States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[Kathianne]

I'm missing your point here. Southern States didn't vote for Lincoln because of his policy of no expansion of slavery which meant that there equality in Congress as group would slowly be eroded.

They were NOT against him because he advocated abolishing slavery altogether, because in 1860 he certainly did not. Or more correctly he did not publicly. Privately he did abhor slavery, or so history tells us.

Geez, have you never looked at the results of the 1860 election? Not one Southern electoral vote for Lincoln, I'm not digging up all the stats, but he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states. There was a de facto revolt and raising of Confederacy prior to that election. The South knew their reality, either a separate state or the 'peculiar institution' was going to die. So they chose war.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't know that I would dispute that one bit. I think that there various reasons Lincoln was willing to do many things, including ignoring his own moral objections to slavery, in order to preserve the Union.

No need to. I'm more in agreement with you on this issue. The South wanted to preserve slavery because it was core to its agricultural success and the North sure as hell wasn't going to let go of a vast portion of the nation's overall wealth. Can you imagine if the sources of 40% of our current GDP threatened to secede? That would be catastrophic.

[ConHog]

By 1863 slavery was done, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was put the focus on why the bloody was was going to go on. It was also clear that your 'possible solution' was never possible, the Confederacy wasn't about to join the Union again, 'with slavery.' They'd already been faced with no political solution to the federal government regarding the election of Lincoln. No, the Confederacy had to be defeated.

My personal opinion is that slavery was dead by 1860, just no one realized it yet, and it was going to be a slow death. But the signs were there as the industrial era came of age.

It's also not clear that the South would have returned to the Union without a complete and total surrender. In fact it's quite ambiguous about whether they would have or not. What's NOT ambigous is that until the end of his life Lincoln championed uniting the Nation once again.

This is proven by the fact that he did not cave to his miltary advisers who wanted to punish the south before allowing them back in the union. Instead he used a softer touch in order to reunite the country in spirit as well as name.

[cadet]

Would ya'll shut up about the dang war?
http://www.civilwar.si.edu/timeline.html

^south didn't like Lincoln, tried succession. Lincoln thought one way to get more troups would be to free slaves, (Helped encourage black to join in the war on the north side, also got his view of slavery)
Plenty of the north was against it, as well as the south.
North blocked all supplies and fought until the south gave up.

Done and done, war not about slavery, about not liking the president. If you hadn't noticed all the secession things going around this election, it could have very well been the same thing this time.



There, done, BACK ON TOPIC.
The only way to get militia's back is to get out of a state of war, and until we leave the middle east, we have no way to fight that.
when we're not at war it SHOULD revert back to states having their own little military. (at least so far as i've read that's the way it's supposed to work)
Grant it, there's no chance of that. Uncle sam got his fingers in something and there's no way they're coming out. Nothing more permanent then a temporary gov't solution.

[Kathianne]

My personal opinion is that slavery was dead by 1860, just no one realized it yet, and it was going to be a slow death. But the signs were there as the industrial era came of age.

It's also not clear that the South would have returned to the Union without a complete and total surrender. In fact it's quite ambiguous about whether they would have or not. What's NOT ambigous is that until the end of his life Lincoln championed uniting the Nation once again.

This is proven by the fact that he did not cave to his miltary advisers who wanted to punish the south before allowing them back in the union. Instead he used a softer touch in order to reunite the country in spirit as well as name.

Slavery would have been killed, voluntarily or not. The South chose, not. There is no doubt that the South wouldn't have returned with or without slavery, without defeat. While Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were generous, he did nothing to stop Sherman's march through the South and the scorched earth policy. Lincoln had come to realize that only through total defeat, could Reconstruction help unify. I've no doubt that his assassination led to the failure of Reconstruction and the next 100 years of civil rights going no where.

[ConHog]

Slavery would have been killed, voluntarily or not. The South chose, not. There is no doubt that the South wouldn't have returned with or without slavery, without defeat. While Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were generous, he did nothing to stop Sherman's march through the South and the scorched earth policy. Lincoln had come to realize that only through total defeat, could Reconstruction help unify. I've no doubt that his assassination led to the failure of Reconstruction and the next 100 years of civil rights going no where.

you are once again either purposely or through a lack of understanding , misconstruing what I said.

I VERY clearly said that IF the South would have ever been in a position to negotiate a surrender that included keeping slavery Lincoln would have agreed to it.

I did NOT claim that Lincoln was running around offering to let the South keep slavery if they surrendered.

Those are two entirely different arguments Kath.


As for Sherman's March , much like Truman's disgust at having to use atom bombs it was a decision that Lincoln felt great remorse at having to make .

