• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W: #1372][W: #1004] [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

That is in your imagination in order to excuse the Democrats who made slaves of your ancestors.

Conservatives fought for slavery
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

But, remember, it was Southern Liberals behind the Confederacy.

To make that claim, define Liberal. Was George Washington a Liberal? Recall he waged an illegal war against his home country and had no permission from the colonies.

Jefferson was different. But was he also a liberal since he and Washington both had massive numbers of slaves?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Conservatives fought for slavery

Democrats fought to keep slavery for themselves. And the Union had nothing against Slavery prior to the proclamation.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Democrats fought to keep slavery for themselves. And the Union had nothing against Slavery prior to the proclamation.

Conservatives fought for slavery


Conservatives fought for slavery
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Which current day Republican, in this thread, sounds just like the Southern Conservatives who formed the Confederates States of America (who were in no way the USA)?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

The confederacy shot at US troops

Were I a trooper when that fort got fired at, it would be like the 4th of july and nothing more.

Those in the Fort never were in danger.

The Buried Fact in the Record: Lincoln Instigated the War

The Sunken Fact: Lincoln Instigated the War.

A Trial Lawyer's Notebook
Welles's Story of Fort Sumter
Collected Works of Lincoln



Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her 2005 biography of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals, gives the standard story that has been told by history teachers to students, for generations. In between informing us what Lincoln ate for breakfast, how well he slept at night, and how often he exercised, Goodwin lays down the story that Lincoln bungled his plan to reinforce Fort Sumter with troops, ammunition and provisions. In her brief reference that leaves it a mystery what Lincoln’s actual plan was, Goodwin writes, “Lincoln had failed to peruse the orders carefully and inadvertently assigned the Powhatan (a 2,000 ton side wheel steamer carrying 20 guns) simultaneously to (both expeditions planned for) [forts] Pickens and Sumter."[1] Goodwin supports her conclusion by claiming “it was not unusual for Lincoln to sign documents from Seward without reading them." (See, Team of Rivals at pp. 340-346)



Goodwin dismisses the contrary assertion that Lincoln didn’t bungle anything, that he had caused the expedition to Sumter to be carried out just as he had intended. “Critics" she writes,[2] “later claimed that Lincoln had maneuvered the South into beginning the war. In fact, he had simply followed his inaugural pledge that he would `hold’ the properties belonging to the government, `but beyond what may be necessary’ to accomplish this, `there will be no invasion—no using force.’ . . . Had Lincoln chosen to abandon the fort, he would have violated his pledge to the north. Had he used force in any way other than to `hold’ government properties, he would have breached his promise to the South."



Historian Goodwin’s invocation of Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address as her factual basis for her claim that the Sumter expedition was “bungled" by Lincoln’s failing to read orders, is a classic example of glossing over the textual meaning of words.



Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address



The apparent final text of Lincoln’s address is reproduced by the editors of Rutgers University Press, in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln ((1936). Goodwin’s quotation from the address, in which she mixes her own words, hardly amounts to a “pledge", so much as an explicit threat that Lincoln intended to hold Fort Sumter with military force! The actual text reads this way:



“I therefore consider that. . . the Union is unbroken (Lincoln is refusing to recognize the Confederacy); and. . . I shall take care that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem [a] simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it. . . unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace (of course it was), but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend, and maintain itself. (italics in original)



In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon [me]. The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government. . . ; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere." (Vol IV, at pp. 265-266.) (italics added; It is for the reader to decide how accurate is Goodwin’s interpretation of Lincoln’s meaning .)
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Were I a trooper when that fort got fired at, it would be like the 4th of july and nothing more.

Those in the Fort never were in danger.

The Buried Fact in the Record: Lincoln Instigated the War

The Sunken Fact: Lincoln Instigated the War.

A Trial Lawyer's Notebook
Welles's Story of Fort Sumter
Collected Works of Lincoln



Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her 2005 biography of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals, gives the standard story that has been told by history teachers to students, for generations. In between informing us what Lincoln ate for breakfast, how well he slept at night, and how often he exercised, Goodwin lays down the story that Lincoln bungled his plan to reinforce Fort Sumter with troops, ammunition and provisions. In her brief reference that leaves it a mystery what Lincoln’s actual plan was, Goodwin writes, “Lincoln had failed to peruse the orders carefully and inadvertently assigned the Powhatan (a 2,000 ton side wheel steamer carrying 20 guns) simultaneously to (both expeditions planned for) [forts] Pickens and Sumter."[1] Goodwin supports her conclusion by claiming “it was not unusual for Lincoln to sign documents from Seward without reading them." (See, Team of Rivals at pp. 340-346)



Goodwin dismisses the contrary assertion that Lincoln didn’t bungle anything, that he had caused the expedition to Sumter to be carried out just as he had intended. “Critics" she writes,[2] “later claimed that Lincoln had maneuvered the South into beginning the war. In fact, he had simply followed his inaugural pledge that he would `hold’ the properties belonging to the government, `but beyond what may be necessary’ to accomplish this, `there will be no invasion—no using force.’ . . . Had Lincoln chosen to abandon the fort, he would have violated his pledge to the north. Had he used force in any way other than to `hold’ government properties, he would have breached his promise to the South."



