Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Oldest called me on somthing I have half a clue about

All I can say is that I studied the Civil War - or as my Southern friends calls it - The War of Northern Aggression.
The south's wanting to succeed from the Union had a greater role in developing the animosity that started the war more then slavery.

What we need to remember was that in the 1860's people probably only had about a 4th grade education and that it didn't matter to the average person why we were fighting a war, just that our country called us to serve.

When people got around to writing the history books they needed a reason to say - this is why we went to war and the ending was that "the Moral of the story was" that it was wrong to own slaves.

We can all understand that it was wrong to own slaves, but the truth was that the slaves were better off being enslaved and taken care of by the plantation owners then being freed and not having a job or a income or anyone to take care of them.

The easiest analogy I can give you is coal mining.
The BR&P coal company owned the town that I live in and many of the small towns in Western Pennsylvania.
The mine owners would tell you that anyone caught mistreating a mule would be fired immediately and anyone that put a mule in danger would also be fired.
The reason why the mine owners did not care about the miners welfare was because they had to pay for the mules.
Coal miners were a dime a dozen and if one of them got hurt - it didn't cost them anything to replace them.

The two things that happened at the start of the war was that the attacks of armory's such as Ft Sumter and Harpers Ferry caused problems for both sides.
The north put injunctions against the south and blocked all their ports which did not allow them to sell their goods and wares. The north was industrialized and could mass produce goods and materials needed for the war.
The south was mostly a agrarian society and they could not buy anything much better then second hand goods from other countries - even if they could get them to trade with them.
There was so many different weapons used in the south against the north that it was a literal nightmare for the logistics officers to keep their troops supplied.

If the south would have bypassed Gettysburg and made it the whole way north to New York City - we would all be eating grits right now and drinking moonshine and saying Ya all....
Modern communications - such as two way radios and the internet would have cost the north the war - because some southern generals refused to engage the enemy until it was too late and most of the blood shed that the south suffered at the hands of the north - which held the high ground was unnecessary and they could have easily won the battle - which would have cost the north the war.

After Gettysburg - the best the south could hope for was a amicable settlement. People from the north came south with their carpet bags and stole everything that was not nailed down.

Lee's estate was turned into Arlington National Cemetery and everyone in the south was made to pay war reparations to the north which caused hard feelings and led to the turmoil which was not settled until 100 years later when the race riots and martin luther king caused all the problems that we have today.

Ok here it is!

The truth as I have most recently seen it, proven through the method of personal observation!

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery! Slavery is still active cause Les was issac's slave for a while.....

The Civil War really hasn't ended, it just has simmered for quite a while and is going to boil again if the economy doesn't straighten out soon!
Hence the fact that the "Econ" was what started it in the first place!

There! Have your first born copy this post and give it to her teacher....(only when she gets done chasing you around the house with the remote controlled spider Charity bought her for Christmas!)

I'm sure she will be declared a genius!!!!!!!!

The only contrary comment I have is that I thought the "Lost Cause" was the title on your baby album.

Here I'll post your reply for you- "Pretty sure you are dead on with that statement."

Nice to see you on Les!!!!

- Your "poofter" of a cousin

Do ya even know what a poofter is ya Salad Tosser?

You mentioned it on one of your posts about australia or canada jargon, probably about catching the gay or suchlike...

It's not something imparticular I would like to be personally called but, would expect it to be lashed out upon me from your pizza eater in a retalliatory fashion for typing out unmedicated posts

[quote=derby_dude I'm trying to think of who it was that founded Liberia in Africa as a homeland for the slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia[/quote]

Pres. James Monroe is largely responsible for the founding of Liberia. (There's a reason the capital is named "Monrovia".)

One of the triggers for the war was associated with slavery but was not about whether slavery should exist. One of the territories in the west was thinking about stateship. The feds wanted to allow the territory to become a state only if slavery was not allowed in that soon-to-be state. The southern states saw this as an unconstitutional overexpansion of federal power to matters that should be decided by the states. This was but one trigger but was a very important trigger. It was about states' rights and it was about slavery at some level. The war was, however, certainly not fought to abolish slavery.

Off to bed, got another early morning tomorrow.

When I was in elementary school, I was taught that the Civil War was fought to end slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. When I was in high school I was taught that the Civil War was fought over states rights and to preserve the Union. When I was in College, I was taught that the Civil War was actually fought to determine if the industrialized north could dominate the rural south.

As I have grown older and wiser and I actually look at what is going on around me, I have determined that the Civil War was actually fought over slavery. It was determined that one man cannot enslave another. But the Federal Government has enslaved the entire country. The Federal government can do anything it wants because it has the power. They proved that when they killed 600,000 of their own citizens to preserve the Union and prevent southern citizens from exercising their God given right to self determination. They said "if you try to leave, I'll kill you" and they backed it up with actions. Deeds speak louder than words.

KC

Les and Derby,

If only you could have offered the magnificent fruits of your research to the poor, deluded old goat who was the Vice-President of the
Confederate States of America.



Dumb SOB, prolly a Democrat!

Sycamore

Excellent post.

for the same reason the next revolution will be fought.
Over States rights.
The next one will be nastier.
And more wide spread.
And not North vs South

But more like cities vs rural .

Probably one of the best, most accurate, and most succinct summations I've ever read.

WELL DONE!

You guys are so fun to watch when you rewrite history...

The rewrite is the BS that's been taught in school for the last 100 years, Brent. Facts, are facts; even if apologists don't like them.

Point of correction: The Missouri Compromise WAS in 1820 not the early 1820s. Maine, where I live, was the other half of said compromise. And, at the end of the day, all the factors mentioned, slavery, tariffs and States Rights were causal factors but not root causes. The root cause I suspect was a matter of power and bending a portion of the country to the will of the North. In the end, the stronger of the two forces prevailed.

Of course, there's NEVER any mention of the bill in the Virginia General Assembly to abolish slavery that HAD the cosponsors and votes needed, but the vote was delayed, then the bill withdrawn, due to the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry.

Why? Because that wouldn't paint the picture of an "evil" South, and the "Great Emancipator". Which, btw, Lincoln's doctrine was irrelevant: he had no legal control over the Southern states at that point, by his own actions: the "Emancipation Proclamation" only affected areas already under Union control; none of the CSA was involved due to the act of War and secession.

Of course, those facts don't make it into the "official" version, either.

You ought to study up on them then. Your revisioning is entertaining however.

I have been back and forth on this issue but the easiest summing up is that if there were no slavery- there would have been no war. Simple as that.

This is pathetic, forest and trees, stuff.

The civil war was fought over the preservation of the union! We would still be squabbling over many of these issues were it not for act of secession.

All the other supposedly fundamental issues taught in schools -- states' rights, slavery, economic power -- would have sorted themselves out over time had not a bunch of hair- brained zealouts with no sense of national loyalty, no appreciation of the real chances of long term success, or responibility to their own families and neighbors tried to withdraw forcibly from the union.

1B

The war started over trade as the overseas customers were paying better for southern cotton than the Yankees. Lincoln finally did the "Emancipation Proclamation" to "legitimize" the war and build strong sentiment against the south.