Home
I have pondered this. I know sectional differences had simmered for a long time...it puzzles me why so many would oppose a separate country and die to prevent it.... giving your life to keep the nation united

I also believe that few Northern whites opposed slavery on moral grounds... the phrase in the Battle Hymn of the Republic "let us die to make men free" is enigmatic.
Why, how dare you question the motives or the sense of those fine young Yankees who went to war to free the oppressed black race.
Dam good chance that if it had split, it wouldn't have looked good after
a few decades. One of our strengths is diversity.

That was fun!

Seriously. We had manufacturing, ag, mining. Steel was coming on,
infrastructure to put it all together. And it all worked as one machine,
without too much BS competing among jurisdictions.

Couple that with the Europeans circling like buzzards to grab a
foothold and move back in.

Heck, they were supplying both sides in our war and looking to
slip into the fray at the first easy chance.

This is all mental masturbation, some think of today's political
makeup and feel the south would be better off. Possibly.

Or, the migrations north for work,
then South by manufacturing, wouldn't have happened.
The Depression and run up to WWII are what modernized
the rural South. What would that look like if the country was split?

Would the south would be like some "used to be great" ag centered
countries that are now 3rd world s-holes. Probably not. It's not
like there was no industry in Dixie.
But who knows.

Some like to play regional rivalry BS.
It's all history to me. An incident 150 years over is interesting.
But long over.

Right now, we are in a fight of at least as much importance.
Some here talk stupid crap of relinquishing territory to our
enemies.

Never!
It is my understanding that the war was because the south wanted states rights (including slavery I guess).

The south’s cotton industry was a HUGE source of revenue and Lincoln did not want to lose that economy.
Thats why when you read the letters home from the soldiers you see a marked difference. A Southerners letter home commonly talked about how proud they were to serve their Country and if need be die for it. Northerners letters often contained no such enthusiasm for the cause
Lots more to it than that. No government ever wants to cede territory, like any entity, the Gov seeks to expand and strengthen itself. Losing the huge ag and tax base of 1/2 the states would have erased the Union. I submit that if the south had triumphed, the North would have fragmented into the separate states, and by extension, there would have been no westward expansion. Cali, NM, Az, Ut, would revert back to Mexico, Brits would sell Mt and WA to Russia, who would have retained AK. In effect, The United States would have crumbled, easily picked off by the waiting Brits and Frogs. Balkanization would have been proceeded by "Columbiazation". When a nation starts to shed territory, it's current government has a rather short time left. Slavery, State sovereignty, all that had big roles, but it really was about preservation of the Union.


On the positive, I'll bet that if the South had won conditions wouldn't have existed for the National Socialist German Workers' Party to rise, and Marx may not have made it out of France alive. wink
What would the North have done without Texas and Oklahoma oil? Or for that matter the southern timber cut over and sold for seven cents on the acre after the war?

Frankly, I suspect that the South would have more of a Latin flavor to it than it does today. I suspect their would have been expansion into Cuba and Central America. Or at least very cordial relations. The Gulf of Mexico would be a Confederate Lake.

I suspect things would have worked out better for both countries, particularly if there had been no war. The federal leviathan was born then and though the South saw it coming and that was the real reason for the war, the war itself hastened its coming and brought on the conditions to birth it.
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
I have pondered this. I know sectional differences had simmered for a long time...it puzzles me why so many would oppose a separate country and die to prevent it.... giving your life to keep the nation united

I also believe that few Northern whites opposed slavery on moral grounds... the phrase in the Battle Hymn of the Republic "let us die to make men free" is enigmatic.


It was all about the Mississippi River and New Orleans. Follow the money.
As always “Follow the money.”
It started with the Eerie Canal, forcing Southern trade ships to England to come north and pay taxes first .... around 1817 I think it was but I'll look it up in the books later after lunch.

It didn't just happen overnight. Fawking yankees started that [bleep] for decades before the South finally got enough of it.

And it wasn't so much about slavery .... that was one of several convenient reasons that could be used to challenge certain Constitutionality aspects of the split .... all men are created equal vs states rights. States Rights was the real biggie but the South was being taxed to fricking death ... cotton, indigo, rice, while the north was opening-up to massive importation of irish slave labor to fill the rich robber Barron's factories with cheap labor and foot soldiers desperate for citizenship.
How’s it working out for us now?
Originally Posted by SCRooster
It started with the Eerie Canal, forcing Southern trade ships to England to come north and pay taxes first .... around 1817 I think it was but I'll look it up in the books later after lunch.



Why would southern ships have to go thru the Erie Canal to get to England?
Originally Posted by tpcollins
It is my understanding that the war was because the south wanted states rights (including slavery I guess).

The south’s cotton industry was a HUGE source of revenue and Lincoln did not want to lose that economy.


Slavery was dying world wide. Another twenty years it would have been gone all by itself. Keep in mind the cotton gin was invented in 1793. Lincoln didnt care about slaves. He cared about the export tariff money on southern cotton. He needed to stop the south from leaving the union. He started a war to do it. In the south it is called "The War of Northern Aggression" for a reason. The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.
If California, Oregon, and Washington wanted to secede, you might think that would be great. But the reality is that they'd be antagonistic toward the (lower) 45 other states. They would refuse use of their ports, and resources, and pay no money toward the repaying of debts that provided them enormous swaths of infrastructure and security. And since they're all dumber than dogschit, they are now leaving the remaining 45 states vulnerable to foreign invasion. Rather than having a pack full of retards on our western boundary, we would end up with China on our western boundary.

It would be cute for maybe a year, but sooner or later people are going to have enough and they're going to restore the order they once knew.

Would you move into California, Oregon, and Washington state to kill the people that caused all the problems? I would argue that most Americans today would love a reason to do so.

