RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 12, 2019 12:44:20 GMT -8
BTW, personally I have no dream of living in a state that chooses to succeed. I brain locked on the spelling of secede, sorry about that. I did it about 10 times. I blame it on turning 56 a few days ago...
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 12, 2019 12:45:34 GMT -8
Just as a reminder, today is the 158th anniversary of General Beauregard’s attack on the United States fort, Fort Sumter, in retaliation for Lincoln winning the White House a month before. Was it for retaliation of Lincolns election or retaliation for Federal troops of the United States not leaving a fort on Confederate land?
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 12, 2019 12:54:19 GMT -8
Wars for independence have been fought since before forever, whenever a state, province or colony felt they were being disadvantaged. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. If California wants to secede, they'd better start suiting up a whole lot of Johnny Rebs to fight that battle. And if the movement to secede gains serious traction, watch the money flow out of this state like crap through a Christmas goose. Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of states having the option of leaving the union? Does it matter to you if the state wanting to leave is a liberal or conservative? Does it matter if you live in the state or not (i.e., you have no interest in leaving, but if Mississippi & Alabama want to go, have at it)? I only ask because I couldn't discern that from your previous comments.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 12, 2019 14:33:35 GMT -8
I'm conflicted on the issue. However, since a state's leaving the union affects both the seceding state and the union, I'm leaning towards both having a say in the matter. Perhaps a congressional vote or some version of national plebiscite is the answer, with a specific percentage of votes (1/3?, 51%?, 2/3?) being required before a state can secede.
More importantly, I think no state would consider such a move if they rationally explored all the economic and defense implications of a withdrawal. It shouldn't be lost on people that California's political leaders have been at odds with the federal government for years, but they immediately ran to the feds for financial assistance when this past season's wildfires ravaged the state. To whom will they turn once they are an independent nation?
And no, it doesn't matter if the seceding state is liberal or conservative. The same rules should apply to all.
And yes, of course it matters if I live in the seceding state or not. My family left Austria in 1955 to come to the United States, not to some bizarre version of Kalifornia, or Norte California, or whatever it might decide to call itself in its new iteration.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 12, 2019 16:06:28 GMT -8
Just as a reminder, today is the 158th anniversary of General Beauregard’s attack on the United States fort, Fort Sumter, in retaliation for Lincoln winning the White House a month before. Yes, and Tuesday was the 154th anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox. And Sunday will be the 154th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theater. And five generations later, we're again talking about reparations.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 13, 2019 13:46:08 GMT -8
Was it for retaliation of Lincolns election or retaliation for Federal troops of the United States not leaving a fort on Confederate land? The latter. The Confederates fired at Fort Sumter because they believed that the Union was about to reinforce the island fort (which was a symbol of Union authority within Charleston Harbor) with supplies and men. The fort otherwise could not hang on long without the supplies and the rebels wanted to end the standoff, otherwise the Union could supply the fort via ocean transport indefinitely. They did exactly what Lincoln was resigned to and had expected them to do: start the shooting and the war......................................Luca
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 13, 2019 16:30:06 GMT -8
Just as a reminder, today is the 158th anniversary of General Beauregard’s attack on the United States fort, Fort Sumter, in retaliation for Lincoln winning the White House a month before. Was it for retaliation of Lincolns election or retaliation for Federal troops of the United States not leaving a fort on Confederate land? I wasn’t there so cannot be certain, but I do know the southern democrats threatened secession if Lincoln (whom, they knew, opposed slavery) got elected. It could well be after the election, they were looking for an excuse and Sumter on confederate land presented Beauregard a suitable opportunity. that said, it is overly simplistic to lay fault at the feet of just one reason... however, I disagree with the one item from Luca, that Lincoln wanted a shooting war.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 13, 2019 16:33:32 GMT -8
I didn't say he "wanted" one, I said he was resigned to one.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 13, 2019 16:35:53 GMT -8
I didn't say he "wanted" one, I said he was resigned to one. I apologize. I misinterpreted “expected” into “wanted.” OK, people let’s move along, nothing to see here...
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Apr 30, 2019 21:19:24 GMT -8
I couldn't resist gloating on TOB.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 30, 2019 21:54:48 GMT -8
Good thing he didn't say there were "fine people on both sides of the Civil War." They'd be calling for his impeachment from the bench.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 26, 2019 17:19:51 GMT -8
Why the Lee fascination?.......................................Luca (PS. Grant kicked Lee's butt) I don't know why. I read Douglas Southall Freeman's one-volume Lee as part of an assignment in 6th grade and I was hooked. Then I read Freeman's four-volume tome on Lee and I never really recovered. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart to me were three of most fascinating eccentrics in American history. And yes, Grant kicked Lee's ass. But you could probably take almost anyone willing to throw an endless supply of young men into the meat grinder against a starving army of shoeless skeletons and they should kick ass every time.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jun 26, 2019 17:59:15 GMT -8
... anyone willing to throw an endless supply of young men into the meat grinder against a starving army of shoeless skeletons...This is overlooked and rarely mentioned when most people talk of the Civil War. It is why I understand the pride many in the south have towards the confederate soldiers. If you look at what those men did fighting for their state (as opposed to fighting for slavery), it is admirable.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 26, 2019 20:10:22 GMT -8
Some good Civil War stuff I thought I'd copy here as well I hear ya SK80. I was mostly just on the HSFB thread. I very seldom got on the political side after Wabush called me a military dilatant, completely disrespecting my 20 years I put in the Air Force serving in multiple combat zones. Funny coming from a guy that wouldn't/didn't serve. I have an interesting parallel to that story. VP and I got into it once over whether or not Robert E. Lee owned slaves. I spent almost ten years in high school and college studying one of the most fascinating enigmas in American history. I read almost everything Lee ever said or wrote, and I read many of his private papers. I insisted with 100% certainty that the only slaves Lee ever controlled were the couple dozen left for him as the executor of his father-in-law's estate, which required that Lee keep them for five years and then emancipate them, which he did. VP then disappeared from the board for a couple hours and came back claiming, "I did some research, and Lee owned slaves." And the source he cited was by an author who is widely regarded among serious Lee scholars as the Oliver Stone of Civil War history.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 26, 2019 20:14:55 GMT -8
VP then disappeared from the board for a couple hours and came back claiming, "I did some research, and Lee owned slaves." And the source he cited was by an author who is widely regarded among serious Lee scholars as the Oliver Stone of Civil War history. "I did some research."But I'm guilty myself. For several years I read everything available on Ulysses Grant and even used to spend time on a US Grant message board where there were lots of Civil War obsessed individuals. I got into a disagreement with a guy about something that Grant had done once and decided to look it up to verify my point. I grabbed one of my Grant biographies off the shelf and was reading through it when I noticec that the name of the book's author was also the name of the guy I was arguing with. I at least had enough sense to concede that point. Why the Lee fascination?.......................................Luca (PS. Grant kicked Lee's butt
|
|