Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The American Civil War Timeline- 150th Anniversary

Recommended Posts

Those that can't do, teach.

Both Blight and Holzer are respected historians; the former is more of an academic, the latter has a much larger body of work (like 35-40 books v. 4-5).

Dilfer won a SB, Romo has never made a conference championship, so maybe he knows what he is talking about.

:shrug:

Edited by BobbyLayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By public request...

Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Did he really say "That is cool"? People said that phrase 150 years ago? That is cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By public request...

Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Did he really say "That is cool"? People said that phrase 150 years ago? That is cool!
I don't think he meant it in exactly the same way. But it is cool anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets not make sweeping blanket statements that support the same :lmao: Yankee is spewing; ok.

It really is remarkable just how badly you are doing this. Even for a philosophy guy, this is just bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the case of Brown the people you are claiming to be innocent were supporters of slavery, is that really what innocent means? Can you really sit there and say a person can be innocent of something when they support an immoral act as such? Even if they did not own slaves, supporting slave owners seems to be the exact same thing IMO, and hence, not only was Brown justified, he was morally obligated to kill them.

You are applying preset day morality here rather than mid 19th century morality. Slavery was the law in half the land and was being decided upon in other areas. Not all of the population considered slavery immoral. If you apply the standards of the day, those people were innocent.
This is true, but even if it were not true, there's a bigger problem with GG's statement. Right now there is genocide going on in Darfur. There are some Americans who believe that we shouldn't do anything about it. There are probably even a few Americans who support the genocide, for whatever reason. Should we kill them? According to GG, we have the moral right to do so. The Sudanese government is causing the genocide. It is doing this with the support, or at least the complicity of the Sudanese people. Does this give us the right to enter Sudanese villages and start gunning down people, left and right? According to GG, the answer apparently is yes.
First of all, "gunning down people" does not equal killing those that support genocide, so be very careful with how you word your claims, especially when you apply them to my arguments.Second, do not forget that all I am arguing is what follows IF you believe something can be moral vs. immoral. Insofar as you accept that fact I do not see how you don't have a duty to fight against what you deem immoral at every turn, even if that means killing. Lastly, I am one who does not see any evidence to support the claim of morality one way or the other, thus, Brown was justified in his actions just as the state was justified in killing Brown. But then it boils down to power and who is in control, which is basically all I am ever arguing whether the likes of Yankee and others understand that or not.
:lmao: Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the case of Brown the people you are claiming to be innocent were supporters of slavery, is that really what innocent means? Can you really sit there and say a person can be innocent of something when they support an immoral act as such? Even if they did not own slaves, supporting slave owners seems to be the exact same thing IMO, and hence, not only was Brown justified, he was morally obligated to kill them.

You are applying preset day morality here rather than mid 19th century morality. Slavery was the law in half the land and was being decided upon in other areas. Not all of the population considered slavery immoral. If you apply the standards of the day, those people were innocent.
This is true, but even if it were not true, there's a bigger problem with GG's statement. Right now there is genocide going on in Darfur. There are some Americans who believe that we shouldn't do anything about it. There are probably even a few Americans who support the genocide, for whatever reason. Should we kill them? According to GG, we have the moral right to do so. The Sudanese government is causing the genocide. It is doing this with the support, or at least the complicity of the Sudanese people. Does this give us the right to enter Sudanese villages and start gunning down people, left and right? According to GG, the answer apparently is yes.
First of all, "gunning down people" does not equal killing those that support genocide, so be very careful with how you word your claims, especially when you apply them to my arguments.Second, do not forget that all I am arguing is what follows IF you believe something can be moral vs. immoral. Insofar as you accept that fact I do not see how you don't have a duty to fight against what you deem immoral at every turn, even if that means killing. Lastly, I am one who does not see any evidence to support the claim of morality one way or the other, thus, Brown was justified in his actions just as the state was justified in killing Brown. But then it boils down to power and who is in control, which is basically all I am ever arguing whether the likes of Yankee and others understand that or not.
:lmao: Amazing.
I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?You would make the sophists proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets not make sweeping blanket statements that support the same :lmao: Yankee is spewing; ok.

It really is remarkable just how badly you are doing this. Even for a philosophy guy, this is just bad.
What is remarkable is your inability to counter the argument. Edited by Gigantomachia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic Convention was held in Charleston (April, 1860), and I think is our next topic. Hopefully the Hammer of Thor will fill us in on background/history of The Holy City.

Q for Mjolners about modern Charles Towne: Does Joseph P. Riley, Jr. think its a lifetime appointment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets not make sweeping blanket statements that support the same :lmao: Yankee is spewing; ok.

It really is remarkable just how badly you are doing this. Even for a philosophy guy, this is just bad.
What is remarkable is your inability to counter the argument.
I'm sure he can. I hope he does. Not because I want to see him attack you or you goad him, etc., but because just like you, GG, Yankee has very interesting perspectives on this issue and I hope we get to hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets not make sweeping blanket statements that support the same :lmao: Yankee is spewing; ok.