Don't be a victim of revisionist history. Slavery was not the issue. It was much, much, much deeper than that.
Originally Posted by deflave
If California, Oregon, and Washington wanted to secede, you might think that would be great. But the reality is that they'd be antagonistic toward the (lower) 45 other states. They would refuse use of their ports, and resources, and pay no money toward the repaying of debts that provided them enormous swaths of infrastructure and security. And since they're all dumber than dogschit, they are now leaving the remaining 45 states vulnerable to foreign invasion. Rather than having a pack full of retards on our western boundary, we would end up with China on our western boundary.

It would be cute for maybe a year, but sooner or later people are going to have enough and they're going to restore the order they once knew.

Would you move into California, Oregon, and Washington state to kill the people that caused all the problems? I would argue that most Americans today would love a reason to do so.

Don't be a victim of revisionist history. Slavery was not the issue. It was much, much, much deeper than that.

Maybe we can finally dredge the Trinity River and bring ships into Dallas.
Here's another thought that most southern folk rarely grasp:

If you got your asses gaped by Sherman and his men, how the fugk do you think you would have done when a foreign entity came to your shores and you had no aid from the north?

We'd all have to???? Come on now... Think deep. What would the northern and southern states have to do? To keep everyone from living under tyranny?
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Originally Posted by deflave
If California, Oregon, and Washington wanted to secede, you might think that would be great. But the reality is that they'd be antagonistic toward the (lower) 45 other states. They would refuse use of their ports, and resources, and pay no money toward the repaying of debts that provided them enormous swaths of infrastructure and security. And since they're all dumber than dogschit, they are now leaving the remaining 45 states vulnerable to foreign invasion. Rather than having a pack full of retards on our western boundary, we would end up with China on our western boundary.


Except that queers and transgenders don’t know how to steer a ship, run a dock, drive a forklift or do anything but suck on each other. You tell those guys that Hawaii is paying $5,000.00/month to drug addicts and homos, and they would all leave for greener pastures.

Problem solved, we really don’t need Hawaii.
Originally Posted by HitnRun
Originally Posted by deflave
If California, Oregon, and Washington wanted to secede, you might think that would be great. But the reality is that they'd be antagonistic toward the (lower) 45 other states. They would refuse use of their ports, and resources, and pay no money toward the repaying of debts that provided them enormous swaths of infrastructure and security. And since they're all dumber than dogschit, they are now leaving the remaining 45 states vulnerable to foreign invasion. Rather than having a pack full of retards on our western boundary, we would end up with China on our western boundary.


Except that queers and transgenders don’t know how to steer a ship, run a dock, drive a forklift or do anything but suck on each other. You tell those guys that Hawaii is paying $5,000.00/month to drug addicts and homos, and they would all leave for greener pastures.

Problem solved, we really don’t need Hawaii.


Oh yeah.

Good idea.
Originally Posted by JoeBob


I suspect things would have worked out better for both countries, particularly if there had been no war.

The federal leviathan was born then and though the South saw it coming and that was the real reason for the war, the war itself hastened its coming and brought on the conditions to birth it.


I have to take exception to the first sentence. All one needs to do is look at the US' ascent post Civil War all the way to the mid 50s to put pay to the idea of "being better of". Lincoln should have done EVERYTHING to preserve the country and without that disastrous war. disastrous in so many ways to include just as you say, the rise of Federal Power. Slavery was a dying trade and would have eventually gone the way of the dinosaur as technology AND Western culture and values evolved. The disdain for Blacks would have never risen to the levels after the war, when the North shoved them down the throats of the Southern states. It's arguing a negative, but an agrarian, single crop economy would have relegated the South to just an enlarged version of pre-Castro Cuba, a Second World country with a paper-thin economic footing and if as you say the "latin flavor" would have seeped it...I don't think so..
I don't believe that more than a small percentage of the Union soldiers who served during the American Civil War fought to free slaves, they fought to preserve the Union and because they wanted to join their friends on the greatest adventure of their time. Soldiers fight for their friends, for their units, not for high ideals, but in an effort to survive the conflict. I've read dozens of letters that my ancestors sent home and not once was slavery mentioned.

I have long understood that that some unit of the South Carolina Militia fired the first shot of the American Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Is that not correct?

I believe that Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation for political and military reasons, to take the high moral ground and keep the European Empires of the UK and Russia from actively/openly supporting the CSA.

The fourth paragraph of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address clearly states his position on slavery; " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". How much clearer could he have been?

Many folks seems to forget that when the question of secession arose during the Nullification Crisis of the late 1820's and early 1830's a slave owning POTUS, Andrew Jackson, said that he would preserve The Union by force is necessary and the crisis subsided. I guess that people felt that Old Hickory was likely to do what he said he'd do, while some of the same people didn't believe that Honest Abe would do what he said he'd do, preserve the Union, and not do, end slavery in the States where it existed.

See Proverbs 18:12
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
I don't believe that more than a small percentage of the Union soldiers who served during the American Civil War fought to free slaves, they fought to preserve the Union and because they wanted to join their friends on the greatest adventure of their time. Soldiers fight for their friends, for their units, not for high ideals, but in an effort to survive the conflict. I've read dozens of letters that my ancestors sent home and not once was slavery mentioned.

I have long understood that that some unit of the South Carolina Militia fired the first shot of the American Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Is that not correct?

I believe that Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation for political and military reasons, to take the high moral ground and keep the European Empires of the UK and Russia from actively/openly supporting the CSA.

The fourth paragraph of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address clearly states his position on slavery; " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". How much clearer could he have been?

Many folks seems to forget that when the question of secession arose during the Nullification Crisis of the late 1820's and early 1830's a slave owning POTUS, Andrew Jackson, said that he would preserve The Union by force is necessary and the crisis subsided. I guess that people felt that Old Hickory was likely to do what he said he'd do, while some of the same people didn't believe that Honest Abe would do what he said he'd do, preserve the Union, and not do, end slavery in the States where it existed.

