U.S. Should Face up to 'Shameful Past' With Tribal Nations, VP Harris Says

That's exactly what you, or someone who got ahold of your account, argued.

 

You seriously believe there was no aggression before that . . . even though John Brown was acting in RESPONSE to attacks by pro-slavery forces in Kansas? Even though slavery itself is an act of aggression? Weird.

Regardless, John Brown wasn't an agent of the Federal government. He's not why secession happened.

When it comes to secession, it was the biggest issue. No other specific issue comes close to comparing.

He did not engage in "total annihilation" of people. The whole point of his march was to cut off supplies.

I have. I have cited more primary sources from the time period than anyone else in the forum.

 

You are quickly dismissing the impact that John Brown had and the impact that the Northern newspapers had in supporting arming the slaves to kill white southerners. That narrative was blasted repeatedly and caused massive tensions.

The truly biggest issue for the war was to annihilate those states and people who did not “believe in uncompromising obedience to the central state”.
Slavery was another big reason, but, clearly not the only one.

Could you discuss the amount of murders, rapes, burning of cabins/farms/crops, and the wanton slaughter of livestock that Sherman and his troops committed during the match to the Sea?

could you then expand on why Sherman was tapped by DC to solve the “Indian problem” out West after the Civil War?

ironic, eh?

 

I'm not dismissing the impact. I'm dismissing your false claim that it was the first aggression.

No, it wasn't. I can go into more detail about the 1860 election and the Confederate Constitution, but they held slavery over decentralized government. They wanted all states to be slave states.

Slavery was the primary concern. And they repeatedly said so. At the time. It wasn't just "another big reason." It was the biggest reason. And, again, they said so at the time.

The destruction of farmland and livestock was part of the attempt to cut off supplies, as already discussed. Sherman punished troops who engaged in rape. There was no mass murder. There were around 3,000 casualties total, and the majority of those were SHERMAN'S soldiers. The majority of the remaining were Confederate soldiers and militia. Very few civilians were killed.

I have no interest in your desperate attempt to change the subject just because the facts aren't on your side.

 

The cause of the war was slavery.

 

The facts are on my side, You are choosing to deflect from them as they do not support your narrative. John Brown and the ensuing media blitz from the North was a pivotal point. You are ignoring the call from Northern whites to arm the slaves to kill/murder white Southerners. You are ignoring the impact that had.

Again, slavery was not the only issue- it was the notion that states and people held views different from the “central state” needed to be squashed.
If you are a left Liberal, I can see why this would be hard for you to understand and grasp.

Sherman’s March to the Sea was about annihilation and to destroy the South’s will to continue the fight. Please support you stance that very few civilians were killed. Burning someone’s winter crops in slaughtering their livestock leads to starvation and illness.

Sherman being tapped to solve the “Indian problem” is totally relevant- he successfully destroyed the South’s will to continue the fight by a scorched Earth approach, and the US wanted that same scorched Earth/annihilation approach applied to those “savages” out West.

 

As I have stated, it was not the only reason.

 

It was the reason without which there would have been no war.

 

It was because the southern states refused to be obedient to central state, including not agreeing to the North’s demands to end slavery.

Why did Sherman’s March to the Sea commence?

 

Your claim was that this was the first aggression. Your claim was wrong. Live with it.

Again, slavery was the primary issue. The primary sources from the time period, from the south, say so. Repeatedly. I can start providing you with some if you are willing to read them. If you are a Lost Causer, I can see why it would be hard for you to even be willing to review historical sources that challenge your dogma.

It was about cutting off their supplies to destroy their will to fight. Not annihilation, and certainly not the "total annihilation" of people that you claimed. They weren't targeting civilians for murder. The propaganda you have been taught is a lie.

His role fighting Native Americans is irrelevant.

 

No one said it was the only reason. It was the primary reason. And it was far, far above any concerns about centralized government.

 

The southern states seceded because they believed they could no longer successfully defend slavery within the Union. They attempted to overturn a democratic Presidential election result.
Sherman conducted his March to the Sea to destroy southern war making capability.

 

The North had not demanded that they end slavery. And they demanded that their own states all be slave states. It was in their Constitution, which barely differed at all from the US Constitution, except when it came to slavery. So they were fine with a "central state" demanding slavery.

 

We must rehash crimes committed by whites hundreds of years ago because it distracts from crimes that blacks and hispanics are committing today.

 

Respectfully disagree.

This states it better than I can:

In a January 31, 1864 letter to Major R.M. Sawyer, Sherman explained the reason why he hated the South in general, and South Carolina in particular, so much. The war, he said “was the result of a false political doctrine that any and every people have a right to self-government.” In the same letter Sherman referred to states’ rights, freedom of conscience, and freedom of the press as “trash” that had “deluded the Southern people into war.”

https://dixieoutfitters.com/2019/12/17/shermans-professed-hatred-of-self-government/

 

Here is a quick read:
https://www.historynet.com/states-rights-civil-war

the North was not fine with Slavery.

 

Say you've never read South Carolina's Declaration of Causes for Secession without saying you've never read South Carolina's Declaration of Causes for Secession

 

They weren't fine with it. They hadn't demanded that the Southern states remove it. They wanted to stop the spread. Funny how you seem fine with "But we want our slavery!" being the justification for rebelling against the United States and starting a new country. At least you admit it.

 

That is quite a leap of inference to the moon while you ignore why Sherman hated the Southern States.

 

You are still busy trying to defend the Confederacy's "hatred of self governance" when it comes to slavery. They didn't allow their own states to decide. They demanded that all Confederate states and territories be slave states and territories. I've brought this up multiple times, and you keep running away.

 

From the link:


When a “purely regional party,” the new Republican Party swept the 1859 elections in the North and the party’s candidate Abraham Lincoln, an avowed foe of the expansion of slavery, Southern states seceded from the Union.

care to explain post 138?

 

Yes. He did oppose it's expansion. And? Why such a fan of the expansion of slavery?

 

You are all over the place with your inferences and deflections. You are a waste of time.

 

I haven't deflected a single argument you've tried to make. I've addressed every one. I agree that, if you are unwilling and unable to have an informed debate, it is a waste of time.

 

You missed a key word in what you quoted. Lincoln did not like slavery, but he would not have ended it. Indeed he resisted ending it until late into the Civil War. The only reason he gave the Emancipation Proclamation was to deprive the Confederacy of soldiers. Lincoln also said that if he could have kept the Union together by keeping slavery then he would have kept slavery.