|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Dec 28, 2007 14:46:30 GMT -5
We did do some very bad things to the Indians, well our ancestors did not us.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Dec 28, 2007 18:08:15 GMT -5
i do need to do some reserch on american indians. I did see some things on the trail of tears and Andrew Jackson which didnt seem right from the little info i had
|
|
|
Post by chrislydman on Dec 28, 2007 18:51:27 GMT -5
It is a very good book Christian
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Dec 29, 2007 1:46:25 GMT -5
www.tulane.edu/~sumter/index.htmlSouthern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary." Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side. Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun." From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired." In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader. Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Dec 29, 2007 1:49:18 GMT -5
The south wanted to peacable succeed from the union. what was wrong with this?
But lincoln provoked them by threatening military force.
it wasnt till the war was near over that lincoln began to spin that the war was about freeing slavery.....
i recomend the movie..."gods and Generals"
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Dec 29, 2007 4:12:23 GMT -5
IS IT POSSIBLE, OR MAYBE NOT, THAT YOU CAN READ, YOUR OWN $HIT THAT YOU HAVE TO FIND TO POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SERIOUSLY? ? IT just amazes me, ACTUALLY it shouldn't, but it does...... What is wrong with seceding, NOT succeeding, from the Union? ..Union, meaning the United States. You're seriously asking this question? O.K. Whats wrong with, lets say, Texas, or California seceding from the United States now?....... Oh, I guess nothing, RIGHT?
|
|
|
Post by TK on Dec 29, 2007 6:44:26 GMT -5
why Challenge history?......it is what it is!!
TK
|
|
|
Post by BigDaddyJoe™ on Dec 30, 2007 16:54:04 GMT -5
lol, why is it that ryan being against lincoln starting a war to end slavery not suprising to me..........lol, just asking
|
|
|
Post by Bob Brown on Dec 30, 2007 17:17:58 GMT -5
You should all go see the New National Treasure Movie.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 1, 2008 22:59:14 GMT -5
I dont see anything wrong with a particular state seperating. if the states people are in agreement and there is a serious problem with the federal government. i dont see anything wrong with that.
The individual state has the right to be an individual state. the state would nolonger get federal funding for anything ofcourse and then the state would reapply to join the union.
and at that poitn lincoln couldve passed a federal law abolishing slavery. no state would be able to rejoin the union without abolishing slavery.
that couldve saved the lives of many amercian men and women.
Milano I am not againt abolishing slavery you ditz!
i just feel it couldve gone without a civil war.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 1, 2008 23:06:49 GMT -5
^I agree. I'll take that one step further. I think states can and should be divisible if it is for the betterment of both sides. As an example, I think New York would be better served to have a separate state from Buffalo to Syracuse, and a separate state from Albany down to NYC. The population of NYC is so overwhelming that it virtually negates the value of upstate/western new york political votes. As a result, upstate/western new york is the redheaded stepchild of the state. If Upstate New York ever wanted to become its own state I think that should be permitted.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 1, 2008 23:38:49 GMT -5
here is ron pauls opinion of the civil war...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 1, 2008 23:41:47 GMT -5
He stated that every other country did away with slavery without a civil war, and that the war wasnt about slavery
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Jan 2, 2008 13:16:28 GMT -5
Well Ryan..Not everyone follows the status quo bud...and Abe lincol did what he needed to do, end of story.....Is it right ? Is it wrong ? who knows but it saved how many million African Americans from a life of ankle chains and auctioneers, not to mention from being slaves..So maybe Abe is justified in what he did.......
Could you Imagine a bunch of republican Rednecks running the United states....Oh wait its happening Now...Hows that going for Ya.
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Jan 2, 2008 13:18:19 GMT -5
that couldve saved the lives of many amercian men and women. At whose expense Ryan.....Good ol Uncle Tom & aunt Jemima's thats who......
|
|