It really is remarkable just how badly you are doing this. Even for a philosophy guy, this is just bad.
What is remarkable is your inability to counter the argument.
I'm sure he can. I hope he does. Not because I want to see him attack you or you goad him, etc., but because just like you, GG, Yankee has very interesting perspectives on this issue and I hope we get to hear them.
So would I, but so far all he has proven it that he can be a jerk. At least with respect to my claims. I would like to say I am surprised, but I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic Convention was held in Charleston (April, 1860), and I think is our next topic. Hopefully the Hammer of Thor will fill us in on background/history of The Holy City.Q for Mjolners about modern Charles Towne: Does Joseph P. Riley, Jr. think its a lifetime appointment?

I asked Mjolnirs earlier to give us some of this, andd he said he would try. The time is ripe since so much of what we are about to discuss involves Charleston: the convention, the secession, Fort Sumter.Charleston, which I have never visited but read about in so many books, (including the wonderful novels of Pat Conroy) fascinates me, and I don't quite understand it's apparent contradictions. Here we have probably the most cosmopolitan city of the old South (with all apologies to New Orleans) with the most immigrants, many freed negroes, a great amount of trade both internationally and with the North. Yet it was also the heart of the secessionist movement, the angriest place in the South, the people most eager to leave the United States, and the place where the war began.Why Charleston?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By public request...

Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Did he really say "That is cool"? People said that phrase 150 years ago? That is cool!
I don't think he meant it in exactly the same way. But it is cool anyhow.
It's a remarkable speech. Lincoln was attacked early as someone who couldn't speak with flowery romance but it wasn't necessary for him. He would very clearly define the argument - and it was the actual definition, he very rarely if ever put up a false argument simply to knock it down - and then systematically attack every aspect of the argument with history, policy, law, politics, common sense, and even a call to moral honor at times that simply won over just about every crowd that wanted to be won over.

This speech may have been his 3rd best. His best speech is without question the Gettysburg Address which is probably still the single greatest speech in American political history. His second best was his 2nd inaugural, which is probably top 10 in American history. But between 3 or 4 other speches/deabtes, Cooper Union is probably next in line. Not just for what it meant to American history, but in how it defined him and how he used it to tear down a argument so completely that one of the only responses was war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.
Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust. Granted, this begs the question of justice, but lets leave that for now. Instead, are you really suggesting that the law is the last word in social development? Or better, that the law can exist independent of human emotion? If you really believe that there is nothing to be said. Anyone who breaks the law for any reason is wrong. Even if the law is sending slaves back to their slave owners. No matter what the person thinks/feels about slavery the law is more important. That is more or less what you have to say to Brown if we were back in his day, and unless I missed something that is exactly what you believe we would HAVE to say to him. If the law is all that determines a criminal, then I would suggest all the youth learn how the manipulate the system to get all they want irrespective of its effects on others and learn how to do it legally. Which, sadly enough, is what I think you might actually believe. As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper's Ferry, Concluded

Not all Northerners attempted to canonize Brown. The Northern Democrats, taking their cue from Douglas, condemned his actions. But this was ignored by angry southerners, who were enraged by men like Horace Greeley, who, even as he called Brown a "madman", praised his "grandeur and nobiltiy." What southerners saw was that millions of Yankees seemed to approve of a murderer who had tried to set the slaves at their throats. This perception provoked a paroxysm of anger more intense than the original reaction to the raid. The North "has sanctioned and applauded theft, murder, treason," cried De Bow's Review. Could the South afford any longer "to live under a government, the majority of whose citizens regard John Brown as a martyr and a Christian hero?" asked a Baltimore newspaper. No! echoed from every corner of the South. "The Harper's Ferry invasion has advanced the cause of disunion more than any event that has happened since the formation of the government," agreed two rival Richmond newspapers. "Thousands of men who a month ago scoffed at the idea of a dissolution of the Union now hold the opinion that its days are numbere." One prominent North Carolinian wrote:

I have always been a fervid Union man, but I confess the endorsement of the Harper's Valley outrage has shaken my fidelity and I am willing to take the chances of every possible evil that may arise from disunion, sooner than submit any longer to Northern insolence.

Abraham Lincoln, now considering the possibility of being the Republican candidate for president, also condemned Brown, stating: "Even though I agree that slavery is wrong, that cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason." (This response, as compared to Seward's more tepid condemnation, would play a role in the nomination process, as we shall see.) But these moderate words were too little, too late for the South, which considered them meaningless. "We regard every man," declared an Atlanta newspaper, "who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing to be an enemy of the South." As far as Douglas and the Democrats, De Bow's Review scornfully asked, "Why have not the conservative men of the North frowned upon the infamous Black Republican party? They have forebone to crush it, till it now overrides almost everything at the North." On the Senate Floor Robert Toombs of Georgia warned that the South would "never permit this Federal government to pass into the traitorous hands of the Black Republican party." "Defend yourselves!" Toombs thundered to the southern people. "The enemy is at your door, wait not to meet him at your heathstone, meet him at your doorsill, and drive him from the temple of liberty, or pull down its pillars and involve him in a common ruin!"

