So what do you do about the embarrassing celebration of the confederacy that is Stone Mountain.

[FireDragon76]

Comparing the unreasonable destruction caused by one set of intolerant extremists to the unreasonable destruction caused by another set of intolerant extremists is reasonable.

That's empty rhetoric. There is nothing extreme about defending human dignity.

 

[durangodawood]

....Boiling down the significant cultural differences between the North and South to just slavery is about as misleading as it can get.

Slavery is pretty extreme tho. As a matter of moral principle, I think legal institutionalized slavery itself is a legit cause for another country to declare war on you. I would not say that about any of the other north/south cultural differences that I'm aware of.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's empty rhetoric. There is nothing extreme about defending human dignity.

That's why I am defending it against the actions of those that prefer to destroy rather than to build.

 

[tbstor]

You should have looked at the video I posted. But in short:

Chronology of the Secession Crisis

Lincoln's Call For Troops

The southern states where busy seizing forts and arsenals through January 1861 and February.

Lincoln didn't call for the army until February 28th.

For the North to start the aggression, the south sure did a lot of seizing before the Union Army was called.

Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of watching YouTube videos. Regarding the seizures of forts/arsenals, it is important to provide context. For example, the statement "Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski," while true, tells us very little. Consider:

A dispatch from Charleston states that returns from Georgia indicate that the State has gone largely for secession.

Forts Pulaski and Jackson have positively been occupied by the Georgia State troops, under the Governor's instructions, and it is said that but for this the fortresses would have been taken by an uprising of the people.

Senator Toombs received a dispatch on 3d from Governor Brown, of Georgia, stating that he had ordered the Georgia troops to occupy Fort Pulaski, to prevent the Federal troops from taking it until the meeting of their Convention. Neither Fort Jackson nor the arsenal had been taken, and the Governor gave no intimation that he intended to take them. The Governor issued the order to occupy Fort Pulaski for the reason that he had learned that the Administration had given orders to reinforce all the forts in the South. Other forts have undoubtedly been taken for the same reason. The President, it is understood, did issue such an order, but it was afterward revoked. The President also received a dispatch announcing the occupation of Fort Pulaski by the Georgia troops.​

Another example listed is "Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon." Again, let's look at the context:

In an unusual move, Governor Moore wrote to President James Buchanan on the same day to inform him of his reasons for ordering the seizure (Abraham Lincoln had not yet taken office). Telling Buchanan that he had ordered the taking of the arsenal, Moore explained that he had received intelligence that U.S. forces were preparing to reinforce the arsenal and other forts in Alabama and willing to shed the blood of Alabama citizens in order to do it:

…The purpose with which my order was given and has been executed was to avoid and not to provoke hostilities between the State and Federal Government. There is no object, save the honor and independence of my State, which is by me so ardently desired as the preservation of amicable relations between this State and the Government of the United States. That the secession of the State, made necessary by the conduct of others, may be peaceful is my prayer as well as the prayer of every patriotic man in the State.​

 

[tbstor]

Slavery is pretty extreme tho. As a matter of moral principle, I think legal institutionalized slavery itself is a legit cause for another country to declare war on you. I would not say that about any of the other north/south cultural differences that I'm aware of.

Yet the Union still had slave states during the war. In fact, Lincoln and his administration consistently reached out to compromise with the South over the issue of slavery in exchange for a restoration of the Union.

 

[Goonie]

Yet the Union still had slave states during the war. In fact, Lincoln and his administration consistently reached out to compromise with the South over the issue of slavery in exchange for a restoration of the Union.

Well yes Lincoln was not an abolitionist, which the South falsely painted him as. He believed Slavery was economically dead and would die a natural death. He would not support expanding it to new states, but was not about to abolish it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Slavery is pretty extreme tho. As a matter of moral principle, I think legal institutionalized slavery itself is a legit cause for another country to declare war on you. I would not say that about any of the other north/south cultural differences that I'm aware of.

Should the North have declared war upon every country that had legal institutionalized slavery when it invaded the South? That would have been quite a large conflagration. The North would also have to have declared war upon itself as slavery was not abolished in the North until after the war and after Lincoln had proclaimed it abolished in the South.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

 

[durangodawood]

Yet the Union still had slave states during the war. In fact, Lincoln and his administration consistently reached out to compromise with the South over the issue of slavery in exchange for a restoration of the Union.

Well maybe Lincoln thought differently than I do about the moral justification for war.

I think institutional slavery is valid justification for war.

 

[durangodawood]

Should the North have declared war upon every country that had legal institutionalized slavery when it invaded the South? That would have been quite a large conflagration. The North would also have to have declared war upon itself as slavery was not abolished in the North until after the war and after Lincoln had proclaimed it abolished in the South.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

No. Slavery justifies war morally. There are also other tests a plan for war would have to pass: economic. odds of prevailing, etc.

 

[Goonie]

Well maybe Lincoln thought differently than I do about the moral justification for war.

I think institutional slavery is valid justification for war.

For Lincoln it was preserving the Union that justified the war.