Historian Goodwin’s invocation of Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address as her factual basis for her claim that the Sumter expedition was “bungled" by Lincoln’s failing to read orders, is a classic example of glossing over the textual meaning of words.



Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address



The apparent final text of Lincoln’s address is reproduced by the editors of Rutgers University Press, in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln ((1936). Goodwin’s quotation from the address, in which she mixes her own words, hardly amounts to a “pledge", so much as an explicit threat that Lincoln intended to hold Fort Sumter with military force! The actual text reads this way:



“I therefore consider that. . . the Union is unbroken (Lincoln is refusing to recognize the Confederacy); and. . . I shall take care that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem [a] simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it. . . unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace (of course it was), but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend, and maintain itself. (italics in original)



In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon [me]. The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government. . . ; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere." (Vol IV, at pp. 265-266.) (italics added; It is for the reader to decide how accurate is Goodwin’s interpretation of Lincoln’s meaning .)

Not relevant. What do you think the response would be today if someone fired 3000 rounds at US army base?


Be honest
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Which current day Republican, in this thread, sounds just like the Southern Conservatives who formed the Confederates States of America (who were in no way the USA)?

George Washington was a Conservative????

This is batchit crazy to use modern Democrats terms to describe the distant past .

Why are Democrats in charge of all labels?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Not relevant. What do you think the response would be today if someone fired 3000 rounds at US army base?


Be honest

Be honest, name even one injured party in the Fort? Be honest and say his name.

Be honest if the place was Fort Ord and squatters refused to abandon the place. Anderson and his men were Squatters and my heros fired cannon at the fort.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Be honest, name even one injured party in the Fort? Be honest and say his name.

Be honest if the place was Fort Ord and squatters refused to abandon the place. Anderson and his men were Squatters and my heros fired cannon at the fort.

Listen closely.


If anyone fired 3000 rounds at Ford ord and never hurt anyone what would the US army do?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Were I a trooper when that fort got fired at, it would be like the 4th of july and nothing more.

Those in the Fort never were in danger.

The act of firing on Federal troops in the Fort was an act of war.

The design of the fort and shortages in cannon, men and material prevented your fantasy "4th of july".

The fort had been designed to withstand a naval assault, and naval warships of the time did not mount guns capable of elevating to shoot over the walls of the fort. However, the land-based cannons manned by the Confederates were capable of high-arcing ballistic trajectories and could therefore fire at parts of the fort that would have been out of naval guns' reach. Fort Sumter's garrison could only safely fire the 21 working guns on the lowest level, which themselves, because of the limited elevation allowed by their embrasures, were largely incapable of delivering fire with trajectories high enough to seriously threaten Fort Moultrie. Moreover, although the Federals had moved as many of their supplies to Fort Sumter as they could manage, the fort was quite low on ammunition, and was nearly out at the end of the 34-hour bombardment. A more immediate problem was the scarcity of cloth gunpowder cartridges or bags; only 700 were available at the beginning of the battle and workmen sewed frantically to create more, in some cases using socks from Anderson's personal wardrobe. Because of the shortages, Anderson reduced his firing to only six guns: two aimed at Cummings Point, two at Fort Moultrie, and two at the Sullivan's Island batteries.
-Wiki

The first shots of the war were fired LONG BEFORE Lincoln took office.

And resupplying FEDERAL FORTS is not an act of war.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Conservatives fought for slavery


Conservatives fought for slavery

That and a buck ninety eight gets you a cup of coffee.

It means nothing at all.

What you said is that since Lincoln said he fought to conserve his union, he is the conservative who fought not to free anybody, but to punish those of the South who believed in the Declaration of Independence.

Why don't you believe in the Declaration of independence?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

That and a buck ninety eight gets you a cup of coffee.

It means nothing at all.

What you said is that since Lincoln said he fought to conserve his union, he is the conservative who fought not to free anybody, but to punish those of the South who believed in the Declaration of Independence.

Why don't you believe in the Declaration of independence?

Why do you hate black people?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Be honest, name even one injured party in the Fort? Be honest and say his name.

Be honest if the place was Fort Ord and squatters refused to abandon the place. Anderson and his men were Squatters and my heros fired cannon at the fort.

Irrelevant.

The Federal Officers kept their men out of the upper works. See Post #237

Federal Troops in a Federal Fort are not squatters. That is rather ignorant.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

The act of firing on Federal troops in the Fort was an act of war.

The design of the fort and shortages in cannon, men and material prevented your fantasy "4th of july".