See Proverbs 18:12

The occupying force at Fort Sumter were told to leave South Carolina. They were given time to leave. I believe this is the fuse Lincoln used to start the war. We may never know who really fired the first shot.
Originally Posted by deflave
If California, Oregon, and Washington wanted to secede, you might think that would be great. But the reality is that they'd be antagonistic toward the (lower) 45 other states. They would refuse use of their ports, and resources, and pay no money toward the repaying of debts that provided them enormous swaths of infrastructure and security. And since they're all dumber than dogschit, they are now leaving the remaining 45 states vulnerable to foreign invasion. Rather than having a pack full of retards on our western boundary, we would end up with China on our western boundary.

It would be cute for maybe a year, but sooner or later people are going to have enough and they're going to restore the order they once knew.

Would you move into California, Oregon, and Washington state to kill the people that caused all the problems? I would argue that most Americans today would love a reason to do so.

Don't be a victim of revisionist history. Slavery was not the issue. It was much, much, much deeper than that.


Exactly. The war was inevitable because Lincoln wasn't going to let the southern money get away.

The first nail in the coffin was the tax of obamanation passed under Adams presidency.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
I don't believe that more than a small percentage of the Union soldiers who served during the American Civil War fought to free slaves, they fought to preserve the Union and because they wanted to join their friends on the greatest adventure of their time. Soldiers fight for their friends, for their units, not for high ideals, but in an effort to survive the conflict. I've read dozens of letters that my ancestors sent home and not once was slavery mentioned.

I have long understood that that some unit of the South Carolina Militia fired the first shot of the American Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Is that not correct?

I believe that Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation for political and military reasons, to take the high moral ground and keep the European Empires of the UK and Russia from actively/openly supporting the CSA.

The fourth paragraph of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address clearly states his position on slavery; " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". How much clearer could he have been?

Many folks seems to forget that when the question of secession arose during the Nullification Crisis of the late 1820's and early 1830's a slave owning POTUS, Andrew Jackson, said that he would preserve The Union by force is necessary and the crisis subsided. I guess that people felt that Old Hickory was likely to do what he said he'd do, while some of the same people didn't believe that Honest Abe would do what he said he'd do, preserve the Union, and not do, end slavery in the States where it existed.

See Proverbs 18:12

The occupying force at Fort Sumter were told to leave South Carolina. They were given time to leave. I believe this is the fuse Lincoln used to start the war. We may never know who really fired the first shot.



True, the south refused to let the north resupply the fort. Fort Sumter was definitely the excuse Lincoln was looking for.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Why, how dare you question the motives or the sense of those fine young Yankees who went to war to free the oppressed black race.


Yep, seeing as a great many of them were the Norths' slave labor force, the Irish, who were only there for a paycheck.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
I don't believe that more than a small percentage of the Union soldiers who served during the American Civil War fought to free slaves, they fought to preserve the Union and because they wanted to join their friends on the greatest adventure of their time. Soldiers fight for their friends, for their units, not for high ideals, but in an effort to survive the conflict. I've read dozens of letters that my ancestors sent home and not once was slavery mentioned.

I have long understood that that some unit of the South Carolina Militia fired the first shot of the American Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Is that not correct?

I believe that Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation for political and military reasons, to take the high moral ground and keep the European Empires of the UK and Russia from actively/openly supporting the CSA.

The fourth paragraph of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address clearly states his position on slavery; " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". How much clearer could he have been?

Many folks seems to forget that when the question of secession arose during the Nullification Crisis of the late 1820's and early 1830's a slave owning POTUS, Andrew Jackson, said that he would preserve The Union by force is necessary and the crisis subsided. I guess that people felt that Old Hickory was likely to do what he said he'd do, while some of the same people didn't believe that Honest Abe would do what he said he'd do, preserve the Union, and not do, end slavery in the States where it existed.

See Proverbs 18:12

The occupying force at Fort Sumter were told to leave South Carolina. They were given time to leave. I believe this is the fuse Lincoln used to start the war. We may never know who really fired the first shot.


I tend to think of Fort Sumter as being Federal property, analogous to our current military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Sovereign American territory on foreign soil. Would the U.S. leave Guantanamo Bay if the Cubans told us to leave? I think not.
There were draft riots.
Stop it, just stop it...the Chinese are the bad guys.
No, Yankees are faaaaaaaaar worse than Chinese.

http://sageamericanhistory.net/civilwar/docs/lincolngreeley.html

" Exchange Between Horace Greeley and President Lincoln, 1862

Horace Greeley's Letter

On the editorial page of the New York Tribune of August 20, 1862, Horace Greeley published an open letter to President Abraham Lincoln entitled, “THE PRAYER OF TWENTY MILLIONS.” Greeley was an abolitionist who was adamant in his demand that the president do something about slavery. Following are excerpts from that letter:

“To ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States:

“DEAR SIR: I do not intrude to tell you—for you must know already—that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of the Rebels. I write only to set succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we have a right to expect, and of what we complain.

“We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS....”

...

“We complain that the Union cause has suffered and is now suffering immensely, from mistaken deference to Rebel Slavery. Had you, Sir, in your Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize no loyal person as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor, we believe that the Rebellion would have received a staggering, if not fatal blow....”

...

“On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union Cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile—that the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor—that the army of officers who remain to this day devoted to Slavery can at best be but half way loyal to the Union—and that every hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union....”

“I close as I began with the statement that what an immense majority of the Loyal Millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared, unqualified, ungrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially of the Confiscation Act.... As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this struggle at any sacrifice but that of Principle and Honor, but who now feel that the triumph of the Union is indispensable not only to the existence of our country, but to the well-being of mankind, I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.”

Yours,

Horace Greeley

NEW YORK, August 19, 1862

------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENT LINCOLN' RESPONSE

President Abraham Lincoln's response is one of his most famous letters. When Lincoln wrote this letter, he was already at work on the Emancipation Proclamation , but as he states clearly in his reponse, his first concern was the Union. Lincoln sent his response to the New York Times for publication rather than to Greeley's New York Tribune. The Times was a strong supporter of Lincoln's policies, whereas Greeley's Tribune had become something of a gadfly to Lincoln's administration.


"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln."