John Brown's ghost stalked the South as the election year of 1860 opened. Several historians have compared the region's mood to the "Great Fear" that seized the French countryside in the summer of 1789 when peasants believed that the "King's brigands are coming" to slaughter them. Keyed up to the highest pitch of tension, many slaveholders and yeomen alike were ready for way to defend hearth and home against those Black Republcian brigands. Thousands joined military companies; state legislatures appropriated funds for the purchase of arms. Every barn or cotton gin that burned down sparked new rumors of slave insurrections and abolitionist invaders. Every Yankee in the South became persona non grata. Some of them received a coat of tar and feathers and a ride out of town on the rail. A few were lynched.

The citizens of Boggy Swamp, South Carolina, tan two northern tutors out of the idistrict. "Nothing definite is known of their abolitionist or insurrectionary sentiments," commented a local newspaper, "but being from the North, and therefore, necessarily imbued with doctrines hostile to our institutions, their presence in this section has been obnoxious." THe northern born president of an Alabama college had to flee for his life. In Kentucky a mob drove 39 people associated with an antislavery church and school in Berea out of the state. 32 representatives in the South of New York and Boston firms arrived in Washington reporting "indignation so great against Northerners that they were compelled to return and abandon their business."

In this climate of fear and hostility, Democrats prepared for their national convention at Charleston, South Carolina in April, 1860.

I think, in the end, Brown basicaly symbolized the man of action that much of the North and the anti-slavery movement wished they were. Here was someone that finally said 'enough' and did something. Much of the north already had a lower opinion of the south (and vice versa) for their manner of lifestyle and all this did was enflame those feelings more. But Brown stood up for something. And he fought for it. It was a time when the pagentry of the revolution and the rhetoric behind was still the call to arms for many people. Brown was a revolutionary - in the good way for many.

I think many in the north wanted to be a parasite in the 'battle' over slavery. Live off of someone else's actions. Brown gave that to them.

And I think the exact same argument in reverse can be made for the south. He was the vision that the deep southern leaders had of the norther movement against slavery. Force will be used eventually to remove your property from you, so are you going to stand up to it, or lay down and let it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic Convention was held in Charleston (April, 1860), and I think is our next topic. Hopefully the Hammer of Thor will fill us in on background/history of The Holy City.Q for Mjolners about modern Charles Towne: Does Joseph P. Riley, Jr. think its a lifetime appointment?

I asked Mjolnirs earlier to give us some of this, andd he said he would try. The time is ripe since so much of what we are about to discuss involves Charleston: the convention, the secession, Fort Sumter.Charleston, which I have never visited but read about in so many books, (including the wonderful novels of Pat Conroy) fascinates me, and I don't quite understand it's apparent contradictions. Here we have probably the most cosmopolitan city of the old South (with all apologies to New Orleans) with the most immigrants, many freed negroes, a great amount of trade both internationally and with the North. Yet it was also the heart of the secessionist movement, the angriest place in the South, the people most eager to leave the United States, and the place where the war began.Why Charleston?
You have to take a family vacation there sometime; IMO its the most beautiful city this side of the Mississippi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.
I agree they didn't work hard enough, but one of the many reasons is that one side didn't want to work within the confines of the system that they were required to. Beyond that, force was inevitable. Maybe not full blown civil war, but some manner of force was going to happen. Kansas was just a microcasm of it all.

I don't why that bothers you. Force is a political tool. It's necessary. Until human nature changes, that is. The founders specifically didn't think it ever would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.
But see, you are assuming something Brown could not have known. All he could know was that law supported acts he saw as immoral. All anyone can do in the face of an unjust law is break that law. Now whether or not he was justified in killing supporters of slavery really boils down to the same question we must ask ourselves in any war; is it ok to kill those that we believe hold immoral ideals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.
If you read some of Andrew Jackson's writings on the nullification issue, it is clear that even at that period they believed that the issues at hand would only be settled by the use of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they didn't work hard enough, but one of the many reasons is that one side didn't want to work within the confines of the system that they were required to.

This is the line of thought I find so hard to believe. Basically what Yankee is arguing is that even though the law might be allowing others to enslave and treat as an object other human beings, all you can do is try to change the law, you cannot break the law and stop them from harming other humans. Sorry, if that is really the line you are tying to hold it is simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.
Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.
I'm not arguing the jusitification of actions. There was a law. John Brown broke it. Several actually. He, therefore, was a criminal. I know this is tough for someone of your background to grasp, but there isn't anything more in that statement then just that.Similarly, George Washiington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson broke laws. Several. They, therefore were criminals.

Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust.

That's actually not the issue at hand, but I don't fault you for trying. And the rest of your paragraph need not be given any more attention. Someone can, and should break the law if they truly believe it is unjust. I wouldn't be a lover of the founding generation if I didn't believe that. There is more to it, obviously, but to break it down simply, you and I really don't disagree here. Unjust law is just that. Both unjust, and law. You can go ahead and fight the unjust part - god bless. But the law part remains, and if you are 'caught' and brought before the powers that be under that law, you will be punished. The founding fathers accepted that. John Brown probably accepted that. The southern rebels refuse to, and their supporters to this day refuse to.

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they didn't work hard enough, but one of the many reasons is that one side didn't want to work within the confines of the system that they were required to.

This is the line of thought I find so hard to believe. Basically what Yankee is arguing is that even though the law might be allowing others to enslave and treat as an object other human beings, all you can do is try to change the law, you cannot break the law and stop them from harming other humans. Sorry, if that is really the line you are tying to hold it is simply wrong.
:lmao: You can certainly break the law. If you do, you are a criminal. Why is that something we need to keep going back and forth over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.

Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust. Granted, this begs the question of justice, but lets leave that for now. Instead, are you really suggesting that the law is the last word in social development? Or better, that the law can exist independent of human emotion? If you really believe that there is nothing to be said. Anyone who breaks the law for any reason is wrong. Even if the law is sending slaves back to their slave owners. No matter what the person thinks/feels about slavery the law is more important. That is more or less what you have to say to Brown if we were back in his day, and unless I missed something that is exactly what you believe we would HAVE to say to him. If the law is all that determines a criminal, then I would suggest all the youth learn how the manipulate the system to get all they want irrespective of its effects on others and learn how to do it legally. Which, sadly enough, is what I think you might actually believe.

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

GG, earlier in a recent post you described Yankee as a jerk. In this post you imply that he needs therapy, and then comment that he knows very little about philosophy. Yet you're surprised he thinks you're attacking him?

None of this is really necessary, and IMO it's unworthy of your talents. I REALLY value your contributions to this thread. Your comments about ethics yesterday morning, despite my basic disagreement with them, had me thinking all day about this subject and I had a long discussion with my wife about it. That's the sort of thing I want; that's why I love FFA discussions. The personal attacks against Yankee are pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:lmao:
You know, laughing at the sophist comment over and over doesn't show that you understand how philosophy developed. In fact, it makes you look kind of uneducated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.

Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust. Granted, this begs the question of justice, but lets leave that for now. Instead, are you really suggesting that the law is the last word in social development? Or better, that the law can exist independent of human emotion? If you really believe that there is nothing to be said. Anyone who breaks the law for any reason is wrong. Even if the law is sending slaves back to their slave owners. No matter what the person thinks/feels about slavery the law is more important. That is more or less what you have to say to Brown if we were back in his day, and unless I missed something that is exactly what you believe we would HAVE to say to him. If the law is all that determines a criminal, then I would suggest all the youth learn how the manipulate the system to get all they want irrespective of its effects on others and learn how to do it legally. Which, sadly enough, is what I think you might actually believe.

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

GG, earlier in a recent post you described Yankee as a jerk. In this post you imply that he needs therapy, and then comment that he knows very little about philosophy. Yet you're surprised he thinks you're attacking him?

None of this is really necessary, and IMO it's unworthy of your talents. I REALLY value your contributions to this thread. Your comments about ethics yesterday morning, despite my basic disagreement with them, had me thinking all day about this subject and I had a long discussion with my wife about it. That's the sort of thing I want; that's why I love FFA discussions. The personal attacks against Yankee are pointless.

He started it :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.

Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust. Granted, this begs the question of justice, but lets leave that for now. Instead, are you really suggesting that the law is the last word in social development? Or better, that the law can exist independent of human emotion? If you really believe that there is nothing to be said. Anyone who breaks the law for any reason is wrong. Even if the law is sending slaves back to their slave owners. No matter what the person thinks/feels about slavery the law is more important. That is more or less what you have to say to Brown if we were back in his day, and unless I missed something that is exactly what you believe we would HAVE to say to him. If the law is all that determines a criminal, then I would suggest all the youth learn how the manipulate the system to get all they want irrespective of its effects on others and learn how to do it legally. Which, sadly enough, is what I think you might actually believe.

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

GG, earlier in a recent post you described Yankee as a jerk. In this post you imply that he needs therapy, and then comment that he knows very little about philosophy. Yet you're surprised he thinks you're attacking him?

None of this is really necessary, and IMO it's unworthy of your talents. I REALLY value your contributions to this thread. Your comments about ethics yesterday morning, despite my basic disagreement with them, had me thinking all day about this subject and I had a long discussion with my wife about it. That's the sort of thing I want; that's why I love FFA discussions. The personal attacks against Yankee are pointless.

tim - don't get in the middle of me and giggy doing this. We've been doing it for (what 7 years now?) awhile. It's our thing. I enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:shrug:
You know, laughing at the sophist comment over and over doesn't show that you understand how philosophy developed. In fact, it makes you look kind of uneducated.
Not really. Y23 is always a pleasure to read on the boards as his posts are usually well thought out and intelligent.

Wonder if that Constitution thread is still around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:shrug:
You know, laughing at the sophist comment over and over doesn't show that you understand how philosophy developed. In fact, it makes you look kind of uneducated.
Cool. Wrong thread though,.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.
If you read some of Andrew Jackson's writings on the nullification issue, it is clear that even at that period they believed that the issues at hand would only be settled by the use of force.
As did the founders more or less. They knew it had to be the quiet issue or the country doesn't get off the ground. When constructing the Constitution, it couldn't be attacked lest the revolution fail. In the end, they pushed it off to the next generation in the hopes that time would help solve the problem, but very little was done to assit time and a rather compelling argument can be made that they didn't do anything. They tried, more or less. But it was just the one singular issue that could have brought the whole thing down.

The following generation suffered from the same problems that children of famous and powerful people usually suffer from - trying to live up to that and failing to do so. The country that Lincoln inherited in 1860 was the work of that second generation trying to act like the first, failing to do so, and getting their own problems and shortcomings mixed into the system so much that the result was a chaotic mess of escalating rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny all you can do is make smartass comments without explaining how the argument is wrong. Or are we just supposed to accept everything you say on face value?

