New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

EatTheRich

President
Lee merits praise for his activities on the battlefield. He wasn't perfect, but he was very good. He was better on defense than offense, but he was probably the best commander in the Civil War for getting the troops he needed to the right place at the right time. On the attack, his attack plans tended to be too complicated (Gettysburg is a prime example). On defense, he was excellent at choosing good terrain. I do not thing Lee, or the CSA in general, had the goal to "destroy the Union." The union of the states that didn't secede would have remained -- the CSA merely wanted to exit the union, not destroy it, and the states that left would have left behind a remaining union larger than themselves.
You ignore the fact that throughout the war they attempted to force states that remained loyal into the Confederacy ... first Texas, then Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania.

If the Confederacy had won only perhaps New England would have been left of the United States ... Confederate victory meant gobbling up the remaining states for themselves.
 

EatTheRich

President
No, Bloody Kansas was what happened when the abolitionists in one state could not accept slavery in another. While there were depredations on both side, the majority of them were abolitionist raiders (Jayhawkers) coming into Missouri and burning and slaughtering slaveowners. This was later extended, under General Order No. 11, to become actual federal policy -- there is an area in Missouri (where I'm from originally) called the "Burnt District," Jackson, Cass, Bates, and northern Vernon counties, where people were driven off their farms and had their properties burned. This happened in 1863 with the stated goal of stopping slaveholding guerillas, but the guerilla warfare had been tit-for-tat for nearly a decade, culminating of course with Quantrill's famous retaliatory raid on Lawrence, Kan.

The slaveowners didn't need slave sales. Slaves were not generally raised on a for-profit basis, and there was a thriving market throughout the south (the existence of which drove the abolitionist movement as it had successfully banned imports and thought it could restrict the trade by stopping imports -- but the trade went on).
They could not accept slavery being forced on their state against the popular vote against it in violation of the compromise made in 1854.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I heard of the Border Ruffians -- I grew up among relatives of some of them. "Who started it" is an open question but remember, slavers were generally not trying to travel to other states to impose slavery on the unwilling. Abolitionists did exactly that in Kansas, importing people from the northeast, and even smuggling in guns in the form of Sharps carbines (shipped clandestinely as Bibles and known as "Beecher's Bibles" after the abolitionist author of "Uncle Tom"), and attacking slavery. It is true that some Missourians attempted to vote in the free state/slave state election in Kansas, but things like the Potowatomie Massacre occurred in Kansas, and were conducted by abolitionists. There is no "burnt district" in Kansas.
The "sacking of Lawrence" a familiar event to you? That was in 1856 and was led by pro-slavery men. The Pottawatomie massacre was in reaction to the raid on Lawrence.

You think slave owners were not traveling to other states to impose slavery? That is complete bull shit.

The "Wakarusa war" started when a pro-slavery settler shot free stater Charles Dow in the back...The fighting was done by 1,500 militia from Missouri and led by Sam Jones, a sherrif in Douglas county.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
So all these attacks on Trump for supposedly defending Robert E. Lee look pretty weak unless the critics also want to attack Lincoln.

The CW was NOT about slavery. The idea is preposterous - more media fake news that's been going on for 150 years . Along with the above fact it's also true that:

1. There were 4 UNION states (ky md de mo) that lincoln let practice slavery throughout the war. 300,000 black slaves combined in those states

2. There were many UNION generals that were slave owners throughout the war. Grant himself owned a slave and his wife owned a bunch of them.
The civil war was tied to slavery, the South was willing to secede in order to achieve this
 

trapdoor

Governor
The "sacking of Lawrence" a familiar event to you? That was in 1856 and was led by pro-slavery men. The Pottawatomie massacre was in reaction to the raid on Lawrence.

You think slave owners were not traveling to other states to impose slavery? That is complete bull shit.

The "Wakarusa war" started when a pro-slavery settler shot free stater Charles Dow in the back...The fighting was done by 1,500 militia from Missouri and led by Sam Jones, a sherrif in Douglas county.
Yes, I've heard of the sacking of Lawrence -- and the people who perpetrated it claimed even it was retaliatory to other events. Bleeding Kansas contained no "good guys" on either side. The Potowatomie Massacre was merely the earliest large expression of John Brown's fanaticism -- he was going to do something like that whether Lawrence had occurred or not. I repeat -- there is no burnt district in Kansas.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, I've heard of the sacking of Lawrence -- and the people who perpetrated it claimed even it was retaliatory to other events. Bleeding Kansas contained no "good guys" on either side. The Potowatomie Massacre was merely the earliest large expression of John Brown's fanaticism -- he was going to do something like that whether Lawrence had occurred or not. I repeat -- there is no burnt district in Kansas.
while you denied that the slave owners were traveling into Kansas to expand slave territory and therefore the market for slaves, you admit that they weren't such great people either...
So why did they immigrate?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Nope...the war started when Major Robert Anderson on Lincoln's orders bombarded Charleston and the rebels retaliated.
That is not the historic record of events.