Diversity is never a strength. Diversity destroys history and communities.
Originally Posted by joken2

http://sageamericanhistory.net/civilwar/docs/lincolngreeley.html

" Exchange Between Horace Greeley and President Lincoln, 1862

Horace Greeley's Letter

On the editorial page of the New York Tribune of August 20, 1862, Horace Greeley published an open letter to President Abraham Lincoln entitled, “THE PRAYER OF TWENTY MILLIONS.” Greeley was an abolitionist who was adamant in his demand that the president do something about slavery. Following are excerpts from that letter:

“To ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States:

“DEAR SIR: I do not intrude to tell you—for you must know already—that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of the Rebels. I write only to set succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we have a right to expect, and of what we complain.

“We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS....”

...

“We complain that the Union cause has suffered and is now suffering immensely, from mistaken deference to Rebel Slavery. Had you, Sir, in your Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize no loyal person as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor, we believe that the Rebellion would have received a staggering, if not fatal blow....”

...

“On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union Cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile—that the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor—that the army of officers who remain to this day devoted to Slavery can at best be but half way loyal to the Union—and that every hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union....”

“I close as I began with the statement that what an immense majority of the Loyal Millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared, unqualified, ungrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially of the Confiscation Act.... As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this struggle at any sacrifice but that of Principle and Honor, but who now feel that the triumph of the Union is indispensable not only to the existence of our country, but to the well-being of mankind, I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.”

Yours,

Horace Greeley

NEW YORK, August 19, 1862

------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENT LINCOLN' RESPONSE

President Abraham Lincoln's response is one of his most famous letters. When Lincoln wrote this letter, he was already at work on the Emancipation Proclamation , but as he states clearly in his reponse, his first concern was the Union. Lincoln sent his response to the New York Times for publication rather than to Greeley's New York Tribune. The Times was a strong supporter of Lincoln's policies, whereas Greeley's Tribune had become something of a gadfly to Lincoln's administration.


"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln."







Proof beyond question
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


I have long understood that that some unit of the South Carolina Militia fired the first shot of the American Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Is that not correct?

I


Actually, it was a group of cadets from The Citadel. They were out on Morris Island where they did their artillery training when a federal ship, The Star of The West, was enroute to resupply the federal garrison at Fort Sumter. The cadets opened up on it, doing little damage, but convincing the Yankees to change their mind and leave the field without having accomplished their mission.
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Why, how dare you question the motives or the sense of those fine young Yankees who went to war to free the oppressed black race.

Majority of those fine young Yankees were conscripted.There was no choice unless you had $300.00 to buy your way out.My Great Grandfather lost a leg because he did not have the money to buy his way out.How many do you think volunteered?Once you were conscripted you either went or were hung for desertion.
Slavery was the worst thing to happen to this country. Look at the millions of blacks here today as a result of it.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
No, Yankees are faaaaaaaaar worse than Chinese.


Hey, the truth of the matter is we don't care what you do with your sister, as long as we get our watermelons on time.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Why then we'll have to disagree.

As to why northern boys would enlist to fight the war, I have asked that question about my two great great grandfathers. Picture yourself as an Ohio farm boy. Your life is pretty boring. Your life is all laid out. You've never met a Southerner but heard bad things about them. Suddenly, they want to leave your country. Isn't that good? Why try to stop them?

Well, a local politician appoints himself a Colonel and raises a regiment. Aha, a chance for some excitement. To see the world. Spiffy uniforms. An enlistment bonus in cash. And everyone knows it'll be over by Christmas. This is your last--and maybe--only chance. Besides everyone's doing it. Danger? No, glory. One big battle and the Rebs will all run away like dogs....won't they?

The same sort of ferver infected the boys of hte European powers at the start of World War I.

The "fine print" in the contract said it was a 3-year enlistment. At the end of that time neither one re-enlisted, even though the war was not yet over.
The construct of our republic is as close to perfect as any nation could hope. But our country was still very young at the time of the Civil War and there were legitimate disagreements on many issues from both sides.

In the end, the fact that the United States remained united caused our nation to be stronger.

The south was not wrong. The north was not wrong. Both sides had their reasons to fight at the time and it is absurd to question or undermine any American’s choice to fight in that war. Especially given the luxury of hindsight in 2021.

That war was the product of growing pains that were inevitable to occur in a republic like ours. All the men that fought in that war should be revered, and honored. All of them.





Desertion, Cowardice and Punishment

Quote

The American Civil War brought an unprecedented increase in the size of armies in North America. From a small regular army of approximately 16,000 in 1860, the two sides put about three million men in the field during the course of the four-year conflict. Historians concede that exact numbers are unattainable, but estimates of total Confederates under arms is between 800,000 and 1,200,000. The Union army is estimated to have been slightly over 2 million men. Drawn from every corner of America, both armies were overwhelmingly volunteer forces comprised of men unfamiliar with war and the rigors of military life. Thus, in addition to the logistical challenges of training and equipping these armies, military and civilian officials faced the challenge of keeping the army intact, and throughout the war desertion posed a problem for both sides.

Defined as leaving the military with the intent not to return, desertion differs from cowardice. Cowardice in the civil war was defined as deserting in the face of the enemy. While deserters numbered in the hundreds of thousands, deserting in the face of the enemy was far less common a crime, or at least not as prominent in the records that survive. To be sure, the image of Henry Fleming fleeing the battlefield in Stephen Crane’s Red Badge of Courage had its basis in historical fact and undoubtedly occurred. However, statistically Civil War soldiers spent fifty days in camp for every day of combat, and desertion was by far a camp phenomenon as opposed to a decision made in the heat of battle. Often cowardice in the face of the enemy was something observed by a soldier’s comrades, and even if never prosecuted, it tainted a man’s reputation for the remainder of his life if he was fortunate enough to survive the war. When prosecuted the penalty for cowardice could be harsh, with death by firing squad the most extreme sanction. Perhaps one of the reasons cowardice does not appear as often is that running in the face of the enemy often occurred on a unit-wide basis as some portion of the line became physically or morally overwhelmed and gave way. The subsequent retreat disintegrated into a wild, disorderly effort to escape slaughter. One man abandoning his post in such a manner would be cowardice; when it happened on a unit level it simply became a rout.

