SC saw unwelcome warships in THEIR harbor. When they seceded that saw Sumter as, obviously, theirs and subsequently occupied by a then foreign nation. I think they should have offered to buy it but that's another issue. SC did not attack the Union. As for Lincoln, he HAD to have them firing the first shots. A great deal of public sentiment in the North was to let them go. In peace. Once the shooting started, all bets came off.
From the Southern view it was.
That's like saying I'm justified murdering someone even though the law saws I'm not allowed to. Does their rebellion change the fact that they are official states of the United States? This is really a separate issue to secession.
A couple quick things: If you're suggesting there were PR considerations in play as well, you'll get no argument from me. And the Union, for the most part, won the PR battle - and I don't just mean that in historical, history is written by the victors, ways. Also, if you're suggesting that President Lincoln would have preferred to delay open combat for some time for strategic reasons, you'll also get no argument from me. But I believe President Lincoln was intent on not letting the Confederate states go their own way. He simply wasn't going to allow it. And that means, almost with certainty, there was going to be war. President Lincoln was always - sooner or later - going to go to war to bring the Confederate states back into the Union (or, in some people's views, keep them in it) if that was what was needed to do so. And I think it was going to be. Perhaps we disagree on that penultimate point.
Actually, South Carolina was ready to secede long before Lincoln. And, not everything was slavery.
I agree with all of that, those are things that I've argued myself in the past.
So the Titanic had an navigation issues. Not a giant gaping hole in it.
Disagree. Have to get back this later.
Watch the SCOTUS on TV ---- Play golf?I agree with all of that, those are things that I've argued myself in the past.
Hopefully we can continue this, but I need to go do some Supreme Court watching now. We've got some important decisions that may get handed down in the next hour.
The root cause of the Titanic was not following the rules of the sea. The root cause of SC wanting to secede (long before any slavery conflicts) was the federal government not following the rules (as SC saw them) of the Constitution.
Quickly as I have to divert my attention to something else for a bit, and I addressed this notion to some extent in my previous post: You said it, South Carolina wanted those soldiers that were remaining loyal to the United States - to what at that point, from its perspective, was a foreign power - to leave its territory. Now, that may have in part been for emotional reasons - just wanting the pleasure of throwing them out, and not wanting the sensation of having to accept them still being there. But it was also in part for strategic reasons. War was likely coming, and the port of Charleston was enormously important to South Carolina and the Confederacy. And he who controlled Fort Sumter controlled the port of Charleston. They couldn't let the Union hold that Fort if war was coming, perhaps best to take it when doing so was as easy as it was going to get.
Fail
If I understand this analysis correctly (and it's confusing, so I might not), Texas citizens get back $0.79 for every $1 given in federal taxes.
How so? Recheck your fail.
If I see your source correctly, it was in 2013 (comments go back that far), so it has to be from information prior to that (I can't find on your source where their data came from). My source is from 2015, and states the data is from 2013, and shows even less money back per dollar given away to the federal government.
It is confusing, and by reading some of the comments following the charts and graphs, it appears there are flaws in the calculations based on taxes paid in each state.
I was hoping you'd take that direction because it is a good point AND helps make mine; if we're talking about the ship being a little late due to poor navigation, there is that. Every issue SC had with federal over reach, as they saw it, paled in comparison to slavery. Fish to a whale. Pick you analogy but slavery was the mountain. They were never going to secede over threats to mole hills.
While I can't argue with the fact that they did not secede in the 1820's and 30's over the issues they felt were worth seceding over, those issues did exist.
Agreed, although I'm curious if slavery was really dying in the south. If, as you were saying, they were so gung-ho for slaves and willing to leave the nation and fight a war over it, then was it really dying?
true. they were positioning themselves and saying "you can leave, but we're still in charge". I'm surprised Union troops got into Sumter, you'd think South Carolina would have ensured it was local boys in there.
Would they have had a gaping hole if not for the mistakes that were made that sent them crashing into it? I wouldn't call that navigation issues (that implies the rudder was broken), but there were a bunch of things that led to it. If the Titanic had simply gone in another direction or been further south, they wouldn't have had a giant gaping hole to begin with.
very true. Sumter is what got other states to secede, so they were probably trying to rally support. I'm not sure picking a fight was the best idea but they had to do something to get the foreign power out of there, I guess.
I'm reading you trying to make a moral equivalence, that going 56 in a 55 and going 55,000 in a 55 is BOTH speeding. Further, the way I read you is that the threat to slavery was the last straw meaning that there was no threat to it and then, with Lincoln, there was. That's not the case. There was a LOT of negotiation from the get go about slavery and, IIRC, Massachusetts wanted to secede in the 1820's to disassociate themselves FROM slavery.