• 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!

What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

j brown's body said:
To stop the tariffs, of course. Once they left over slavery, tariffs became irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not an answer. If the South controlled their own territory, then they could control both tariffs and slavery. The few Southern states who had made common cause with the North over tariffs would then be marginalized.
 
Questerr said:
You got a copy of the book in front of you?
Click to expand...

A paraphrase would be okay. But remember, you’re trying to prove that the South would have followed through on this plan of conquest in military fashion, not just with political maneuvering.

While you’re at it, are there documents that prove that Lincoln was aware of specific Southern military plans?
 
Questerr said:
There are few instances in history when the sustained attack on and conquest of a military base doesn’t result in a war.
Click to expand...

Just two years ago Iranian missies struck an American base in Iraq as revenge for our assassination of their beloved terrorist. Since no fatalities resulted, we didn’t go to war.
 
Fledermaus said:
Buchanan exemplifies the phase "kick the can down the road".

Lincoln believed up to the firing on Fr Sumter that there might be a peaceful solution.

In fact he called up troops in order to simply recoup the bases and property that belonged to the federal government. The South wasn't having that and Manassas happened.
Click to expand...

It’s naive to assume that Lincoln would have continued peaceful gestures as long as he believed that the South posed a military threat. Sumter was just his best excuse.
 
Ouroboros said:
A paraphrase would be okay. But remember, you’re trying to prove that the South would have followed through on this plan of conquest in military fashion, not just with political maneuvering.

While you’re at it, are there documents that prove that Lincoln was aware of specific Southern military plans?
Click to expand...

How would you even know I'm accurately quoting it?

Lincoln wasn't aware, but that's not the point. The point is that claims that the South "just wanted to be left alone" were false.
 
Ouroboros said:
Just two years ago Iranian missies struck an American base in Iraq as revenge for our assassination of their beloved terrorist. Since no fatalities resulted, we didn’t go to war.
Click to expand...

And the Iranians continued to attack the base for hours and then forced its surrender and conquered it?

Also, was it an "American base" or an Iraqi base that happened to have Americans on it?
 
Ouroboros said:
It’s naive to assume that Lincoln would have continued peaceful gestures as long as he believed that the South posed a military threat. Sumter was just his best excuse.
Click to expand...

More assumption on your part. You really don't understand what happened at the beginning of the war. Do you?
 
Questerr said:
How would you even know I'm accurately quoting it?

Lincoln wasn't aware, but that's not the point. The point is that claims that the South "just wanted to be left alone" were false.
Click to expand...
Anyway, did Foote claim that the South planned to invade California in a military fashion, rather than fighting over territory as both sides did in "Bleeding Kansas?"
 
Ouroboros said:
Anyway, did Foote claim that the South planned to invade California in a military fashion, rather than fighting over territory as both sides did in "Bleeding Kansas?"
Click to expand...

Yes. The South formed a military expedition intending to march to California and seize it. Their expedition launched in 1861, successfully invading and occupying Arizona and New Mexico, but their defeat at the Battle of Glorietta Pass essentially reversed all of their gains.
 
Questerr said:
And the Iranians continued to attack the base for hours and then forced its surrender and conquered it?

Also, was it an "American base" or an Iraqi base that happened to have Americans on it?
Click to expand...
This still proves my point: even though the base was Iraqi there were enough American personnel there that physicians claimed that 110 American soldiers suffered brain trauma. The IRGC fully intended to kill Americans if possible, but we let them off the hook to avoid a protracted conflict. And so did the Iraqis, whose country Iran did invade.

I don't really care about your special exceptions, of whether or not the attack has to be "substantial" enough to satisfy you. My argument remains that if Lincoln had withdrawn the forces of Fort Sumter, that particular incident might not have occurred. Possibly some other incident would have set off the war, but the idea that Lincoln was simply defending the country in his bellicose action is no more valid than it would be for Jefferson Davis.
 
Ouroboros said:
This still proves my point: even though the base was Iraqi there were enough American personnel there that physicians claimed that 110 American soldiers suffered brain trauma. The IRGC fully intended to kill Americans if possible, but we let them off the hook to avoid a protracted conflict. And so did the Iraqis, whose country Iran did invade.

I don't really care about your special exceptions, of whether or not the attack has to be "substantial" enough to satisfy you. My argument remains that if Lincoln had withdrawn the forces of Fort Sumter, that particular incident might not have occurred. Possibly some other incident would have set off the war, but the idea that Lincoln was simply defending the country in his bellicose action is no more valid than it would be for Jefferson Davis.
Click to expand...

Why would Lincoln withdraw troops from a military base in sovereign US territory?
 
Questerr said:
Yes. The South formed a military expedition intending to march to California and seize it. Their expedition launched in 1861, successfully invading and occupying Arizona and New Mexico, but their defeat at the Battle of Glorietta Pass essentially reversed all of their gains.
Click to expand...
See, now was that so hard?

But it still means nothing, given that I never claimed that the South would have just left other states alone. Both sides had been stoking themselves up for years and both were spoiling for a fight.

What I said was that if the Union and Confederacy had continued to exist side by side for a time-- whether or not either expanded during that time, which they most probably would have-- the South probably would have experienced greater economic instability than would the North, and that this might have resulted in the South eventually suing to return to the Union on the Union's terms. Entrenched interests and the romanticism of Southern aristocracy would have mitigated against the development of heavy industry, and of course the North would have used its clout with foreign countries to freeze the South out on trade.

As so often happens in North vs. South discussions, you're responding to arguments I did not make.
 
Questerr said:
Why would Lincoln withdraw troops from a military base in sovereign US territory?
Click to expand...
Had he evaluated the Constitution fairly, instead of using it to solidify his power, he would have withdrawn the troops in accordance with the wishes of the actual people in charge.
 
Ouroboros said:
Had he evaluated the Constitution fairly, instead of using it to solidify his power, he would have withdrawn the troops in accordance with the wishes of the actual people in charge.
Click to expand...
Nope. The fort was federal property. No state can claim federal property
 
Ouroboros said:
Had he evaluated the Constitution fairly, instead of using it to solidify his power, he would have withdrawn the troops in accordance with the wishes of the actual people in charge.
Click to expand...

The people in charge of the island Ft Sumter was located on was the government of the United States of America.
 
Ouroboros said:
Elaborate your fuzzy assertion.
Click to expand...

Nothing fuzzy about it.

You didn't know of the pre Lincoln acts of war.

You didn't know South Carolina ceded Ft Sumter and other forts to the federal government decades before the civil war.

You didn't know the intent of the Federal forces entering Virginia.

Just some examples.
 
Ouroboros said:
Had he evaluated the Constitution fairly, instead of using it to solidify his power, he would have withdrawn the troops in accordance with the wishes of the actual people in charge.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Nothing in the Constitution speaks to states taking over federal property.

The federal government was under no obligation to retire from the fort nor it's grounds as they were federal property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom