Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:42 AM
JB3 JB3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Was Sumter land belonging to a state? If so, it would be an invasion of another state. The state of South Carolina gave the federal troops plenty of time to depart. The federal gov chose to reinforce the garrison. A "troop surge" one might say. Even so, South Carolina's action was not against any other state.

Th ehistory books are written by the victors. You get the victor's POV, not the vanquished.
this is not entirely correct.

In fact, the small garrison of ft sumpter consisted of federal troops that had RETREATED from their base in Charleston, as part of a de-escalation attempt and the fact that their numbers were small.

There was an attempt to resupply secretly, (remember, we are talking about a siege), but it failed.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:48 AM
MS Fowler's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Littlestown PA ( 6 miles south of Gettysburg)
Posts: 2,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky View Post
well, that brings the whole basis for the conflict back then into a short paragraph.

The southern states believed it was their right to do so, and the rest of the country did not.

The way I see it, it was a consequence of failure to compromise, which has been one of the strengths of this country. It is easy to label Lincoln as a warmonger, but when we look back and see just how mild his platform was, limiting the SPREAD of slavery further west, its amazing that the southern states decided that instead of compromising, they would leave the union. Personally, I side with preservation of the union over states rights in the defense of slavery, which is after all, what this was really about.

Thats why passions were so high up north, and just as high in the south. Slavery had all but died out in the north, and political power was evenly divided between slave owning states, and non slave owning states, every new non slave state upset the balance
Sometimes compromise is a good thing: I think we all recognize that.
But sometimes, it is evil. What is the fair compromise between, "it is our right to own slaves", and " it is morally repugnant for one human being to own another"?
Any compromise would have involved one side totally yielding its main point. It simply cannot be done. If the disagreement is deep-seated enough, the only recourse is force of arms.
__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:59 AM
JB3 JB3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler View Post
Sometimes compromise is a good thing: I think we all recognize that.
But sometimes, it is evil. What is the fair compromise between, "it is our right to own slaves", and " it is morally repugnant for one human being to own another"?
Any compromise would have involved one side totally yielding its main point. It simply cannot be done. If the disagreement is deep-seated enough, the only recourse is force of arms.
Totally agree, unfortunately for the southern perspective at that time, mild change, moderate change, and extreme change were all lumped into the same corner via extremist points of view.

They would not even mildly compromise via Lincoln's proposed method, or even try or consider it. Lincoln was perfectly happy to let slavery die out slowly without impacting southern states and their practices as he said in his campaign, which didn't make him many friends north either, but they saw his limiting of further spread out west as an attack, and the election of anyone but an extremist of their own, as the election of an extremist for the other side.

This is a viewpoint we would do well to remember how it came with consequences for the nation, instead of settling into a habit of demonizing any alternate viewpoint without considering its merits at all.
__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-01-2012, 10:43 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky View Post
what do we have here, a link that says he-

A. was despised by huge numbers of his contemporaries
B. Didn't like church and may not have been religious
C. told vulgar stories
D. pissed off Springfields christian leaders because he didn't like church

whats your point?
Looks to me like you found a link that describes a regular guy, yet places evil on him because he succeeded in keeping the union together.

The greatest tragedy for the south that happened was his assassination, as it ushered in a vengeful period of reconstruction and punishment. If you recall, Lincoln wanted to welcome back the southern states with open arms, to return them to their place in the union without acting as if they ever left. Again, he was a moderate, not an extremist.

from his april 11, 1865 speech about Louisiana-

"We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier, to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have even been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. "

The statement in quotes is full of fallacies. First, beginning with the "We all agree......." Who, exactly, is this leftist military dictator including in the phrase "We all agree......."? Perhaps he and his war mongering generals agreed, but I CAN GUARANTEE YOU that there were many, both Northerners and Southerners who did not believe that he had the right to speak for THEM. Here, Lincoln is taking the Leftist, Liberal view of speaking for others who have not vested him with the power to express their views.

The so-called "Union" ceased being a VOLUNTARY Union of the States for a common goal and became the COERCED STATES OF LINCOLN. Virginia was made Military District Number One and Marshal law was enforced at the point of a bayonet. The Federal Constitution was suspended so that the President could rule by Military Law AKA Executive Order. The three distinct powers of Legislative, Judicial and Executive realigned under the Supreme Military, Imperial power of the Executive. The flags of the individual states were hauled down to second position (most flag poles today only fly the stars and stripes, the individual State flags are virtually NON-EXISTENT). Government by the people and of the people? You tell me........

Last edited by HuskyMan; 10-01-2012 at 11:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:13 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,604
I believe Faulkner said when asked if the South has forgotten the Civil war yet responded more or less like this: "Forgotten? Heli its not over yet!"
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:50 AM
waterboarding w/medmech
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coming to your hometown
Posts: 7,987
how the hell did the thread get from TJ to post civil war?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:56 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,604
It done veer'd off.
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:03 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,061
I'll tie it together. Lincoln's view of the country and Jefferson's are as far from each other as the east is from the west. We were a Republic for about a hundred years. Then, George Mason's prophecy came to pass.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:57 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky View Post
this is not entirely correct.

In fact, the small garrison of ft sumpter consisted of federal troops that had RETREATED from their base in Charleston, as part of a de-escalation attempt and the fact that their numbers were small.

There was an attempt to resupply secretly, (remember, we are talking about a siege), but it failed.
Entirely accurate. Ft Sumter was a military garrison. Had they left there would have been no cause to fire on Sumter. It was Lincoln's "Gulf Of Tonkin" moment.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:21 PM
JB3 JB3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Entirely accurate. Ft Sumter was a military garrison. Had they left there would have been no cause to fire on Sumter. It was Lincoln's "Gulf Of Tonkin" moment.
what is with you guys and dates?

Lincoln took office on march 4th, 1861. Most of the ft Sumter deal was Buchanan, whose renown is for doing nothing about any situation, or doing it ineffectively.

The garrison retreated from Charleston end of December 1860 to ft Sumter in the bay.
Buchanan tried to have it resupplied in January of 1861, but it was a failure.

two months later, Lincoln takes the oath of office, and less than a month after that, South Carolina fires on the fort.
__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:28 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Had the federal troops departed there would have been no cause to fire on Fort Sumter.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:38 PM
JB3 JB3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Had the federal troops departed there would have been no cause to fire on Fort Sumter.
WAY WAY more complex than that. Excellent passage about it in wikipedia-

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president. He was almost immediately confronted with the surprise information that Major Anderson was reporting that only six weeks of rations remained at Fort Sumter. A crisis similar to the one at Fort Sumter had emerged at Pensacola, Florida, where Confederates threatened another U.S. fortification—Fort Pickens. Lincoln and his new cabinet struggled with the decisions of whether to reinforce the forts, and how. They were also concerned about whether to take actions that might start open hostilities and which side would be perceived as the aggressor as a result. Similar discussions and concerns were occurring in the Confederacy.[18]
After the formation of the Confederate States of America in early February, there was some debate among the secessionists whether the capture of the fort was rightly a matter for South Carolina or for the newly declared national government in Montgomery, Alabama. South Carolina Governor Pickens was among the states' rights advocates who felt that all property in Charleston harbor had reverted to South Carolina upon that state's secession as an independent commonwealth. This debate ran alongside another discussion about how aggressively the installations—including Forts Sumter and Pickens—should be obtained. President Davis, like his counterpart in Washington, preferred that his side not be seen as the aggressor. Both sides believed that the first side to use force would lose precious political support in the border states, whose allegiance was undetermined; before Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, five states had voted against secession, including Virginia, and Lincoln openly offered to evacuate Fort Sumter if it would guarantee Virginia's loyalty.[19]
The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasons—as a gesture of good will—engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[20]
On April 4, as the supply situation on Sumter became critical, President Lincoln ordered a relief expedition, to be commanded by former naval captain (and future Assistant Secretary of the Navy) Gustavus V. Fox, who had proposed a plan for nighttime landings of smaller vessels than the Star of the West. Fox's orders were to land at Sumter with supplies only, and if he was opposed by the Confederates, to respond with the U.S. Navy vessels following and to then land both supplies and men. This time, Maj. Anderson was informed of the impending expedition, although the arrival date was not revealed to him. On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."[21]
Lincoln's notification had been made to the governor of South Carolina, not the new Confederate government, which Lincoln did not recognize. Pickens consulted with Beauregard, the local Confederate commander. Soon Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to repeat the demand for Sumter's surrender, and if it did not, to reduce the fort before the relief expedition arrived. The Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, endorsed Davis's order on April 9. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."[22]
Beauregard dispatched aides—Col. James Chesnut, Col. James A. Chisholm, and Capt. Stephen D. Lee—to Fort Sumter on April 11 to issue the ultimatum. Anderson refused, although he reportedly commented, "I shall await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we shall be starved out in a few days." The aides returned to Charleston and reported this comment to Beauregard. At 1 a.m. on April 12, the aides brought Anderson a message from Beauregard: "If you will state the time which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree in the meantime that you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you." After consulting with his senior officers, Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies. Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: "Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time." Anderson escorted the officers back to their boat, shook hands with each one, and said "If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next."
__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-02-2012, 08:12 AM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Nothing in that lengthy quote is in disagreement with the fact that had the Federal troops decamped Sumter there would have been no reason to fire on Sumter.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-02-2012, 08:50 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,604
Not difficult at all.

But the South still fired the first shot.
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-02-2012, 09:01 AM
JB3 JB3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Nothing in that lengthy quote is in disagreement with the fact that had the Federal troops decamped Sumter there would have been no reason to fire on Sumter.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
I said it was more complex, not in disagreement. I certainly disagree that the simplistic idea that federal troops leaving federal property and giving it to the confederacy in open rebellion would have magically resulted in no warfare.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the origins of the fighting of the civil war cannot be explained away in a one sentence piece of simplicity?

I added that lengthy discourse because it brings up a number of different points that are interesting, from a historical perspective and reality of the beliefs and agendas of BOTH sides, not a singular perspective of sympathy for the southern cause, which is what you have.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page