Following his inauguration on March 4, 1861, Lincoln sent unofficial emissaries to observe the situation and report back to him while official negotiations with the Confederate government took place in Washington. He learned that Anderson would probably be out of food by mid-April. Anderson had indicated he needed supplies and reinforcements in early March and again on April 3, but did not received news or further instruction until April 8, when he received a letter from Washington informing him of that a relief expedition was being mounted. The Lincoln administration left the question of war up to the Confederates, which would be determined by whether or not they fired on the Federal supply ship and the fort, which the Federals did not intend to give up.


As news of the relief expedition percolated through the Confederate government, Beauregard was instructed to demand the fort’s surrender and fire on it if surrender was refused. Beauregard began moving men and artillery into place and on April 11 and sent envoys to Fort Sumter to demand surrender. Anderson, after polling his men, once again refused. Following the refusal, Beauregard was asked to assess how long it would be before Anderson would run out of food and be forced to surrender, so just after midnight on April 12, the envoys arrived back at the Fort. Hoping the relief expedition would arrive before then, Anderson said he would surrender at noon on April 15. He was informed that was not soon enough, firing would began at 4:30 a.m.


After a signal gun was fired, Virginia fire-eater Edmund Ruffin, who had campaigned relentlessly through the 1850s for states’ rights, slavery, and secession, was given the honor of firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. Anderson, to reduce his casualties and conserve ammunition, did not return fire until just before 7:00 a.m. when Captain Abner Doubleday fired the first return shot. Anderson also tried to reduce casualties by only using the guns from his lower casemates, where his men would be less exposed.


http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-fort-sumter
 

trapdoor

Governor
while you denied that the slave owners were traveling into Kansas to expand slave territory and therefore the market for slaves, you admit that they weren't such great people either...
So why did they immigrate?
I still deny that slaveholders were doing that, outside the initial vote. Why did who immigrate?
Some erstwhile slaveholder DID move to Kansas -- for all the benefits they would receive from being a a new territory -- free land and a chance to get in on the ground floor. Some Missourians crossed the line to vote, and then went home as I described. They were edging for political power and trading partners both in DC and the new state itself.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I still deny that slaveholders were doing that, outside the initial vote. Why did who immigrate?
Some erstwhile slaveholder DID move to Kansas -- for all the benefits they would receive from being a a new territory -- free land and a chance to get in on the ground floor. Some Missourians crossed the line to vote, and then went home as I described. They were edging for political power and trading partners both in DC and the new state itself.
Slave holders were emigrating to Kansas and Missouri to help make those slave states. It only stands to reason. You have a slave population that was growing simply by natural births. If a plantation needed 100 slaves to do the work...what happens when they have 120 slaves...as the children grow to an age where they can be put to work, the owner wants to sell them. With practically zero increase in demand in the southern states, they need a new market.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Slave holders were emigrating to Kansas and Missouri to help make those slave states. It only stands to reason. You have a slave population that was growing simply by natural births. If a plantation needed 100 slaves to do the work...what happens when they have 120 slaves...as the children grow to an age where they can be put to work, the owner wants to sell them. With practically zero increase in demand in the southern states, they need a new market.
Missouri was already a state during the era under discussion, having come in under the Missouri compromise in 1821. Generally what happened if there was a surplus (slaves died, and surpluses were rare), was that they were sold, but there was a lot of economic growth in what is today the South East and was then just the South thanks to the expansion of cotton production. There was no need to expand slavery to the west for economic reasons.

The slave debate is something that is generally framed wrong from both sides. While undoubtedly there were people on both sides who saw it as a moral matter ("slavery is evil"/"the Bible says slavery isn't evil), the simple truth is that the Democrats in the south had more money, and hence more political power and the Whigs/eventual GOP in the North didn't want them to have more power. The war was over the political advantages, in Congress, of this or that state being slave or free. The Southerners who pointed out this political distinction were denounced as slavers, even when they were pointing out that someone with a factory full of Irishmen being worked 7-12s under starvations wages had no legitimate moral position better than the slaveowners. Yes, there were idealistic extremists like Thaddeus Stevens; there a few idealistic moderates like Lincoln among the abolitionists, and there were extreme "pro-slave" Southerners such as John C. Calhoun, but there were also slave-moderates in favor of gradual manumission such as Robert E. Lee. So the war was about power politics, based around slavery, as much as it was about the actual issue of slavery. This is a nuance, but it is not a quibble. The war was fought over that argument of political power -- the "expanded market for slavery" was neither a proximate cause of Bleeding Kansas nor the war that followed.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Missouri was already a state during the era under discussion, having come in under the Missouri compromise in 1821. Generally what happened if there was a surplus (slaves died, and surpluses were rare), was that they were sold, but there was a lot of economic growth in what is today the South East and was then just the South thanks to the expansion of cotton production. There was no need to expand slavery to the west for economic reasons.

The slave debate is something that is generally framed wrong from both sides. While undoubtedly there were people on both sides who saw it as a moral matter ("slavery is evil"/"the Bible says slavery isn't evil), the simple truth is that the Democrats in the south had more money, and hence more political power and the Whigs/eventual GOP in the North didn't want them to have more power. The war was over the political advantages, in Congress, of this or that state being slave or free. The Southerners who pointed out this political distinction were denounced as slavers, even when they were pointing out that someone with a factory full of Irishmen being worked 7-12s under starvations wages had no legitimate moral position better than the slaveowners. Yes, there were idealistic extremists like Thaddeus Stevens; there a few idealistic moderates like Lincoln among the abolitionists, and there were extreme "pro-slave" Southerners such as John C. Calhoun, but there were also slave-moderates in favor of gradual manumission such as Robert E. Lee. So the war was about power politics, based around slavery, as much as it was about the actual issue of slavery. This is a nuance, but it is not a quibble. The war was fought over that argument of political power -- the "expanded market for slavery" was neither a proximate cause of Bleeding Kansas nor the war that followed.
Funny thing...you should read the articles of secession. They universally point out two things. One is that the damn Yankees would not help repatriate escaped slaves, therefore becoming complicit in the unconstitutional theft of property and the other was that the North was hell bent on ending the institution of slavery and that would end the southerner's way of life. More extreme pro-slavery writers argued that pretty soon black men would be marrying white women and that was unacceptable.
 
Lee merits praise for his activities on the battlefield. He wasn't perfect, but he was very good. He was better on defense than offense,

The union of the states that didn't secede would have remained -- the CSA merely wanted to exit the union, not destroy it, and the states that left would have left behind a remaining union larger than themselves.
You are a fool. Lee was ALL OFFENSE and that's why the south lost. Lee thought fighting a defensive war was not "honorable". When you are outnumbered 3-1 you have to fight a defensive war but lee refused.

And of course the south merely wanted to leave the union not destroy it. They never said otherwise. Jefferson Davis said "we just want to be left alone".
 
It’s not a matter of supporting or opposing secession in an abstract sense. Seceding from Great Britain ... illegal under British law ... was a revolutionary change in government. The new government they set up was intended to be.”, as they put it, a “perpetual union.” They were not for a right to violently overthrow their government as they had violently overthrown the British government.
Perpetual union??? Where does the constitution use that phrase?
 

redtide

Mayor
The South seceded because they viewed the North as hostile to slavery.
Who taught you that BS? Your teachers robbed you of an accurate education. I suppose you believe that ole Abe's agenda was to free the slaves the whole time don't you?
 

trapdoor

Governor
You are a fool. Lee was ALL OFFENSE and that's why the south lost. Lee thought fighting a defensive war was not "honorable". When you are outnumbered 3-1 you have to fight a defensive war but lee refused.

And of course the south merely wanted to leave the union not destroy it. They never said otherwise. Jefferson Davis said "we just want to be left alone".
Lee fought the battle of Fredericksburg completely on defense. He fought the battle of Chancellorsville holding a defensive line while directing Stonewall Jackson to conduct a flanking maneuver. His biggest defeats invariably came when he attempted to invade the north. At least once, Antietam, this was bad luck -- the enemy literally had his battle plan. The third day at Gettysburg, however, Lee attempted a too-complex offensive battle and lost because of his own stubbornness and a bad battle plan. He conducted brilliant defensive battles at Wilderness and Cold Harbor, but by then he was facing Grant, who would simply shrug off severe losses and continue south.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Funny thing...you should read the articles of secession. They universally point out two things. One is that the damn Yankees would not help repatriate escaped slaves, therefore becoming complicit in the unconstitutional theft of property and the other was that the North was hell bent on ending the institution of slavery and that would end the southerner's way of life. More extreme pro-slavery writers argued that pretty soon black men would be marrying white women and that was unacceptable.
I have read them, and I recognize them as the propaganda pieces they were written to be. A lot of things, including the issue of slavery, stand as causes of the Civil War.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I have read them, and I recognize them as the propaganda pieces they were written to be. A lot of things, including the issue of slavery, stand as causes of the Civil War.
Georgia


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

South Carolina

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Mississippi

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.


Just thought I'd share a couple with you....
 
Top