You would make the sophists proud.

I never made one morality argument in support or opposition to John Brown. I called him a criminal. Which he was. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal. I did not make an argument about whether or not his actions were 'justified' in any way. Yet, you dive right into the NAzi comparision and attack me because my posts would clearly support the Nazi's and not the people that stood up to them, when that is clearly not remotely close to the case.

You continued along that argument for several posts. In your most recent philosophical inspired nonsense you continued to challenge me with the same wrong accusation. I suggest you read a little more before you post. I never once made any moral claim about John Brown. He was a criminal. What he did was a crime. He was rightly punished for that crime, and when asked, I answered that if I was the judge in the case I would do my job. That's what the justice system does. You want to debate the morality and necessity of what Brown did, but I never went there.

If you want me to, I'm happy to. What he did was barbaric and he deserved his fate, yet his call to arms against slavery was a necessary step in the evolution of the anti-slavery movement because in the end it was clear that force on either side was going to be necessary. If you want to call him a martyr, fine. He could be. But he was a criminal.

Calling me a sophist is funny. I enjoyed that. The irony of a philosophy person calling anyone a sophist is the kind of high brow humor I enjoy on this board.

Why? I'm not sure this is true, and I have to say it continues to trouble me, because I don't want it to be true. Was the death of thousands of Americans and all of the tragedy of the Civil War really necessary in order to end slavery? As we review these events, it seems to me that the parties on both sides, north and south, simply did not work hard enough to reach peaceful solutions. Call me naive if you want, but I think they could have solved slavery over time if they had wanted to. John Brown's actions were not, IMO, a ncessary step; he CREATED that step. And pushed this nation into 5 years of unnecessary bloodshed.
If you read some of Andrew Jackson's writings on the nullification issue, it is clear that even at that period they believed that the issues at hand would only be settled by the use of force.
As did the founders more or less. They knew it had to be the quiet issue or the country doesn't get off the ground. When constructing the Constitution, it couldn't be attacked lest the revolution fail. In the end, they pushed it off to the next generation in the hopes that time would help solve the problem, but very little was done to assit time and a rather compelling argument can be made that they didn't do anything. They tried, more or less. But it was just the one singular issue that could have brought the whole thing down.

The following generation suffered from the same problems that children of famous and powerful people usually suffer from - trying to live up to that and failing to do so. The country that Lincoln inherited in 1860 was the work of that second generation trying to act like the first, failing to do so, and getting their own problems and shortcomings mixed into the system so much that the result was a chaotic mess of escalating rhetoric.

"like a firebell in the night" to quote your least favorite president! The current translation would be "like the elephant in the room".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have now reached 1860. Here are the events I am planning to cover:The Democratic ConventionThe Republican ConventionThe 3rd and 4th party candidatesThe campaign for PresidentThe election of Abraham LincolnThe secession of South CarolinaThe legality of secessionThe secession of the other Deep South statesThe forming of the ConfederacyThe selection of Jefferson Davis as Confederate PresidentA short bio of Jefferson DavisBuchanan's reaction to the Confederacy

You know, if you actually covered everything here you want, this section alone would take a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have now reached 1860. Here are the events I am planning to cover:The Democratic ConventionThe Republican ConventionThe 3rd and 4th party candidatesThe campaign for PresidentThe election of Abraham LincolnThe secession of South CarolinaThe legality of secessionThe secession of the other Deep South statesThe forming of the ConfederacyThe selection of Jefferson Davis as Confederate PresidentA short bio of Jefferson DavisBuchanan's reaction to the Confederacy

You know, if you actually covered everything here you want, this section alone would take a year.
Sure. Or thousands of pages. But unfortunately, as far as the narrative goes, we're only touching the highlights. Of course, the discussion that ensues can go on and on so long as people find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't why that bothers you. Force is a political tool. It's necessary. Until human nature changes, that is. The founders specifically didn't think it ever would.

I'm not sure it bothers me in the abstract. It certainly did not bother me to use force to stop Hitler, or the Communists when it was necessary, or al-Qaeda. But the American Civil War is a unique struggle for me, because I am really fond of both sides, and root for both sides, if that makes any sense. While there are some bad individuals in this war, and even more stupid ones, most of the Yanks and Rebs are good guys, to me, and it's a great tragedy that they killed so many of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are talking. What I pointed out was the moral assumptions your claim of law mistakenly held. To assume that the law is all you need to justify an action is about the most short-sighted account of human action imaginable. My post was not an attack on you, though for some reason anytime I disagree with you there is some weird assumption that it is an attack. On that you just need to not take arguments so personal--but I ain't getting paid for therapy, so enough on that.

Back to the issue at hand, which was always whether or not someone can break the "law" when the law is clearly unjust. Granted, this begs the question of justice, but lets leave that for now. Instead, are you really suggesting that the law is the last word in social development? Or better, that the law can exist independent of human emotion? If you really believe that there is nothing to be said. Anyone who breaks the law for any reason is wrong. Even if the law is sending slaves back to their slave owners. No matter what the person thinks/feels about slavery the law is more important. That is more or less what you have to say to Brown if we were back in his day, and unless I missed something that is exactly what you believe we would HAVE to say to him. If the law is all that determines a criminal, then I would suggest all the youth learn how the manipulate the system to get all they want irrespective of its effects on others and learn how to do it legally. Which, sadly enough, is what I think you might actually believe.