By that time it was obvious that the South would never come to the negotiating table without a completely military surrender, and so sure when one surrenders unconditionally one gets no say in the surrender and so slavery was finished.

Prior to late 1862 early 1863 the Civil War was thought of as sort of a novelty that would last a little while and be done. Certainly many in the South believed that the North would realize there error and capitulate to the question of slavery. At that point if the South could have gotten the upper hand and got Lincoln to the negotiating table, I believe they would have gotten exactly that.

Instead the war turned ugly and yes then opinions changed. By 1864 the hatred had set in and most southerners didn't want back in the union with or without slavery, so yes then TOTAL defeat in order to reunite the Union was the only option.

[gabosaurus]

Gabby, this seems to be a common theme with liberals opposing the 2nd Amendment and other issues with the Constitution. They tend to think only in terms of NOW. The founding fathers created the Constitution with a consideration of what had transpired before them and what may come in the future. Just because we have no credible threats to our sovereignty now, does not mean that we won't face them in the future. Rome, at its height in the second century AD, was an unchallenged super power. Yet, shortly after that it experienced a slow decline and three centuries later the barbarians came knocking. The moral here is, you have to take the long view with respect to the Constitution. Any broad understanding of human history would reveal that we don't hold a unique place in time.

But we DO hold a unique place in time. If you examine the context in which the Constitution was written and ratified, you will find that the Second Amendment was meant to allow citizens (i.e. affluent white males) to defend themselves against Indian attacks, hostile invasions by foreign powers and slave uprisings.
The constitution was ratified at a time when everyone lived on the East Coast and most of the continent was wilderness. There was a lot of uncertainty about who was safe where.
The current American nation is fairly safe from Indian attacks, slave uprisings and attacks by foreign powers. As a past president once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Our primary enemy is ourselves.

[Kathianne]

you are once again either purposely or through a lack of understanding , misconstruing what I said.

I VERY clearly said that IF the South would have ever been in a position to negotiate a surrender that included keeping slavery Lincoln would have agreed to it.

I did NOT claim that Lincoln was running around offering to let the South keep slavery if they surrendered.

Those are two entirely different arguments Kath.


As for Sherman's March , much like Truman's disgust at having to use atom bombs it was a decision that Lincoln felt great remorse at having to make .

By that time it was obvious that the South would never come to the negotiating table without a completely military surrender, and so sure when one surrenders unconditionally one gets no say in the surrender and so slavery was finished.

Prior to late 1862 early 1863 the Civil War was thought of as sort of a novelty that would last a little while and be done. Certainly many in the South believed that the North would realize there error and capitulate to the question of slavery. At that point if the South could have gotten the upper hand and got Lincoln to the negotiating table, I believe they would have gotten exactly that.

Instead the war turned ugly and yes then opinions changed. By 1864 the hatred had set in and most southerners didn't want back in the union with or without slavery, so yes then TOTAL defeat in order to reunite the Union was the only option.

A bit of logic, no matter how you wish to twist the events. The South didn't have to leave the Union without giving up slavery. They chose to do so, beginning to secede close on heels of election. Then they set up the Confederacy, then attacked Ft. Sumter. Expanding on your WWII analogy, they wanted to surprise and awe and hope for a capitulation by Lincoln. Not realistic for either.

[gabosaurus]

How did a discussion of militias become a discussion of slavery?
Mods?

[Kathianne]

Back around here:

Against whom shall we take up arms?

How about recapturing Fort Sumter?

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

How did a discussion of militias become a discussion of slavery?
Mods?

[mundame]

As for Sherman's March , much like Truman's disgust at having to use atom bombs it was a decision that Lincoln felt great remorse at having to make .

By that time it was obvious that the South would never come to the negotiating table without a completely military surrender, and so sure when one surrenders unconditionally one gets no say in the surrender and so slavery was finished.

Prior to late 1862 early 1863 the Civil War was thought of as sort of a novelty that would last a little while and be done. Certainly many in the South believed that the North would realize there error and capitulate to the question of slavery. At that point if the South could have gotten the upper hand and got Lincoln to the negotiating table, I believe they would have gotten exactly that.

Instead the war turned ugly and yes then opinions changed. By 1864 the hatred had set in and most southerners didn't want back in the union with or without slavery, so yes then TOTAL defeat in order to reunite the Union was the only option.

I've never thought of Sherman's March Through Georgia, burning and destroying everything, in quite this way. I realize that Southerners (I am one) are indignant, based on a modern sense of commonality: we are all one country and he shouldn't have done that.

