergeant of the Third South Carolina Volunteers, was court-martialed merely for mentioning that it's not just to receive $10 a month as a black while white privates received $13 a month.
Lors is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 06:02 AM   #454

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Just for clarification - does "The myth that the ACW was not over slavery" imply that it was actually over slavery?

e.g. issued by Lincoln preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a military move, giving the South states 4 months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate the slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North. In other words the goal was not the very abolition but the diminishing of the industrial capacity of the South. It couldn't be otherwise considering how racist the North was at that time. William Walker, a sergeant of the Third South Carolina Volunteers, was court-martialed merely for mentioning that it's not just to receive $10 a month as a black while white privates received $13 a month.
There are 452 posts on this thread that explain the whole thing in detail. I suggest you read them. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a military move. But the Republican Party had been dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery since its inception, several years before the war started. And they passed the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery nationwide, which would not have been possible to do at that time without civil war.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 11:06 AM   #455

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,153

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
MAlexMatt and Sam-Nary.

So what are you saying is: not putting Romney's (or Obama) name on the ballots of the half of the States would not make the election illegitimate regardless his victory. Just claim the majority of votes and all should be fine. Is that really the way you are handling the elections?
Romney and Obama had nothing do with the 1860 elections, as neither was born.

I don't know the full legal reasoning behind not putting Lincoln on the ballot outside of may the claim that he didn't fill out all the appropriate paperwork on time, but that is only a guess on my part. I also don't think Lincoln's name was removed from the ballots in half the country. According to Ken Burns' "Civil War," they mention that it was only in 10 Southern states...

And I think the Confederate States of America would have 11 states in it, which would mean that one CSA state that put Lincoln's name on the ballot. Meanwhile 23 Northern states made up the Union (counting Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) and a 24 (West Virginia) would join in 1863.

If you wish to hold the actions of many future Confederate states in the 1860 election as corrupt, you might have a legitamate argument, but that would not carry over into present politics.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:45 PM   #456
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
And I think the Confederate States of America would have 11 states in it, which would mean that one CSA state that put Lincoln's name on the ballot. Meanwhile 23 Northern states made up the Union (counting Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) and a 24 (West Virginia) would join in 1863.
.
As I mentioned, Lincoln was on the ballot in Virginia. He got 1% of the vote in that state, which included West Virginia.

If Lincoln's name was on the ballot in the rest of the Confederate states, he wouldn't have gotten many votes. Those he would have gotten would have taken away from the antisecession Constitutional Union candidate.

The 1860 Presidential Vote in Virginia

Here are the county by coounty results for Virginia. Lincoln got votes in certain counties in WV, western VA, and northern VA near DC. In most counties he got no votes, which leads me to think that the few people in those counties who might vote for Lincoln were afraid to given voting was not secret.

I would also assume that it would be difficult to get people in the south to sign a petition for Lincoln to appear on the ballot.
betgo is online now  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 08:26 PM   #457

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,772

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
There are 452 posts on this thread that explain the whole thing in detail. I suggest you read them. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a military move. But the Republican Party had been dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery since its inception, several years before the war started. And they passed the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery nationwide, which would not have been possible to do at that time without civil war.
Ultimately it also doesn't matter what the motives of the leadership of the Union were regarding slavery, as slavery was the prime motivator for the South seceding, and it was that secession that put the country on an inevitable path towards civil war. The planter aristocracy of the old South sparked the bloodiest war in all of American history, just because they feared the results of the presidential election would mean the end of their 'rights' to buy, sell, own and recapture runaway slaves without federal interference.
Scaeva is online now  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 09:28 PM   #458

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
There are 452 posts on this thread that explain the whole thing in detail. I suggest you read them. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a military move. But the Republican Party had been dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery since its inception, several years before the war started. And they passed the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery nationwide, which would not have been possible to do at that time without civil war.
Excuse my arrogance, but the had 13th Amendment been passed before of after this Lincoln speech:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races (applause), that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.

What I really see that after war the Lincoln's try to cover the needs of business by the rhetoric of humanitarianism has been succeeded.
Lors is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 09:32 PM   #459

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
I don't know the full legal reasoning behind not putting Lincoln on the ballot outside of may the claim that he didn't fill out all the appropriate paperwork on time, but that is only a guess on my part.
That's what I was merely asking for - are those elections legal or not. I'm sure there are not regardless of the never questioning them after the war. But like you, I'm just guessing due my lack of knowledge on that matter.
Lors is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 12:50 AM   #460
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
MAlexMatt and Sam-Nary.

So what are you saying is: not putting Romney's (or Obama) name on the ballots of the half of the States would not make the election illegitimate regardless his victory. Just claim the majority of votes and all should be fine. Is that really the way you are handling the elections?
The Constitution is in favor of Lincoln's election.

He was elected according to the Law that people, at the time, accepted as true. Legitimacy was contained in derivation from the US Constitution of 1787 right up until South Carolina decided it would not stand for Lincoln's victory, so I will maintain the position that Lincoln was the 'President-Elect' in 1860 until the day I die.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
acw, myth, slavery


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Biggest Myth about Slavery. etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 75 March 29th, 2013 10:59 AM
The 9/11 Myth Lord Sonny Speculative History 20 March 4th, 2013 03:27 PM
History or Myth? Caracalla General History 4 October 25th, 2011 08:29 AM
Your Favorite Myth??? Salah General History 48 April 17th, 2011 09:35 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.