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

GG, earlier in a recent post you described Yankee as a jerk. In this post you imply that he needs therapy, and then comment that he knows very little about philosophy. Yet you're surprised he thinks you're attacking him?

None of this is really necessary, and IMO it's unworthy of your talents. I REALLY value your contributions to this thread. Your comments about ethics yesterday morning, despite my basic disagreement with them, had me thinking all day about this subject and I had a long discussion with my wife about it. That's the sort of thing I want; that's why I love FFA discussions. The personal attacks against Yankee are pointless.

tim - don't get in the middle of me and giggy doing this. We've been doing it for (what 7 years now?) awhile. It's our thing. I enjoy it.
Damn it Yankee, you aren't supposed to say things like that. Next thing you know people will be saying we are holding hands in the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:lol:
You know, laughing at the sophist comment over and over doesn't show that you understand how philosophy developed. In fact, it makes you look kind of uneducated.
Cool. Wrong thread though,.......
Fair enough. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the sophist comment, the fact that you think it is ironic for a philosopher to call someone a sophist simply shows you know very little about the birth and development of philosophy as such.

:confused:
You know, laughing at the sophist comment over and over doesn't show that you understand how philosophy developed. In fact, it makes you look kind of uneducated.
Not really. Y23 is always a pleasure to read on the boards as his posts are usually well thought out and intelligent.

Wonder if that Constitution thread is still around?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't why that bothers you. Force is a political tool. It's necessary. Until human nature changes, that is. The founders specifically didn't think it ever would.

I'm not sure it bothers me in the abstract. It certainly did not bother me to use force to stop Hitler, or the Communists when it was necessary, or al-Qaeda. But the American Civil War is a unique struggle for me, because I am really fond of both sides, and root for both sides, if that makes any sense. While there are some bad individuals in this war, and even more stupid ones, most of the Yanks and Rebs are good guys, to me, and it's a great tragedy that they killed so many of each other.
No I understand the rooting for both sides. I have never argued that the South didn't have some undefinable 'right' to do what they did if they felt that an oppressive government was shackling them. I have always argued that what they did was unconstitutional, and therefore criminal. Many on this board challenge that each and every time because they feel some need of legal justification for what the south did. But there isn't any, and if they truly believed what they were fighting for, they didn't need to be.But we aren't special. The founders gave us the Constitution not because they finally solved the puzzle of the human experience, but because they understood that government couldn't solve it. This country is not perfect and it wasn't designed to be. It was designed to understand that it is imperfect and given a system to change each imperfection as it is found to something slightly less imperfect. Most nations and empires can only truly change through civil war, anarchy, revolution and military overthrow. This country can change, if we allow it to, in the voting booth. Or, in 18th century terms, in the hands of the leaders. Without a shot fired.But shots can still be fired. They are political means. We have used them domestically and abroad for over 200 years almost always in a "good" way. It's not that terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Harper's Ferry probably exacerbated southern fears about the forcible and imminent ending to slavery, but it seems that the writing was on the wall well before that and secessionist talk had been rampant throughout the 1850's. With immigration and industrialization swinging the balance of power increasingly northward, southern politicians felt they had no choice but to take hard stands against the admission of more new free states than slave. As was probably noted earlier, even Kansas, ostensibly a slave state, had a majority of free-staters among its settlers.

So from a southern point of view, the numbers were against them and getting worse. As it was, an evenly balanced senate was their only hope and that was melting away with each new northern territory being populated and agitating for admission. It was only a matter of time before abolitionist sympathizers controlled both branches of congress and then their peculiar institution would be entirely at the mercy of someone else. I don't really know how that kind of schism could have been peacefully avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

But the American Civil War is a unique struggle for me, because I am really fond of both sides, and root for both sides, if that makes any sense. While there are some bad individuals in this war, and even more stupid ones, most of the Yanks and Rebs are good guys, to me, and it's a great tragedy that they killed so many of each other.

Me too. My ancestors fought for the Union in the western theater, but I bet I have twice as many books on southern leaders and perspectives.

I've also found that I enjoy reading about 1861-63 far more than 1864-65. After Gettysburg and Missionary Ridge, the CSA lost their capacity to take the offensive. After that it was just arithmetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

But the American Civil War is a unique struggle for me, because I am really fond of both sides, and root for both sides, if that makes any sense. While there are some bad individuals in this war, and even more stupid ones, most of the Yanks and Rebs are good guys, to me, and it's a great tragedy that they killed so many of each other.

Me too. My ancestors fought for the Union in the western theater, but I bet I have twice as many books on southern leaders and perspectives.

I've also found that I enjoy reading about 1861-63 far more than 1864-65. After Gettysburg and Missionary Ridge, the CSA lost their capacity to take the offensive. After that it was just arithmetic.