But that's not how it was at the time. At the time it fell under the rule that if you do not TOTALLY defeat a country at war, then you just have to do it all over again soon. The worst example in modern times was the Armistice in WWI, when German troops climbed out of their trenches on French soil and marched home in good order, totally undefeated. After which followed one very angry Germany with revolution against the Weimar government, Frei Corps rebels molesting Jews and Communists freely on the streets, Hitler organizing at one time fully 8000 troops in Bavaria and proposing to march on Berlin, the furious German refusal of ANY of the treaty terms, such as the French demand for reparations in at least coal, so that no German miner worked and they deliberately let their currency become worthless so they couldn't pay France. Then Hitler rose -- it was 19 years of fury ending in the worse war ever, because Germany had not been truly defeated the first time.

Eisenhower and Churchill and Stalin did not make that mistake a second time.

The second worse example of how not to end a war in modern times was the Armistice between North and South Korea, and there it still is, and there our troops still are, and there is North Korea still fomenting and fuming after all these decades, still dangerous because they were never properly defeated.

[Kathianne]

I've never thought of Sherman's March Through Georgia, burning and destroying everything, in quite this way. I realize that Southerners (I am one) are indignant, based on a modern sense of commonality: we are all one country and he shouldn't have done that.

But that's not how it was at the time. At the time it fell under the rule that if you do not TOTALLY defeat a country at war, then you just have to do it all over again soon. The worst example in modern times was the Armistice in WWI, when German troops climbed out of their trenches on French soil and marched home in good order, totally undefeated. After which followed one very angry Germany with revolution against the Weimar government, Frei Corps rebels molesting Jews and Communists freely on the streets, Hitler organizing at one time fully 8000 troops in Bavaria and proposing to march on Berlin, the furious German refusal of ANY of the treaty terms, such as the French demand for reparations in at least coal, so that no German miner worked and they deliberately let their currency become worthless so they couldn't pay France. Then Hitler rose -- it was 19 years of fury ending in the worse war ever, because Germany had not been truly defeated the first time.

Eisenhower and Churchill and Stalin did not make that mistake a second time.

The second worse example of how not to end a war in modern times was the Armistice between North and South Korea, and there it still is, and there our troops still are, and there is North Korea still fomenting and fuming after all these decades, still dangerous because they were never properly defeated.

and with that, we find common ground. Unconditional surrender is how to end a war. Then generosity towards the suffering people afterwards. (Lincoln's plan on Reconstruction-which fell apart under Johnson and Radical Republicans; Marshall Plan following WWII).

[mundame]

The current American nation is fairly safe from Indian attacks, slave uprisings and attacks by foreign powers. As a past president once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Our primary enemy is ourselves.

Can't agree. Indian attacks, okay, they are probably pretty well squelched. The huge and terrible black riots of the 60s and 70s and later and the continuing fear of them now, as when people worried Occupy would successfully start all that up again, that is an ever-present danger.

As for attack by foreign powers, there was something happened 9/11/2001. And we have been under continual cyberattack ever since.

There is no "ourselves" anymore to be an enemy. This country is no longer united enough to have one identity.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've never thought of Sherman's March Through Georgia, burning and destroying everything, in quite this way. I realize that Southerners (I am one) are indignant, based on a modern sense of commonality: we are all one country and he shouldn't have done that.

But that's not how it was at the time. At the time it fell under the rule that if you do not TOTALLY defeat a country at war, then you just have to do it all over again soon. The worst example in modern times was the Armistice in WWI, when German troops climbed out of their trenches on French soil and marched home in good order, totally undefeated. After which followed one very angry Germany with revolution against the Weimar government, Frei Corps rebels molesting Jews and Communists freely on the streets, Hitler organizing at one time fully 8000 troops in Bavaria and proposing to march on Berlin, the furious German refusal of ANY of the treaty terms, such as the French demand for reparations in at least coal, so that no German miner worked and they deliberately let their currency become worthless so they couldn't pay France. Then Hitler rose -- it was 19 years of fury ending in the worse war ever, because Germany had not been truly defeated the first time.

Eisenhower and Churchill and Stalin did not make that mistake a second time.

The second worse example of how not to end a war in modern times was the Armistice between North and South Korea, and there it still is, and there our troops still are, and there is North Korea still fomenting and fuming after all these decades, still dangerous because they were never properly defeated.

Bull, he waged war directly upon the civilians, causing many to starve. He will end up in hell and should I have the great misfortune to arrive there as well, I am going to stomp his ass!! That's how a true Southerners sees this.

Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin were not waging war upon their fellow countrymen , with the intent to reunite them!. Your premise misses the mark IMHO.-TYR