When Will We Recover From The Civil War? Now Is The Time.

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

The south did cause the Civil War by clinging to a failed economic model.

LOL Dude. We're clinging to a "failed economic model" now: the Petrodollar. Good luck changing it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sumter was a battle. The commander of Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, held fire for two hours while the Confederates bombarded the fort. Then he ordered only the casemate guns (the lower two tiers of guns) be manned and engage the Confederates. Fort Moultrie was chosen to get the brunt of the return fire. A Union relief squadron of ships outside the harbor were unable to come in and land their 1,000 + troops and supplies to assist Sumter.
After something like a day of combat, with many of the buildings on the parade ground in flames, Anderson surrendered the fort to Confederate forces.

Getting shelled isn't a battle, even when firing a few worthless shots back. The Federal troops weren't taken as prisoners. They were allowed to leave South Carolina as initially requested.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually, you'd be wrong. The various Southern states started rebelling and seceding almost from the day after Lincoln was elected. Between December 1860 and April 1861, numerous other US forts and arsenals across the South were taken by rebel forces. Fort Sumner SC, was manned when Union troops fell back from Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie (both near Sumner) and taken by Southern rebels.
Fort Pickens at Pensacola Florida had been under siege by rebel forces for almost three months when the shooting at Sumner started. The only reason it hadn't been taken by force was Stephen Mallory, who would become the Confederate Secretary of the Navy, negotiated a truce that held.

It was the dithering non-response of Buchanan that allowed all this to happen between Lincoln's election and his inauguration into office.

Are you claiming that the war began prior to the sneak attack on Fort Sumter? I'm sure Buchanan was miffed about how the election turned-out. After all, he was a Democrat.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Getting shelled isn't a battle, even when firing a few worthless shots back. The Federal American troops weren't taken as prisoners. They were allowed to leave South Carolina as initially requested.

And this matters?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yes, slavery is wrong. That's not the point. The point is...

GO CSA! DEATH TO AMERICA!

 

[Minister of Truth]

You mean the Republicans? Because, through some very weird acrobatics of history, the Democrats of 1860 are the Republicans of today and vice versa.

Who doesn't love slight of hand?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Buchanan could have pulled a Trump. Yea, that's getting a bit modern politics, but bear with me. Buchanan could have used the Insurrection act at the first signs of Southern rebellion and ordered the US Army--such as it was-- to take back US property and put the rebels down. He could have authorized US coast defense forts to ready themselves for defense and sent supplies and reinforcements immediately to them.

Buchanan did nothing. He let US arsenals across the South fall into rebel hands giving them the arms and ammunition they needed to raise an army. He let them take forts and ships where they could meaning they were able to provide masses of cannon and even a fledgling navy to fight with. By the time Lincoln actually took office he was left with no choice but civil war to put the rebellion down.

The "pull a Trump" would be to order the Army and call up the Militia (at that time that was the equivalent of the National Guard) to move in and put down the rebellion before it gained traction. I give Trump some credit for doing it quickly as it did put an end to almost all of the looting and violence. The protesters figured that out PDQ.

Sounds like an admission that the south started hostilities.

I don't think the north had much of a militia. They were focused on turning industrial and no longer feared England. The south on the other hand had a well trained militia in place so they could protect themselves against a possible slave uprising, and to track down escaped slaves.

I don't think DT had anything to do with the end of violence at the protests. I think it was the quick identification of out side agitators. Their purpose was lost in trying to blame it on peaceful protestors.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Yes, slavery is wrong. That's not the point. The point is it wasn't it worth killing 2% of the population with war.

That's Monday morning quarterbacking. Both sides hoped for a quick conclusion of any war.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

LOL Dude. We're clinging to a "failed economic model" now: the Petrodollar. Good luck changing it.

Correct. That effort is under way and gaining momentum.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Getting shelled isn't a battle, even when firing a few worthless shots back. The Federal troops weren't taken as prisoners. They were allowed to leave South Carolina as initially requested.

Sounds like a battle to me.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Sounds like an admission that the south started hostilities.

I don't think the north had much of a militia. They were focused on turning industrial and no longer feared England. The south on the other hand had a well trained militia in place so they could protect themselves against a possible slave uprising, and to track down escaped slaves.

I don't think DT had anything to do with the end of violence at the protests. I think it was the quick identification of out side agitators. Their purpose was lost in trying to blame it on peaceful protestors.

The South did start hostilities. Some states were more aggressive than others. In at least a couple of cases, governors forced rebelling groups to withdraw from US property (usually a coast defense fort) and allowed the caretakers or troops back in, at least temporarily until there was an official state decision on secession.

I think that the quick call for use of the US military did aid in ending the violence and looting. I also think that most of the violence--not the looting-- was being initiated by the usual violent radical Leftist groups either locally or coming in to start it. That got the looting going and the looters would only loot as long as they knew they wouldn't be caught and as long as the violence was giving them cover. The violence ended and the looters disappeared.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There possible could be a Deep State behind the hatred, but I believe it just boils down to hateful people.

I know many of the Obama/Hillary/Carter haters personally, and it is just pure unwarranted hatefulness!

I noticed it happening just after Nixon ended his presidency. Republicans have become more and more bitter as time went on.

They have all but turned politics into a civil war!

That's probably next!

no it's deep state/ oligarchic manipulation/ ops

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

The South did start hostilities. Some states were more aggressive than others. In at least a couple of cases, governors forced rebelling groups to withdraw from US property (usually a coast defense fort) and allowed the caretakers or troops back in, at least temporarily until there was an official state decision on secession.

Totally agree with that. The south initiated hostilities. The south also set themselves on a course for having to do that because the slave economy was failing them. The southern slave economy was falling behind the northern industrial economy because the north had paying jobs and a consumer economy. There were few wage jobs in the south. Most labor was purchased, not paid. The few jobs were supervisory. This meant there was comparatively little consumer economy in the south. The north was growing and spreading west. Soon there were more free states than slave states, which gave the north a majority in Congress. They held all the power in government. The south felt helpless. They wanted to cling to their failed economy so badly that they ended up having to go to war over it out of their own fears for what might come next for them. They tried to break up the USA. That is not an option in the Constitution.

I think that the quick call for use of the US military did aid in ending the violence and looting. I also think that most of the violence--not the looting-- was being initiated by the usual violent radical Leftist groups either locally or coming in to start it. That got the looting going and the looters would only loot as long as they knew they wouldn't be caught and as long as the violence was giving them cover. The violence ended and the looters disappeared.

DT was facing heavy criticism for the idea of deploying the US military against the US people. The military did not want to do that. And many others also criticized the idea. It is a good thing DT dropped that idea. He probably only dropped it because it wasn't polling well, which is what guides most of his decisions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The slave economy was on its way out regardless. With the invention of the cotton gin and then the reaper, a crew of a few paid workers could harvest cotton cheaper and faster than a large number of slaves. The South's economy and social order was changing. The slave states also did a bean count of future potential slave states and knew they would become a permanent minority in Congress and have little federal power.
With the mechanization of agriculture on the horizon, slaves would no longer be needed, so there was now a question about what to do with them. The answer for many in the South was retain the status quo and not allow the changes to happen. That was a massive and costly fail.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And this matters?

Yes. Obviously there's a big difference between POWs and evictees.

Who doesn't love slight of hand?

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

That's Monday morning quarterbacking. Both sides hoped for a quick conclusion of any war.

Now you're starting to listen to your own reasoning instead of the official Party line.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Correct. That effort is under way and gaining momentum.

Again, good luck because there are a lot of very huge interests in maintaining the status quo.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

no it's deep state/ oligarchic manipulation/ ops

Every time I hear Deep State- I think- it's a deep state alright....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Sounds like a battle to me.

Like my Presidential nominees, I seem to have a higher standard than others on this forum.

Like the MW definition below, I consider a battle between two generally equal opponents. It's a great struggle and either side can win although one side may have a strong advantage over the other.

Fort Sumter was more like the "Battle of Sand Creek" or the "Battle of Wounded Knee" except that it wasn't a massacre. In fact, no one was killed in the "battle".

OTOH, the reaction to being evicted by South Carolina produced a typically Yankee reaction: they attacked Virginia. You know, like after 9/11 when some idiot attacked a Sikh man on the street. Yankees have a loooooong history of massacreing Indians. When the South seceded, they treated the Southerners just like they did the Native Americans. The problem for the Yankees was that the Southern military leaders were both US military trained and fully equipped with contemporary weapons.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The slave economy was on its way out regardless. With the invention of the cotton gin and then the reaper, a crew of a few paid workers could harvest cotton cheaper and faster than a large number of slaves. The South's economy and social order was changing. The slave states also did a bean count of future potential slave states and knew they would become a permanent minority in Congress and have little federal power.
With the mechanization of agriculture on the horizon, slaves would no longer be needed, so there was now a question about what to do with them. The answer for many in the South was retain the status quo and not allow the changes to happen. That was a massive and costly fail.

how about slaves with cotton gins. this is more of the neocon fascist delusion that progress naturally improves morality. moral problems must be addressed in an explicitly moral frame.

im tired of a this globalist libertarian horseshit.

this is the same argument globalists use when they asserted allowing china in the wto would automatically make them less totalitarian.

proven horseshit.