To me, some of the most interesting battles and stories occur after Gettysburg. I am especially intrigued by:

Lee's "trenches" strategy, which anticipated World War I

The Battle of the Wilderness

Cold Harbor

The New York race riots

The Huntley

Sherman's march

And of course there's so much more. You're right that, probably after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the outcome was never in doubt. But it's still a ton of fascinating stuff. This is going to be an awfully long thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1860 Democratic Convention, Part One

Despite everything that had happened in the past two years, this convention was still America's best hope of averting disunion and civil war. If the Democrats could find a way to unify behind a single candidate, they could still defeat the Republicans, and perhaps work out some accomodation on the future of slavery. The problem was that most Southerners, especially the men of Charleston, did not want this. They were ready, even eager to destroy the Democratic party. Most Southern Democrats went to Charleston with one overriding goal: to destroy Stephen Douglas. Memories of the Freeport Doctrine thwarted all efforts to heal the breach. This "Demagogue of Illinois", explained an Alabama editor, "deserves to perish upon the gibbet of Democratic condemnation, and his loathsome carcass to be cast at the gate of the Federal City." Some lower-South Democrats even preferred a Republican president to Douglas in order to make the alternatives facing the South starkly clear: submission or secession.

Two of the main figures representing the South at this convention had been fire-eaters for years, and now their time had come:

Robert Barnwell Rhett was the editor of the Charleston Mercury, a former Senator of South Carolina, and considered himself the intellectual and spiritual heir of John C. Calhoun. He had been arguing strenously for secession since 1850, and his editiorials had consistently contained the loudest and most vitriolic attacks against the Yankees. Now, finally, the public was listening to him, and he was estatic. Rhett believed that very soon a confederacy of Southern states would be formed, and he modestly thought that he would be it's first President.

William Lowndes Yancey from Alabama had been a fire-eater even longer than Rhett, was more prominent nationally, and was determined to make his own mark at the convention. He was well aware of the ambitions of Rhett (and of fellow Alabamian Edward Ruffin, and Georgian Robert Toombs) to be THE Southerner known to the public. Yancey attempted to upstage these other men at every opportunity. If there was to be a Confederacy of the Deep South, it would be in Montgpmery, not Charleston, and Yancey, not Rhett, would be it's first President. Yancey was successful at making prominent speeches both inside and outside the convention hall; though the Charleston Mecury did not report these, the rest of the national press did.

Though these men and their followers dominated Southern attitudes at the convention, there were moderates there who had no intention of breaking with the North. I want to mention three of them here:

Alexander Stephens was a remarkable lawyer, politician, and statesman from Georgia. Frail and sickly (he weighed only 96 pounds) he was completely opposed to the notion of secession, which he considered absurd and unworkable. Like Robert E. Lee he succumbed to the patriotism of serving his home state, and he will later comprise in this narrative one of my rebuttal arguments to Yankee's charge that the Confederate leaders were treasonous. At the convention, Stephens worked furiously to prevent the Democratic party from being destroyed; in this, he failed.

Wade Hampton III, one of the richest men in all of South Carolina, could not understand his fellow slaveowners in their insistence on this "madness of disunion" as he considered it. He predicted that the result would be a civil war that would destroy the South. He went to the convention determined not to see this happen, but he too was thwarted by the wave of events. Hampton would reluctantly agree to serve his state militarily; he would go on to become perhaps its finest soldier in the Civil War.

James Petrigu was a well known lawyer in Charleston. He considered Robert Rhett an idiot (the feeling was certainly mutual) and spoke out wherever he could against the stupidity of turning against Stephen Douglas, which would give the Republicans victory. Petigru would go on to become the only prominent Charlestonian that publicly opposed secession.

These three Southerners came to the convention determined to support the candidacy of Stephen A. Douglas. They were just about the only ones. They were shouted down by the fire-eaters who ruled the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q for Mjolners about modern Charles Towne: Does Joseph P. Riley, Jr. think its a lifetime appointment?

Yes he does and most people living in the city agree.

A history of Charleston clipped from several history websites.

Carolina, as defined by the Charters of 1663 and 1665, extended from coast to coast. North and South Carolina did not become separate colonies until about 1710.

None of the eight original Lords Proprietors ever visited South Carolina. The colony was governed by representatives they appointed. Lord Ashley Cooper was the most energetic supporter of the venture. Charleston is on a peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper River. Sir William Berkeley never had a major role in Carolina's growth, even though he spent 35 years in America as governor of Virginia. I live in Berkeley County just north of Charleston.

The Lords Proprietors were Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury; Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon; George Monck, Duke of Albemarle; William, Earl of Craven; Lord John Berkeley; Sir William Berkeley; Sir John Colleton; Sir George Carteret.

In October, 1669, three ships carrying 92 settlers left England for Carolina. Storms delayed the expedition and caused the loss of two ships. After stops in Barbados and Bermuda, the ship Carolina finally reached the new land. After choosing a spot on the south side of the Ashley River, the colonists quickly erected a stockade for protection from Indians and Spaniards. Cabins were built within the stockade, and 10-acre garden plots outside the stockade were assigned to each household.