Desertion proved a far more difficult problem for both sides. Official figures show slightly over 103,000 Confederate soldiers and over 200,000 Union soldiers deserted, with some estimates as high as 280,000. New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio made up almost half of all Union desertions, and North Carolina and Virginia led the way among Confederate troops. Men deserted for a variety of reasons, many of which were common to both sides. The rigors or military life, poor food, inadequate clothing, homesickness, and concern for loved ones at home all drove men to desert. In some ways the character of the American soldier contributed to the desertion problem. Most men on both sides were unaccustomed to the rigid nature of being a soldier, and the loss of personal freedom that came with being in the military proved difficult. Many soldiers saw their enlistment as contractual in nature and any perception that the government was not living up to its end of the bargain justified their departure. This reliance on the government’s promise as a reason to desert would prove particularly troublesome for the Confederacy where soldiers believed their commitment to fight was based in part on the promise that their families would be taken care of in their absence.

Morale also played a part in desertion. Early defeat, particularly for the Union in the eastern theater, combined with the horrific nature of combat most certainly motivated men to desert. In addition camp life could be every bit as dangerous as battle. Two out of every three soldiers who died during the war fell victim to disease. Dysentery, or “Virginia Quickstep,” killed 45,000 men, and the recognition that camp life might be as dangerous as combat provided an incentive for men to desert. Finally, for some there was an element of coercion. The South began drafting soldiers in 1862 and the Union followed a year later. Even for those who volunteered, their one-year enlistments became three-year commitments, and for Southern soldiers the act of volunteering for a year eventually evolved into a commitment to remain for the duration of the war. But, while the causes and effects of desertion had elements common to both sides, many aspects of desertion were unique to one army or the other.

UNION DESERTION:

Desertion from the Union army began early in the war and continued to some degree throughout the conflict. Early enlistments were for three months, and volunteers flocked to the cause believing the rebellion would be suppressed in short order. When it became clear that subduing the Confederacy would be a much more arduous task, particularly in light of Union defeats in July, August, and October of 1861, the patriotic fervor that drove enlistment in the first months of the war began to wane and with it the commitment of some men to the cause. However, one aspect of enlistment unique to the Union army clearly contributed to desertion and appealed to men who never intended to remain in the service. The Union paid bounties, or enlistment bonuses for new recruits, often as much as $300.00. Men enlisted, collect their bounty, and then deserted. Thereafter, a deserter re-enlisted under a different name and at a different place, collected another bounty, and then deserted again. The Union Army paid privates an average salary of $13 per month. A $300 bounty amounted to almost twice a private’s annual salary and a man willing to test the bounty system multiple times could amass a tidy sum in a short period of time. Although the Confederacy also paid bounties, the money was far less than in the North, and as Confederate currency became less accepted, it offered far less of an incentive for a man to volunteer to leave home and family for the uncertainty of war.

Bounty jumpers tended to find their way to the North’s large urban areas. New York City for example served as home to as many as 3,000 bounty- jumping deserters, as men flush with money sought out the anonymity and the ability to blend into the crowd that large cities offered. Aside from the depletion of manpower, bounty jumping created a unique problem for the historian seeking to understand Union desertion. In most cases desertion numbers are derived from soldiers’ service documents that are now part of the Union and Confederate service records housed at the National Archives. Those records identify men by name and unit. If one man enlisted, deserted, and then re-enlisted under a different name, any subsequent desertion would reflect that a different man had deserted. In reality the same man may have deserted multiple times.

While Union desertion ran the full course of the war, there were periods when it spiked, most notably the winter and spring of 1863 in the wake of the Union army’s devastating defeat at Fredericksburg and its retreat following the Battle of Chancellorsville. The service records of Private Robert Montgomery, Company F, 91st Pennsylvania Infantry, provide a good example. In the thick of the fighting at Fredericksburg as part of Brigadier General Andrew Atkinson Humphreys’ assault at Marye’s Heights, Montgomery used his subsequent assignment after the Battle of Chancellorsville to slip away from the front and desert. Assigned to guard the baggage of his brigade commander at Aquia Landing, on May 16, 1863 Montgomery disappeared and was never found again. His final and successful desertion from the Union army ended his brief but eventful career as a soldier. He was promoted after his enlistment in 1861 only to be subsequently reduced in rank. In 1862 he unsuccessfully tried to desert only to be returned to the ranks. Although he did not see action at Antietam he was at both Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Montgomery had seen enough combat and had apparently lost any zeal he may have had for the cause.

Robert Montgomery took advantage of an opportunity that would diminish over time. As the North successfully invaded the South, particularly in the western theater, desertion did not present the easy opportunity to escape back into the relative safety of the Northern home front. By the beginning of 1863Major General Ulysses S. (Hiram Ulysses) Grant’s army had penetrated deep into Mississippi and by the end of the year moved to southern Tennessee to lift the siege at Chattanooga. Eventually under Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, that same army advanced south into Georgia and the Carolinas. Following the Battle of Gettysburg the Army of the Potomac crossed back into Virginia and the following spring began a campaign that took it to the gates of Richmond. Thus, as the war continued the opportunities to desert become less attractive.

Union desertion also demonstrated the degree to which the North struggled with an anti-war movement and the effect it had on soldier morale. Secretary of War Edwin McMasters Stanton advocated executing deserters as an example in an effort to deter future desertion. Abraham Lincoln struggled with the notion that the army would shoot a man for deserting, yet the government remained powerless to punish those at home who openly advocated desertion and the abandonment of the war effort. Clement Laird Vallandingham and the Copperhead movement he led publicly encouraged Union soldiers to desert. Lincoln struggled with executing deserters, and the correspondence between himand Stanton shows Lincoln requesting and personally examining numerous files of convicted deserters condemned to death. Lincoln refused to allow a solder under 18 years old to be executed, and in most other cases he pardoned condemned soldiers.

