No. We should realize that his opinion is indicative of the South's opinion on why they were going to war.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
No. We should realize that his opinion is indicative of the South's opinion on why they were going to war.
Ionus already addressed that fallacy - someone says something, anything; who decides if he speaks truth? As one great mathematician wrote:
Quote:'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-- that's all.'
http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/lookingglass/6/
When you have governmental bodies, newspaper editorials, official proclamations, personal testimonials in the form of letters and memoirs, and decades of historical research, when there is a literal mountain of evidence, as has been presented here, eventually the weight of the evidence indicates that it is indicative, High Seas.
Personally, I think it is not so much Ionus pointing out an alleged fallacy as it is Ionus being constitutionally incapable of agreeing with anyone else, no matter what they say.
@Ionus,
No, not follow, but take note of.
Do you think, based on what you've studied, that his was an opinion of only a small minority of those who had thoughts about the war
before the war?
The issues causing the war didn't fly out full blown on the day Ft. Sumter was attacked.
Joe(How many Compromises were there between 1820 and 1861?)Nation
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
.... when there is a literal mountain of evidence, as has been presented here, eventually the weight of the evidence indicates that it is indicative, High Seas.
That is precisely the problem with the preponderance of the evidence "as has been presented here": it is ill-thought out, ill-presented, ahistorical, incoherent and for the most part pathetically laughable. Start with Snood's attempt at a scholarly opener in his very first post on this incongruously named thread:
Quote:...state's rights, I'd like to direct their attention, and encourage them to please reply, to this. Especially to the quote from the Vice-President of the Confederacy
Never mind that he doesn't know rights of any single state from States' rights - that's the least of his problems. After a number of posters have complied with his original request to "please reply" on his thread, 50+ pages down the line he breaks down so completely under the weight of the posted evidence:
Quote:....I know that neither of you respect these asswipes, nor take seriously their choplogical arguments - I mean, I just know that from the years of reading your posts.
He doesn't even claim to support what the posters he's addressing have written right here - he only "knows" they agree with his prejudicial title based on his previous opinion of them - impeccable syllogism involved there - and then he turns tail and runs from his own thread. Sorry but I find it hilarious
@Joe Nation,
The importation of slaves into the US had already been banned for over a decade before the 1820 "start date" you mention. Perhaps you should start there?
Quote:That is precisely the problem with the preponderance of the evidence "as has been presented here": it is ill-thought out, ill-presented, ahistorical(sic), incoherent and for the most part pathetically laughable.
Hey, HighSeas, since when did this forum stop being fun for you and turn into a scholarly professional workspace? We're just talking here. No one's tenure is on the line, no one is going to publish for credit anything that is posted and no one's life (and most likely, opinion) is going to change.
It's exercise. It's sport. It's fun.
Taking Able2Know too seriously will give you an agitated state of mind.
Joe(chill)Nation
Fine, start with the fact that the importation continued, sub roasa. Start with the fact thawt slaves, being human beings, have babies, who were the next generation of slaves--it was a self-reprodcuing situation. Start with the fact that there were five decades of conflict over the question of slavery before the war that continually roiled the nation. Start with the fact that slavery was the basis of a large part of the economy of the South, start with the fact that slaveholders were a large part of the political and economic elites of the South and saw what they perceived as their rights and their wealth threatened by an avoewed opponent of slavery as the president. Start wherever you like. Look at what they thenmselves said. If you have any respect for the actual data, that's the conclusion.
@MontereyJack,
Of course it is, Jack, unless you are willing to twist yourself silly, as some do here, merely to hold onto some delusion.
Joe(Yea! Time for breakfast)Nation
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:That is precisely the problem with the preponderance of the evidence "as has been presented here": it is ill-thought out, ill-presented, ahistorical(sic), incoherent and for the most part pathetically laughable.
Hey, HighSeas, since when did this forum stop being fun for you and turn into a scholarly professional workspace? We're just talking here. No one's tenure is on the line, no one is going to publish for credit anything that is posted and no one's life (and most likely, opinion) is going to change.
It's exercise. It's sport. It's fun....
Of course you're right on the "scholarly professional workspace", Joe. Good to see you again, as well as Jack, and my friend Ionus on the previous page.