The Proprietors wanted the first permanent settlement built at Fort Royal, near the site of present-day Beaufort. The colonists spent a few weeks there in March of 1670, but chose another location. The friendly leader of the Kiawah Indians encouraged them to pick a spot about 80 miles north. They named it Albemarle Point. The location was more suited to farming, had a better harbor and was farther from the hostile Spaniards in St. Augustine. There is park in this location now called Charles Towne Landing

A few years later, colonists from Barbados, who were looking for more land, joined the English settlers. In 1680, the first French Huguenot refugees arrived. By then the settlement had been moved to Oyster Point, where Charleston now stands.

Three incentives draw new immigrants: free land, the titles and estates of a landed aristocracy, and religious freedom. In this small town, cultures of England, France, Germany, Iberia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the West Indies blend.

The colonists, searching for security and wealth, discover rich pluff mud is the perfect environment for the cultivation of rice. Carolina gold! Cultivated on high ground is indigo, the original source of blue dye for denim, and sea island cotton.

Once the means of creating fantastic wealth becomes obvious, the cry for field labor promotes expansion of the English slave trade. By the early 1700's,

Charles Towne's population is an African majority. The most cosmopolitan city of eighteenth century America flourishes.

Fast forward to the Revolution. The Battle of Fort Sullivan was a major battle that occurred in Charleston and is still celebrated every June 28th on Carolina Day. On July 4th, 1776, picture the fourth largest municipality in the colonies, the richest per capita. Revolution arouses the citizenry. Three signers of the Declaration of Independence own homes here. The Palmetto State is born in Charles Towne, the capital of South Carolina.

Renamed in 1783, Charleston remains the hub of Carolina long after the Revolution.

President George Washington visits in 1791. The Exchange where he is entertained, the house where he stays, and the church where he prays, are all open to the public today.

In the nineteenth century South Carolinian John C. Calhoun gives powerful voice to the cause of strong state government. The great colonial city of the South is now the cradle of secession.

Edited by Mjolnirs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q for Mjolners about modern Charles Towne: Does Joseph P. Riley, Jr. think its a lifetime appointment?

Yes he does and most people living in the city agree.

A history of Charleston clipped from several history websites.

Carolina, as defined by the Charters of 1663 and 1665, extended from coast to coast. North and South Carolina did not become separate colonies until about 1710.

None of the eight original Lords Proprietors ever visited South Carolina. The colony was governed by representatives they appointed. Lord Ashley Cooper was the most energetic supporter of the venture. Charleston is on a peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper River. Sir William Berkeley never had a major role in Carolina's growth, even though he spent 35 years in America as governor of Virginia. I live in Berkeley County just north of Charleston.

The Lords Proprietors were Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury; Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon; George Monck, Duke of Albemarle; William, Earl of Craven; Lord John Berkeley; Sir William Berkeley; Sir John Colleton; Sir George Carteret.

In October, 1669, three ships carrying 92 settlers left England for Carolina. Storms delayed the expedition and caused the loss of two ships. After stops in Barbados and Bermuda, the ship Carolina finally reached the new land. After choosing a spot on the south side of the Ashley River, the colonists quickly erected a stockade for protection from Indians and Spaniards. Cabins were built within the stockade, and 10-acre garden plots outside the stockade were assigned to each household.

The Proprietors wanted the first permanent settlement built at Fort Royal, near the site of present-day Beaufort. The colonists spent a few weeks there in March of 1670, but chose another location. The friendly leader of the Kiawah Indians encouraged them to pick a spot about 80 miles north. They named it Albemarle Point. The location was more suited to farming, had a better harbor and was farther from the hostile Spaniards in St. Augustine. There is park in this location now called Charles Towne Landing

A few years later, colonists from Barbados, who were looking for more land, joined the English settlers. In 1680, the first French Huguenot refugees arrived. By then the settlement had been moved to Oyster Point, where Charleston now stands.

Three incentives draw new immigrants: free land, the titles and estates of a landed aristocracy, and religious freedom. In this small town, cultures of England, France, Germany, Iberia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the West Indies blend.

The colonists, searching for security and wealth, discover rich pluff mud is the perfect environment for the cultivation of rice. Carolina gold! Cultivated on high ground is indigo, the original source of blue dye for denim, and sea island cotton.

Once the means of creating fantastic wealth becomes obvious, the cry for field labor promotes expansion of the English slave trade. By the early 1700's,

Charles Towne's population is an African majority. The most cosmopolitan city of eighteenth century America flourishes.

Fast forward to the Revolution. The Battle of Fort Sullivan was a major battle that occurred in Charleston and is still celebrated every June 28th on Carolina Day. On July 4th, 1776, picture the fourth largest municipality in the colonies, the richest per capita. Revolution arouses the citizenry. Three signers of the Declaration of Independence own homes here. The Palmetto State is born in Charles Towne, the capital of South Carolina.

Renamed in 1783, Charleston remains the hub of Carolina long after the Revolution.

President George Washington visits in 1791. The Exchange where he is entertained, the house where he stays, and the church where he prays, are all open to the public today.

In the nineteenth century South Carolinian John C. Calhoun gives powerful voice to the cause of strong state government. The great colonial city of the South is now the cradle of secession.

Good work M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Birthday Marse Robert!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Birthday Marse Robert!

Back-to-back holidays in South Carolina? :lmao:

Enough with the philosophy bs.

:shrug:
This is just sad.
Maybe you should start a philosophy thread? :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.