Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Rebel Battle Flag - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 03:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
101st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:     If they had accepted your idea that attempted expansion of slavery westward into the territories was a fruitless exercise, then they might as well have stood with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis. Then they could have resolved the entire question thirty years earlier. However, if they had taken that course, they would have discovered that Andrew Jackson would have been an angrier opponent than Abraham Lincoln was.

Not entirely grasping what you're saying here, Tex. Might be the hour or condition in which I retired last night. And I've been distracted by the newbie's post. (I'll not associate his state of mind with your state of Texas.)

While awaiting clarification, I will observe that '32 and '60 are two different animals. How 'bout that for confusing?

Ole



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
102nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   Ole, what I was saying was that if the southerners had given up on the idea of maintaining the balance of power by trying to expand slavery to the territories, they might as well have fought the Civil War itself thirty years earlier. That would have resolved the question of how much power the federal government had over the states a generation earlier. (The US population in 1830 was only 40% of what it was in 1860).



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
103rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Wow, JDC! Not in my wierdest dreams did I ever expect such a site. Guess I'm naive in thinking that purt dang near everybody agrees that the US of A has proven to be a better alternative than a divided country. Not to diss the noble proponents of "The South was Right" philosophy, but even they will have to agree that a divided nation couldn't have effectively helped to stomp the Axis or face down the USSR.

I think I'll just ignore the New Confederacy. Maybe they'll go away?

Ole



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
104th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:    Ole, what I was saying was that if the southerners had given up on the idea of maintaining the balance of power by trying to expand slavery to the territories, they might as well have fought the Civil War itself thirty years earlier. That would have resolved the question of how much power the federal government had over the states a generation earlier. (The US population in 1830 was only 40% of what it was in 1860).

Thanks for the fast feedback. I didn't say that "they had given up on the idea of maintaining the balance of power" (did I?). I think I was maintaining that it wasn't a viable idea. Although losing the legislative clout would have been scary, I don't see where new slave states within the US border would have been possible.

The whole idea strikes me as that adolescent chip. The slaveowner wanted what he was forbidden to have. If he had it, he couldn't use it. On the other side, forbidding the expansion was also fruitless -- slavery wasn't going to expand into the new territories in any case.

That the south was going to lose its legislative dominance was a given. Without ingesting Cuba and sundry Central-American countries, the slaveholder was faced with eventual extinction -- natural or legislated.

However, I ramble. From my modern standpoint, I don't see the problem. If I were a wealthy planter in 1855, I would certainly be concerned.

Ole:(

 



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
105th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  Ole, no matter how long and how diligently we study that period of history, it will always be impossible for us to put ourselves into a 19th century mind. We must accept the fact that our knowledge will always be incomplete.



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 10:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
106th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy , he wasn't in my class or my fellow teacher's classes for sure. 



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 10:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
107th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 Ole, no matter how long and how diligently we study that period of history, it will always be impossible for us to put ourselves into a 19th century mind. We must accept the fact that our knowledge will always be incomplete.


 

Texas Defender ,  that is the truest statement I have ever read.  I have had some major discussions that turned into an argument a couple of times with people that try to put 20th or 21st century believes on 19th Century inccidents.   One time it was at the site of the Mountain Meadow Massacre .  I was sitting there looking a the surrounds and thinking about what it must have been like there at the time.  I said you could not really call this murder.  My friend jumped all over me before I could finish my explanation  yelling at me Murder is Murder.    Our book club at the Drum Barracks several times I have asked how can we really know this . 

Thanks Texas for putting it in words. 

 

 



You have chosen to ignore tex1861. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 02:15 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
110th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The problem is that no other nation on earth ever recognized the CSA, it did not succesfully assert its existance.  It was a Rebellion, legal or not, it was soundly defeated.  It's armies surrendered in the field and it's govt ceased to exist.  So what is the point?  It borders on Sedition and at a time of war... treason.



 Current time is 09:26 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3604 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 29 queries executed.