While Union desertion posed a problem, it did not have the crippling effect on the Union war effort that the Confederacy experienced. Part of the reason lies in pure mathematics. When the war began the North’s population stood at slightly over 20,000,000. The South on the other hand had a little over 10,000,000. However, slaves made up 4.5 million of its population and did not contribute to the Confederate war effort, at least not as combat soldiers. While many did serve in non-combat rolls, the demographics alone made Confederate losses from desertion more significant.

CONFEDERATE DESERTION

The desertion of Confederate soldiers proved a far greater problem than Union desertion. Ella Lonn’s 1928 study[1] claims that Union desertion made up a higher percentage of the total enlisted soldiers. Her figures indicate one in seven Union soldiers deserted compared to one in nine Confederate soldiers. Lonn’s figures are based on Thomas Livermore’s estimate of slightly over 1.5 million men enlisting in the Union army. However, Livermore’s estimates were actually higher, and with more recent estimates of over 2 million enlisted, the estimate of Union desertion is about one in ten men. Regardless, Confederate desertion proved much more damning. Desertion depleted an army that needed every able-bodied man. Its effects were felt not only in terms of those who deserted the ranks, but also in the manpower and resources dedicated to chasing and recovering deserters. As the war progressed desertion also raised questions as to the strength of Confederate nationalism when duty to nation came into direct conflict with men’s obligations to home and family.

While many Southerners readily stepped up to fight for the new nation, in reality recruitment posed problems from the start. While there are numerous examples of volunteer units forming and training even before the war began almost every state experienced difficulty in raising the number of troops expected by the Confederate government. James Chestnut of South Carolina indicated that about half of the Palmetto State’s eligible young men answered the call in 1861. Those who enlisted did so believing in the government’s promise to provide for their families in their absence. They also enlisted knowing that not everyone had to enlist.

The South’s unique dependence on slavery raised concerns that a total depletion of the white male population could give rise to slave insurrection. The fifteen- and twenty-slave rules allowed planters with at least that number of slaves to exempt from service one white male, usually an overseer. This exemption was in addition to other exemptions from service that were not tied to slavery. Railroad workers, telegraph operators, miners and civil servants were examples of non-slavery related exemptions. Exemptions notwithstanding, some desertion occurred early in the war, but it did not start to become a problem until 1862. Confederate success on the battlefield coupled with the home front not experiencing the hardships brought on by the depletion of its male population, served to lessen some of the motives that might cause men to desert. However, as the war moved into its second year, a variety of factors combined to undermine the Confederacy’s ability to keep its army in the field.

Enlistment had not met expectations, and in April 1862 the Confederacy became the first side to resort to the draft. Under the threat of being drafted more men enlisted in February and March of 1862 because by doing so they preserved the ability to fight with men they knew in units organized on a local level. Thereafter the Confederate army relied predominately on men who had not been willing to join under any circumstances. At the same time the draft became a reality, the Confederate government unilaterally extended the one-year enlistments of 1861 into three-year commitments. Eventually the three-year commitments became obligations for the duration of the war. These wartime measures added an element of coercion to military service that did not exist in 1861.

As the Confederacy moved to bolster its army, events beyond its control increased the possibility of losing men to desertion. At the start of the war almost 84% of Southerners engaged in some form of agriculture, the vast majority falling in the yeoman farmer category. People farmed to survive and the family unit depended on all of its members to contribute. By the summer of 1862 the families of men who enlisted when the war began had been without some or all of their male workforce for a year, and although those at home continued to do what was necessary to survive, the task became more difficult. In addition, shortages began to occur in crucial necessities, salt in particular. A world without refrigeration depended on salt for meat preservation, and the South began to struggle to provide enough for both civilians and the army. As the home front began to experience hardship a key component of its soldiers’ willingness to enlist began to fail. Government officials from almost every Southern state had openly represented to the soldiers that those who remained at home would be provided for in the absence of their men. Soldier family relief programs, organized on both the state and county level, proved unable to meet the demands placed upon them. Not every region or state suffered at the same time, but as the home front began to feel the strain of war, women began writing to their fathers, husbands, and brothers bringing the reality of the hardships at home to those on the battlefield.

In the spring and summer of 1862 the Union took steps to take advantage of the situation. Over a year before Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction marked the beginning of wartime reconstruction, the Union army implemented a program that induced Confederate soldiers to desert, and at the heart of its efforts was the swearing of an oath of allegiance to the Union. The Union offered any Confederate soldier who deserted and came into Union lines the opportunity to swear the oath of allegiance and return home. Part of the offer included transportation as far south as the Union occupied. As the Union moved deeper into the South, particularly in the western theater, this offer enabled soldiers from places in the Deep South to desert with a realistic chance of getting home safely. Desertion in the Confederacy came from both a “push and a pull.” Life as a soldier was far from ideal, but the rigors of military life alone and the specter of death in combat or in camp were often not enough to compel a man to risk capture and punishment, perhaps even death. The pull from home made the decision easier for some, but willingness alone was often insufficient. The Union hoped to provide the element of safety to Confederate soldiers contemplating desertion. By 1865 over 30,000 Confederate soldiers took this route out of the Confederate army.

Following the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, even General Robert E. Lee conceded that desertion had become so a severe that it threatened the Confederacy’s ability to wage war. The harm to the Confederacy’s war effort was difficult to ignore. Soldiers took not only themselves, but also their weapons out of the fray. At home, state governors resisted national efforts to recruit more troops insisting that men were needed to hunt deserters and protect the home front. In some areas of the South deserter bands preyed upon the local civilian population, making difficult conditions even harsher. When Lincoln announced his program of amnesty and wartime reconstruction in 1863, civilian oath swearing as a condition to wartime readmission into the Union made it harder to keep men fighting for a cause that appeared to some to be evaporating on the home front. If those at home were conceding the inevitable and swearing allegiance to the Union, why continue to fight?