The fort had been designed to withstand a naval assault, and naval warships of the time did not mount guns capable of elevating to shoot over the walls of the fort. However, the land-based cannons manned by the Confederates were capable of high-arcing ballistic trajectories and could therefore fire at parts of the fort that would have been out of naval guns' reach. Fort Sumter's garrison could only safely fire the 21 working guns on the lowest level, which themselves, because of the limited elevation allowed by their embrasures, were largely incapable of delivering fire with trajectories high enough to seriously threaten Fort Moultrie. Moreover, although the Federals had moved as many of their supplies to Fort Sumter as they could manage, the fort was quite low on ammunition, and was nearly out at the end of the 34-hour bombardment. A more immediate problem was the scarcity of cloth gunpowder cartridges or bags; only 700 were available at the beginning of the battle and workmen sewed frantically to create more, in some cases using socks from Anderson's personal wardrobe. Because of the shortages, Anderson reduced his firing to only six guns: two aimed at Cummings Point, two at Fort Moultrie, and two at the Sullivan's Island batteries.
-Wiki

The first shots of the war were fired LONG BEFORE Lincoln took office.

I will ask you then. Why do you not believe in the Declaration of independence?

The union had then more modern guns than the confederates had.

They had heavier weapons and as such could hit targets at greater distances.

The Fort outgunned the confederates in truth.

Let me elaborate since I fired the .50 cal machine gun and the 30 cal and the 7.62 cal machine guns.

If I have a .50 cal and you are out there with a .30 cal, who is outgunned?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Irrelevant.

The Federal Officers kept their men out of the upper works. See Post #237

Federal Troops in a Federal Fort are not squatters. That is rather ignorant.

So to you,. the Declaration of Independence is just rag paper?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Why do you hate black people?

You made that up so you try to tell them the answer to your fake question.

Are you saying I hate you?

Why do you hate the declaration of Independence?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

I will ask you then. Why do you not believe in the Declaration of independence?

The union had then more modern guns than the confederates had.

They had heavier weapons and as such could hit targets at greater distances.

The Fort outgunned the confederates in truth.

Let me elaborate since I fired the .50 cal machine gun and the 30 cal and the 7.62 cal machine guns.

If I have a .50 cal and you are out there with a .30 cal, who is outgunned?

Wow...

Moving goalposts and intentional ignorance all in one.

We aren't talking about the Declaration of Independence.

As to your .50 vs. .30 nonsense....

Beauregard, a trained military engineer, built-up overwhelming strength to challenge Fort Sumter. Fort Moultrie had three 8-inch Columbiads, two 8-inch howitzers, five 32-pound smoothbores, and four 24-pounders. Outside of Moultrie were five 10-inch mortars, two 32-pounders, two 24-pounders, and a 9-inch Dahlgren smoothbore. The floating battery next to Fort Moultrie had two 42-pounders and two 32-pounders on a raft protected by iron shielding. Fort Johnson on James Island had one 24-pounder and four 10-inch mortars. At Cummings Point on Morris Island, the Confederates had emplaced seven 10-inch mortars, two 42-pounders, an English Blakely rifled cannon, and three 8-inch Columbiads, the latter in the so-called Iron Battery, protected by a wooden shield faced with iron bars. About 6,000 men were available to man the artillery and to assault the fort, if necessary, including the local militia, young boys and older men.

All that vs. Fort Sumpter...

The fort had been designed to withstand a naval assault, and naval warships of the time did not mount guns capable of elevating to shoot over the walls of the fort. However, the land-based cannons manned by the Confederates were capable of high-arcing ballistic trajectories and could therefore fire at parts of the fort that would have been out of naval guns' reach. Fort Sumter's garrison could only safely fire the 21 working guns on the lowest level, which themselves, because of the limited elevation allowed by their embrasures, were largely incapable of delivering fire with trajectories high enough to seriously threaten Fort Moultrie. Moreover, although the Federals had moved as many of their supplies to Fort Sumter as they could manage, the fort was quite low on ammunition, and was nearly out at the end of the 34-hour bombardment. A more immediate problem was the scarcity of cloth gunpowder cartridges or bags; only 700 were available at the beginning of the battle and workmen sewed frantically to create more, in some cases using socks from Anderson's personal wardrobe. Because of the shortages, Anderson reduced his firing to only six guns: two aimed at Cummings Point, two at Fort Moultrie, and two at the Sullivan's Island batteries.


-Wiki
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

You made that up so you try to tell them the answer to your fake question.

Are you saying I hate you?

Why do you hate the declaration of Independence?

Why are you so desperate to divert from the original issues?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

I will ask you then. Why do you not believe in the Declaration of independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The question ought to be why you do not believe in the Declaration of Independence.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

You talk like an angry black racist.

Again, how, exactly, am I “the real racist”? Pointing out the truth about your beloved slaveocracy is not racism. Neither is pointing out the fact that the South is the one who started the war.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Be honest, name even one injured party in the Fort? Be honest and say his name.

Be honest if the place was Fort Ord and squatters refused to abandon the place. Anderson and his men were Squatters and my heros fired cannon at the fort.

Calling the US Army garrison in a US Army fort “squatters” is a new one.

It’s laughably ignorant, but that’s normal for you.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

That is in your imagination in order to excuse the Democrats who made slaves of your ancestors.

Conservatives are the ones who fought for slavery.

Conservatives are the ones flying the Confederate flag.

Conservatives are the ones claiming slavery wasn’t so bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom