Quote:
|
Originally Posted by t walgamuth
while there probably is some factual truth in many of your points i can only conclude that you are a southerner who has never accepted the results of the civil war. or the war of oppression as some southerners would say.
my father used to say "most lies are based on fact".
laws are meant to be clear and simple and enforcable. as a matter of fact, though they seldom are. interpretation is everything. lincoln saw the union as something that was to be preserved. many northerners wanted to come to some kind of settlement with the south. some books i have read suggest that mcclellan the general was ambitious for the presedency and that was a major reason for his reluctance to engage his army, perferring a stalling strategy til the 64 election when he would run as what, a democrat? i am not sure of the party names back then. i know there were whigs too and they died out about then.
imho if the south had won the war, the us would now be three or four second or third rate powers. does that appeal to you? not me.
there was definately a lot of unfair things that happened to the south after the war. if lincoln had lived perhaps that would have been different. he was merciful. grant, when he accepted lees surrender refused to take his sword. and sent the men home with their guns and horses, such as they had left.
but along the way later things happened that shouldnt have.
and during the war too. and there were no doubt atrocities committed. on both sides. but the war mostly took place on southern soil by definition so the people of the south would have no good memories of that period, i would think.
tom w
|
The first paragraph is unfair and trivializes history. That a man argues a perspective does not mean he embraces all aspects of that perspective. this is what we call an ad hominem attack. Rather than argue the points he presented you shift the argument to be about him. The points raised are points of historical fact and then interpreted by him. If his interpretation is based on fact then why not argue both the facts and the interpretation? That should be more productive than making the argument about him.
The United States was formed by the agreement of 13 independent governments agreeing to voluntarily cede some of their power and authority to a central government. Many of the states signed the document and attached certain reservations of power to themselves. Many of the states for example, retained the sovereign right to withdraw from the union. They wrote that they feared the centralization of power into the hands of the few. These arguments are precisely why the "Federalist Papers" were written. The Federalist Papers seek to explain the benefits of a powerful central government as counter-arguments to the people who feared it.
In the first part of the 19th century many New England states banded together as a regional group and argued whether they should withdraw from the union. They almost did but in deciding to remain, they wrote that the union is only free if the states who comprise it do so willingly and that compulsion is despotism.
During the 1850's Lincoln's party imposed duties and tariffs that differentially impacted the southern states to the benefit of northern states, especially industrializing states. The laws were repealed after the Civil War because they were found unconstitutional. No, I'm not talking about a slave issue, it had to do with importation of finished goods. The states were supposed to collect the fees and taxes for the federal government. The southern states essentially ignored the laws so Lincoln sent troops, without Congressional approval, into the major southern ports to enforce the law.
There was no precedent for the President, without Congressional authorization, to send federal troops to compel a state to obey. The nearest precedent was Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions which Washington quelled. But Washington sought and received Congressional authorization. Lincoln did not. The southern states argued that Lincoln's ordering troops into southern ports was an act of war as it was illegal and unprecedented.
Today we learn in school that the cause of the war was slavery and it was instigated by the state of South Carolina firing on Federal troops in Ft Sumpter.
The winners write the history.
Bot
PS Bonus Question: When and why were the "Posse Comitatus" statutes enacted?
B