What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

[highroller]

Never heard of Gen. Sherman's scorched-earth campaign now referred to as 'Sherman’s March to the Sea'?

He was too lenient

 

[Atomic Kid]

The Union would not be “destroyed” if one or more states left it; it would simply be changed.

A 'Union' in which any state could just willy-nilly opt out of because it in particular doesn't agree with a Constitutionally passed law or act, voted upon and passed by a majority of the states, is not really a 'Union' at all. That would be much more akin to being anarchy.

I brought up health insurance contracts as an example of contracts that explicitly spelled out the conditions to which all signatories agree. For all the many virtues of the Constitution, it does not spell out its position on secession. Any attempt to pretend that it does so is less than honest.

Health insurance has a finite expiration period or termination conditions written into it. The Constitution does not. No one here besides yourself is pretending that the Constitution makes any direct reference to secession from the union that it was created to further strengthen and cement. But we have already explained why there is no logical reason for why it would or should.

 

[Quag]

Well, I said you could repeat your exact witless obsession over and over and it still wouldn’t make it true, but I didn’t really expect you to repeat the same points over and over, as if they gained validity from repetition.

Your bank robber comparison still stinks because the laws against bank robbery are tied in to the general safety of every given community. Communities menaced by robbers like Bonnie and Clyde feel their rights violated, which causes them to complain to higher authorities to ferret out the fugitives. The government does not tell the people that they have the right to protection; the people demand that right from the government.

I am getting the feeling you dont know what govt or rights are at this point.

 

[Ouroboros]

You still kicking this mule? If they objected to the tariffcdo much, why didn't they stick around to stop it?

BeCaUsE iT wAs AbOuT sLaVeRy.

Still waiting to see a rationale as to why Southerners supposedly didn’t care about their own economic prosperity, which was bomberfox’s statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually, Lincoln said it.

Same words, only partially different agenda.

 

[j brown's body]

Still waiting to see a rationale as to why Southerners supposedly didn’t care about their own economic prosperity, which was bomberfox’s statement.

As has been explained, Southerners were not in universal agreement about tariffs as they were about white supremacy and slavery.

 

[Ouroboros]

A 'Union' in which any state could just willy-nilly opt out of because it in particular doesn't agree with a Constitutionally passed law or act, voted upon and passed by a majority of the states, is not really a 'Union' at all. That would be much more akin to being anarchy.

Health insurance has a finite expiration period or termination conditions written into it. The Constitution does not. No one here besides yourself is pretending that the Constitution makes any direct reference to secession from the union that it was created to further strengthen and cement. But we have already explained why there is no logical reason for why it would or should.

I H

I know full well the Union’s motivations for forcing compliance. But did they have legal justification for doing so? The Articles of Confederation spoke of “perpetual union,” but the Constitution wholly replaced the Articles. For that reason the Constitution cannot be said to enforce a perpetual union unless this is explicitly spelled out.

 

[Ouroboros]

As has been explained, Southerners were not in universal agreement about tariffs as they were about white supremacy and slavery.

You’re still arguing the case you’ve already lost, but It doesn’t address what bomberfox stated. Clearly the South wanted both low tariffs and continued slavery because both conditions were perceived to be good for local economy. If you can conjure up another motivation, let’s hear it.

 

[jpevans]

It’s only betrayal if the Southern states have no right to secede. So far no one here has been able to cite any section of the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession. If you’re going to give it a try, rotsa ruck.

Well we kicked their ass & got them back for better or worse. The Constitution said not a word. You may be the 1st person “smart enough” to come up with that argument.

 

[j brown's body]

Honestly Tiger if there were a 'gong show' on the US in the 1860's you would have been 'gonged' early on, probably long before the most hilarious of your more than 43,000 contributions to this site.

As for Forrest & the Klan:
There is no evidence that Forrest ever wore any Klan costume or ever "rode" on any Klan activity. He did, however, on Oct. 20, 1869, order that all costumes and other regalia be destroyed and that Klan activity be ended.
This was confirmed by the U. S. Congress in 1871: "The natural tendency of all such organizations is to violence and crime, hence it was that Gen. Forrest and other men of influence by the exercise of their moral power, induced them to disband." See U. S. Congressional Committee Report (June 27, 1871).

When Forrest died in 1877, Memphis newspapers reported that his funeral procession was over two miles long. The throng of mourners was estimated to include over 3,000 black citizens of Memphis.
Retired Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest was an outspoken advocate for
the civil rights of the freedmen in postwar Tennessee. This advocacy and his popularity
with the Memphis black community were resented by some of his white contemporaries
who spread false rumors to discredit the general and further their own political interests.

After I revealed that you commented:
'The blacks knew if they didn't show up at Forrest's funeral they'd have a mob of thugs on their doorstep.'

You should have rested on your laurels after that one! Observing that statement alone has made it worthwhile
to have joined this forum. I'll never scroll by your posts, always entertaining!

"...for the Klan resisted by force any effort to restrain it, reflected in Nathan Bedford Forrest's bloodthirsty injunction to his followers: 'If they send black men to hunt those Confederate soldiers whom they call kuklux, then I say to you, 'Go out and shoot the radicals.'"