Your post however would come across with greater weight of conviction if you hadn't snidely insert that "sic" in the middle of my quoted remark
The preponderance of evidence presented here is that the South was bent on war, not just before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, but before he was even elected. John Floyd, as Buchanan's Secretary of War, in 1860, shipped over 100,000 muskets and rifled muskets to armories in the South, at the request of those states. This was an illegal act, because Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to arm the militia, and without congressional authorization, Floyd had no right to ship those arms. Furthermore, before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, state "troops" from Alabama and Florida seized Federal property in Florida in the first week of January, 1861. On January 8th, 1861, they further attempted to seize Fort Barrancas, but the Unites States Army officer in charge ordered his men to fire over the heads of the mob (the so-called "state troops), who scurried back to Pensacola as fast as their fat little legs would carry them. On January 9th, 1861, "state troops" of South Carolina fired on Star of the West, an unarmed merchant ship attempting to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter. The typical southern whine is that Buchanan had lied to them, and that they had a "right" to stop the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. Since when do states have the right to interfer with a President acting as commander in chief? Since when do states have the right to interfer in the militay decisions of the United States? Since when do states have the right to seize Federal property without even a discussion of compensation?
The secession ordinances of several states, and the address of Alexander Stephens to the Georgia legislature make clear that the object of the Confederate States was to preserve the institution of slavery--even though, in fact, it was not threatened.
Farmerman and i have presented this evidence from reliable sources. Making more slighting remarks about Snood won't change that. Ionus has just offered bad arguments based on his own statements from authority. His record of posting at this site shows clearly that he knows almost nothing about American history, so there's no reason to view him as an authority. It is disgusting, but unsurprising to see High Seas lining up with the reactionary wackjob revisionists.
@High Seas,
I did that as a sly jab at being too serious. Something to show my ( and my Spellchecker's) lack of knowledge about the word 'ahistoric'.
Snide I seldom am.
Joe(and I like learning new words.)Nation
@Joe Nation,
You're right as to the last point at least imho - "ahistoric" sounds weird to me; if something is indeed
historic (as opposed to
historical) you can't negate it.
Slow connection here, no dictionary link - sorry. Will stand by my previous remarks and study Setanta's latest scholarly entry. Have a great Mayday, all.
@High Seas,
Quote: The importation of slaves into the US had already been banned for over a decade before the 1820 "start date" you mention. Perhaps you should start there
That is such a non-fact. It means nothing since the population of slaves was alredy as high as the population of slaveholders and that the only freedom afforded to slaves was the freedom to procreate. BAnning "importation" of slaves assukmes that slavery would die? No, the border slave states saw themselves as "feedstock" centers for providing new slaves via birth.
All the data presented here in the affirmative has been clipped from actual historical documents and are easily traced via a line citation.
You thought that all this data , including news pa]per acounts were made UP?
The only arguments tht have been solipsistic and silly, are those from the "sates rights" proponents.
A "states rights to own slaves was the code word of the times"
Youve come in several times when you feel enough papaer has been spread between the parties and take a side that has NO EVIDENCE presented as of yet. When the hell will you begin posting something other than assertions, solipsisms, and insults? I for one would love to see this discussion be a give and take from a standpoint of evidence and historical record.
@farmerman,
Slave trade in the US started in 1619, and didn't end until Lincoln was president.
@High Seas,
Quote:if something is indeed historic (as opposed to historical) you can't negate it
Which is precisely what the deniers on this thread are trying to do.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:Slave trade in the US started in 1619, and didn't end until Lincoln was president.
Oh? Anyone found trying to import slaves into the US was hung after 1820 and the US along with other nations had war ships off Africa trying to stop the slave trade.
The southern constitution had a ban of importing slaves also.
@BillRM,
It doesn't matter when congress outlawed the importation of slaves. My statement above is factual to the letter. Importation was not the problem; slavery was.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:My statement above is factual to the letter
How is it factual as there was little or no importing of slaves for a few generations before the civil war.
@BillRM,
The South had an internal business of producing new slaves. There were several million slaves at the outbreak of the civil war. Sale and breaking up odf families was entirely legal and the sales block for slaves was a common occurence with Virginia being like the commerce cenyer of slave marketing.
BAISCALLY, importation of slaves wasnt even necessary because it was true that slavery was dying out until the inventions of Cartwright Arkwright and Whitney created a huge surge in medium staple cotton and the SOuth became the world leader for decades , outstripping all other countries combined.
The only resource held in the "minimum"(like Shalfords law) was slaves