The last sixteen months of the war saw desertion cripple an already depleted army. Sherman’s invasion of Georgia in the spring and summer of 1864 allowed the Union desertion program to operate in the northern part of the state as men deserted in the wake of the North’s successful march to Atlanta. Lieutenant General John Bell Hood’s ill-fated invasion into Tennessee late that year helped complete the deterioration of the Army of Tennessee, as many men who survived the twin disasters of Franklin and Nashville, Tennesseans in particular, chose not to accompany the army into the Carolinas. In the east the stalemate outside of Richmond and Petersburg marked the end of any sustained offensive efforts by Lee’s army. The siege that ensued made desertion much easier, and men took advantage of the opportunity. Both Union and Confederate records reflect a steady stream of Confederate deserters into Union lines over the course of the ten-month siege.

PUNISHMENT:

Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of desertion for both North and South lay in how to discipline captured deserters. Early in the war leniency dominated the conduct of both armies. Confederate court-martial proceedings reflect a willingness to look at individual circumstances and see desertion, even when men traveled behind enemy lines, as only a temporary departure, or “absence without leave.” In reality only about 10% of those who deserted ever returned willingly despite a belief among many historians that most Confederates took only “French leave” and intended to return. Lincoln’s unwillingness to execute deserters frustrated Union efforts to deal with the problem. One story tells of Edwin Stanton sending an envelope with fifty-five deserter cases to Abraham Lincoln for his review, and Lincoln simply writing “pardoned” on the envelope and sending it back. Military service records on both sides reflect men that had been “recovered” from desertion.

Alternatives to execution varied. In 1861 Confederate laws allowed for flogging up to thirty-nine lashes and branding the convicted man with the letter “D.” Branding had been used in the pre-Civil War Union army as well. However, both sides abandoned the practice and the Confederate congress removed both flogging and branding as acceptable forms of punishment early in the war. Short of execution, soldiers could be incarcerated in the stockade and subjected to a variety of non-lethal punishments designed to humiliate the offender. Men could be forced to wear a wooden sign indicating they deserted or displayed cowardice. Being drummed out of the army, while available as a punishment alternative, also ran contrary to the goal of keeping men in the service and was seldom used for deserters. Another common punishment, wearing an iron ball and chain, not only served to shame the offender, but also made deserting more difficult if not impossible.

While both sides showed an early reluctance to execute deserters, court martial records indicate that death by firing squad became an accepted means of dealing with the problem. Lieutenant General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson authorized the execution of five deserters from two different divisions in August 1862. In Tennessee, General Braxton Bragg had Private Asa Lewis executed for leaving the army twice. Lewis left to attend to his ill mother, but Bragg proved unsympathetic to his plight. Coming at Christmastime, the execution actually dampened morale. Bragg’s decision reflected a belief that temporary absence had to be stopped. Soldiers could not simply choose when they wanted to be gone, and a revolving door of unauthorized departures could be as damaging as outright desertion. Lieutenant General James Longstreet conceded as much in September 1862 when the south invaded Maryland without over 7,000 men who had either deserted or left only to return when the fighting was over. Regardless of their intent, these men absented themselves when they were needed most.

Even after both sides began executing deserters, less than 400 actually faced a firing squad in either army. However, soldiers’ diaries and letters reveal that when they occurred, executions had a sobering effect on those who witnessed the spectacle. Chaplain John R. W. Jewell of the 7th Indiana described an execution in Northern Virginia in 1863. With the entire division formed in a three –sided square, the convicted deserter marched to his place of execution, marked by a freshly dug grave next to which a crude coffin was placed. With drums slowly beating and a brass band playing a somber dirge, the company preacher administered some last words while the entire unit watched. When the preacher finished, the accused stood and faced a twelve-man firing squad, quietly allowed himself to be blindfolded, and awaited his fate. The accused did not wait long as the detail aimed and fired. Once the man’s death was confirmed the entire division marched past the body laid out on the ground next to the coffin. Not all executions were so formal, and the one described by Reverend Jewell indicates the degree to which the Union went to punish the crime. The executed man had been discovered in another unit where he had gone after deserting and re-enlisting and an officer in his former unit recognized him during company drill.

Confederate executions followed a similar script, and as the war progressed there are examples of multiple executions in some units on the same day. In the South Confederate soldiers also faced the added risk of being punished by Home Guards who patrolled counties unoccupied by the Union and would summarily execute deserters. However, even when execution became more common, some officers complained that the army failed to apply the penalty in a consistent manner. Lieutenant General Richard Taylor observed in 1864 that while men were executed in one unit, the same offense met with a far more lenient punishment in another unit within the same command. Aside from any shortcomings of the inconsistent application of the death penalty, by the time the Confederacy realized that desertion had to be punished severely, the problem had gone beyond the army’s ability to deter it.




Quote

NOTE ON SOURCES: The reader will immediately notice that there is far more scholarly work on the subject of Confederate desertion than its Union counterpart. Ella Lonn’s 1928 work is the only monograph that addresses Union desertion in any depth. There are three book length studies of Confederate desertion in addition to a variety of journal articles. The articles however tend for the most part to focus on Virginia and North Carolina. The imbalance in the literature reflects in some way the notion that desertion hurt the Confederacy far more than the Union and thus the story is somehow more important. That may not be the case. Lonn argued in her study that Union desertion may have prolonged the war by preventing the North from bringing even more overwhelming numbers to bear on the Confederacy. While it is difficult to argue with the many ways that desertion undermined the Southern war effort, a study of Northern desertion and its real impact on the war would be a welcomed addition to the growing, but nevertheless sparse literature on the subject of Civil War desertion.

There’s as much if not more difference betwixt the North and the South today as it was in 1860! The Germanic breeding of the northern people cannot co-exist with the English and Irish dogma of the South!!
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/...eId=ca1a1e4d-39e9-4d3d-914b-d054ddf00485

Perhaps with the coming of the absolute corruption of the modern political parties: the Democrats are a disease; the Republicans are on life support from inbreeding and nonsensical Lincolnian untruths. Lincoln was no more than a political thug but sold himself the way Barack Obama’s cohorts sold him: Blow him up and turn him loose to rocket through the air to the ahistorical children to cheer.