"Grant", by Ron Chernow. Page 707

 

[j brown's body]

You’re still arguing the case you’ve already lost, but It doesn’t address what bomberfox stated. Clearly the South wanted both low tariffs and continued slavery because both conditions were perceived to be good for local economy. If you can conjure up another motivation, let’s hear it.

The overwhelming primary source evidence I have provided showing the was was over slavery and not tariffs makes it so clear I have lost, lol.

 

[NatMorton]

Also known as the Civil War.

Only just saw this thread. I hope someone was thoughtful enough to point out that you've got the title wrong. Our friends in the South generally referred to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. If you're married to the term it would be more accurate to call it the War of Southern Attrition.

Regardless, to answer your question, what I think of that war is that it was a payment in blood for not outlawing slavery at the time of our nation's founding.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well we kicked their ass & got them back for better or worse. The Constitution said not a word. You may be the 1st person “smart enough” to come up with that argument.

Just like a Mad Lib to justify the rule of force. Except when one thinks he might be outmatched, at which point he whines about being marginalized.

 

[Ouroboros]

The overwhelming primary source evidence I have provided showing the was was over slavery and not tariffs makes it so clear I have lost, lol.

Source evidence that means about as much as Sleepy Joe’s promise to lock down Covid.

 

[Ouroboros]

Only just saw this thread. I hope someone was thoughtful enough to point out that you've got the title wrong. Our friends in the South generally referred to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. If you're married to the term it would be more accurate to call it the War of Southern Attrition.

Regardless, to answer your question, what I think of that war is that it was a payment in blood for not outlawing slavery at the time of our nation's founding.

So you’re talking about the period during which Franklin and the Mormons campaigned for abolition? OK, but up to that point the practice was legal. How do you compensate the Southern states for their lost property? Where does the money come from? And if we’re talking about the period before the Constitution was signed, how do you get the Southerners to sign on if they know they’re going to be economically devastated?

 

[NatMorton]

So you’re talking about the period during which Franklin and the Mormons campaigned for abolition? OK, but up to that point the practice was legal. How do you compensate the Southern states for their lost property? Where does the money come from? And if we’re talking about the period before the Constitution was signed, how do you get the Southerners to sign on if they know they’re going to be economically devastated?

So what? I'm not saying outlawing slavery in the 18th century would have been easy. I'm saying failing to do it led to a costly, bloody civil war 80 years later.

 

[vegas giants]

I H

I know full well the Union’s motivations for forcing compliance. But did they have legal justification for doing so? The Articles of Confederation spoke of “perpetual union,” but the Constitution wholly replaced the Articles. For that reason the Constitution cannot be said to enforce a perpetual union unless this is explicitly spelled out.

The south DID secede. Then it as a independent country attacked the north. The north then responded and won the war and reoccupied the south


The spoils of war

 

[jpevans]

Just like a Mad Lib to justify the rule of force. Except when one thinks he might be outmatched, at which point he whines about being marginalized.

Great rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

Still waiting to see a rationale as to why Southerners supposedly didn’t care about their own economic prosperity, which was bomberfox’s statement.

Eminent domain is an obligation of Government. What happened?

 

[Ouroboros]

So what? I'm not saying outlawing slavery in the 18th century would have been easy. I'm saying failing to do it led to a costly, bloody civil war 80 years later.

The “so what” is the North’s lack of action to ban slavery even on a state level, except for Vermont, indicates that the politicians didn’t care that much about the practice, except to use it as a club to weaken the South. That’s a part of history worth remembering.

 

[Ouroboros]

The south DID secede. Then it as a independent country attacked the north. The north then responded and won the war and reoccupied the south


The spoils of war

The first attack was not on Northern soil, but on a Northern stronghold in Southern territory. The South Carolina ordered the fort to surrender and Lincoln defied the order, resulting in the attack.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I H

I know full well the Union’s motivations for forcing compliance. But did they have legal justification for doing so? The Articles of Confederation spoke of “perpetual union,” but the Constitution wholly replaced the Articles. For that reason the Constitution cannot be said to enforce a perpetual union unless this is explicitly spelled out.

The opening stanza in the Constitution states it was created "in order to form a more perfect Union" of the "perpetual Union" the Articles of Confederation had created. Do you think they were talking some other "Union"? Come on now, let's stop with the silliness.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms in the North were getting corporate welfare; why was eminent domain for the South not due process?

 

[Atomic Kid]

You’re still arguing the case you’ve already lost, but It doesn’t address what bomberfox stated. Clearly the South wanted both low tariffs and continued slavery because both conditions were perceived to be good for local economy. If you can conjure up another motivation, let’s hear it.

Here is a compilation of the seceding states petitions for secession. Go ahead, read them all, you won't find a single reference to tariffs in any of them. You will see that all cite the North's hostility to the institution of slavery the right to expand it and by the denial of their right to take their property (slaves) wherever they may go, and the failure of Northern states to promptly return their escaped 'property' as required by the Constitution.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

www.battlefields.org

 

[Atomic Kid]

The first attack was not on Northern soil, but on a Northern stronghold in Southern territory. The South Carolina ordered the fort to surrender and Lincoln defied the order, resulting in the attack.

By what authority did South Carolina have to order a federal government fort to surrender? The resupplying of that fort was not an act aggression, Attacking those supply ships and the fort was.