 

[durangodawood]

For Lincoln it was preserving the Union that justified the war.

I agree.

I do think he was personally anti-slavery, but not willing to stake the union on it. And also the question of slavery was one major issue at the heart of the secessionist cause. At any rate, I'm not too sympathetic to any "poor me" from a proposed nation that would cling to slavery.

 

[Paulos23]

Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of watching YouTube videos. Regarding the seizures of forts/arsenals, it is important to provide context. For example, the statement "Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski," while true, tells us very little. Consider:

A dispatch from Charleston states that returns from Georgia indicate that the State has gone largely for secession.

Forts Pulaski and Jackson have positively been occupied by the Georgia State troops, under the Governor's instructions, and it is said that but for this the fortresses would have been taken by an uprising of the people.

Senator Toombs received a dispatch on 3d from Governor Brown, of Georgia, stating that he had ordered the Georgia troops to occupy Fort Pulaski, to prevent the Federal troops from taking it until the meeting of their Convention. Neither Fort Jackson nor the arsenal had been taken, and the Governor gave no intimation that he intended to take them. The Governor issued the order to occupy Fort Pulaski for the reason that he had learned that the Administration had given orders to reinforce all the forts in the South. Other forts have undoubtedly been taken for the same reason. The President, it is understood, did issue such an order, but it was afterward revoked. The President also received a dispatch announcing the occupation of Fort Pulaski by the Georgia troops.​

Another example listed is "Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon." Again, let's look at the context:

In an unusual move, Governor Moore wrote to President James Buchanan on the same day to inform him of his reasons for ordering the seizure (Abraham Lincoln had not yet taken office). Telling Buchanan that he had ordered the taking of the arsenal, Moore explained that he had received intelligence that U.S. forces were preparing to reinforce the arsenal and other forts in Alabama and willing to shed the blood of Alabama citizens in order to do it:

…The purpose with which my order was given and has been executed was to avoid and not to provoke hostilities between the State and Federal Government. There is no object, save the honor and independence of my State, which is by me so ardently desired as the preservation of amicable relations between this State and the Government of the United States. That the secession of the State, made necessary by the conduct of others, may be peaceful is my prayer as well as the prayer of every patriotic man in the State.​

You are stretching here.

The federal government had not taken any aggressive actions, and reinforcing is not aggressive. Those southern states took federal army positions by force first. If they had left them alone we might have a different story.

 

[tbstor]

You are stretching here.

The federal government had not taken any aggressive actions, and reinforcing is not aggressive. Those southern states took federal army positions by force first. If they had left them alone we might have a different story.

Reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result. As well, it isn't clear that those forts were "taken by force." No shots were fired (to my knowledge). It was as simple as them securing their states.

 

[durangodawood]

Reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result. As well, it isn't clear that those forts were "taken by force." No shots were fired (to my knowledge). It was as simple as them securing their states.

What "democratic" result? The one that white but not black men could participate in, that could seal the doom of those black men?

If only it werent for slavery, the south could make appeals to various ideals all day long. But I think they forfeited that privilege.

 

[Paulos23]

Reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result. As well, it isn't clear that those forts were "taken by force." No shots were fired (to my knowledge). It was as simple as them securing their states.

The south leaving the union was not democratic as there was a significate portion of the populace that was not allowed to vote for representative government.

It was the southern state's reaction to them losing political influence in the US government and losing future states being slave states, and not excepting the eventual democratic will against them owning slaves.

 

[Speedwell]

Reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result. As well, it isn't clear that those forts were "taken by force." No shots were fired (to my knowledge).

There was Ft. Sumter.

It was as simple as them securing their states.

So how was it justified legally? At what point did federally owned property become federally owned property no longer? Were anyone else's property rights abrogated by the seceding states?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

That's why we have history books.

At the rate they are going, it won't be long before they burn the existing history books, and write new ones that better suit their narrative.

 

[tbstor]

What "democratic" result? The one that white but not black men could participate in, that could seal the doom of those black men?

If only it werent for slavery, the south could make appeals to various ideals all day long. But I think they forfeited that privilege.

Every democratic result excluded blacks and women for most of history. It is useless to mention it unless you are willing to question the legitimacy of all democratic decisions that fall outside of this century.

And you may think anything you'd like, I won't stop you. But that doesn't move me one way or the other.

 

[tbstor]

The south leaving the union was not democratic as there was a significate portion of the populace that was not allowed to vote for representative government.

It was the southern state's reaction to them losing political influence in the US government and losing future states being slave states, and not excepting the eventual democratic will against them owning slaves.

That's true of any democratic decision outside of this century. I don't see the significance of mentioning it.

Sorry, was it a "democratic will" if blacks and women weren't involved?

 

[tbstor]

There was Ft. Sumter.

Which was the start of the war. As well, shots were fired on Fort Sumter when Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort. It was an act of aggression toward the Confederate States since the Fort now fell within Confederate land.

So how was it justified legally? At what point did federally owned property become federally owned property no longer? Were anyone else's property rights abrogated by the seceding states?

When the federal government no longer held jurisdiction within those territories (post-secession).