The Democrats haven’t the need to sell themselves as anything. They are simply a horrible expanse of looters, liars, and con artists. No? Check their “ideas” for printing money, taxing wealth, castigating anyone who is not one of them as a racist, misogynist, etc. ad infinitum. Then listen to their “leader” who most probably is demented to some degree, as well as the “Second in command” the cackling former whore of Democrat Willie Brown. No, again? Didn’t she get paid for her service? Check Webster for a different definition.

The Republicans blather on about how the Democrats are the party of slavery and Lincoln saved the nation (they briefly call it the union when they ballyhoo the great bearded one) and freed the slaves from the evil Democrats. It is too late to refute this nonsense just as it is too late for the Democrats to gain honor. Slavery wasn’t a choice of a political party. For that matter, political parties weren’t a particular choice of the founders. That last message is for those Republican babblers who get their history from radio talk shows or fraudulent stories like Roots. Are you listening: D’Souza, Levin, Hannity?

For those who want the most recent treatise on the subject (many have gone unread over the past 150 years) they might try the excellent book: It Wasn’t About Slavery by Samuel Mitcham. There has been much written over the past century and a half but as Churchill said, the winner writes the history—so the South (and the Founders) were left in the historical fog of the past. But good historians like Mitcham keep trying. This latest effort to the South’s cause is an excellent attempt.

The South founded a confederacy (CSA) from a confederacy (USA).

The truth is we were never such a nation at all. We began as colonies of separate cultures then became a Union (remember “a more perfect union”?) Never would the founders (at least not the Jeffersonians) entertain a “nation.” But no matter, this sort of drivel is what public education has given us; along with the Yankee version of their “civil war.” The South just would not obey so the Yankees had to burn, loot and steal because they could no longer loot in the non-so-perfect union. This looting, etc. of course was what they referred to in their masquerading mendacity as a “civil war.”
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Why then we'll have to disagree.

As to why northern boys would enlist to fight the war, I have asked that question about my two great great grandfathers. Picture yourself as an Ohio farm boy. Your life is pretty boring. Your life is all laid out. You've never met a Southerner but heard bad things about them. Suddenly, they want to leave your country. Isn't that good? Why try to stop them?

Well, a local politician appoints himself a Colonel and raises a regiment. Aha, a chance for some excitement. To see the world. Spiffy uniforms. An enlistment bonus in cash. And everyone knows it'll be over by Christmas. This is your last--and maybe--only chance. Besides everyone's doing it. Danger? No, glory. One big battle and the Rebs will all run away like dogs....won't they?

The same sort of ferver infected the boys of hte European powers at the start of World War I.

The "fine print" in the contract said it was a 3-year enlistment. At the end of that time neither one re-enlisted, even though the war was not yet over.


It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of you being wrong.
Good reading here, excellent points all over.

Had nothing to do with the MORALITY of Slavery. North didn't give a crap about blacks. Just look at what happened after the war at the hands of Union troops. And what Lincoln wanted to do and what he said about the black race.


As several said.... follow the money. All about the money and power. Been that way since Biblical times.
Well it actually did have a lot to do with the Declaration's promise of equality. It was indeed a messy affair all the way around. The South would've had to abandon the notion of Slavery eventually but couldn't see their way to do it at that time. The war was instigated by rich plantation owners that had skin in the game and could ill afford to loose their investment. Most of those asses ran the war and the poor illiterate prideful southern men paid the ultimate price. Lincoln's murder by a Southern sympathizer threw the Reconstruction into chaos. Johnson was a Southern sympathizer and an idiot to boot. Carpetbaggers stole what they could and all in all made the situation much worse in the south for generations to come. Nathan Bedford Forrest abandoned the KKK after he'd seen what it had become. Longstreet, one of the south's greatest tacticians, became a republican and ended up one of the most hated men in the south through no fault of his own. Sherman was actually a southern sympathizer but saw an opportunity for glory and took it after nearly getting institutionalized for insanity. He waged a war of total attrition against southern citizenry and army alike. His march through South Carolina was more deadly and atrocious than Georgia if that can be imagined.


The Civil War should have never happened and there were indeed many underlying reasons other than Slavery but that was the great divider. The South's warm water ports and it's agrarian economy and textile mills were essential to the north and the north's mechanization and steel mills were essential to the south. A weak corrupted central government added to the problem. Lincoln was a decent man. We all have flaws and he did attempt to mollify the southern demands but extending slavery to new territories was not one of his options. He had to fight his own government and prosecute the war at the same time.

We are suffering some of the same problems now. We have a corrupt government that is dividing the citizens. Democrats are up to their old tricks that worked so well in the KKK. Divide and conquer. Fracturing the Nation would have ended in foreign control then and it will now. Look at the idiots in control of many of our states as it is. We must unite to defeat the Goliath Democrat Marxist union that has a grip on the Nation at present. We didn't get this way over night and it won't be fixed easily or soon either but it can and will if we stick together. Fighting a war that ended in the lost treasure of nearly 700K of out men will not bring back the dead nor mollify the living.
Originally Posted by rainshot
Well it actually did have a lot to do with the Declaration's promise of equality. It was indeed a messy affair all the way around. The South would've had to abandon the notion of Slavery eventually but couldn't see their way to do it at that time. The war was instigated by rich plantation owners that had skin in the game and could ill afford to loose their investment. Most of those asses ran the war and the poor illiterate prideful southern men paid the ultimate price. Lincoln's murder by a Southern sympathizer threw the Reconstruction into chaos. Johnson was a Southern sympathizer and an idiot to boot. Carpetbaggers stole what they could and all in all made the situation much worse in the south for generations to come. Nathan Bedford Forrest abandoned the KKK after he'd seen what it had become. Longstreet, one of the south's greatest tacticians, became a republican and ended up one of the most hated men in the south through no fault of his own. Sherman was actually a southern sympathizer but saw an opportunity for glory and took it after nearly getting institutionalized for insanity. He waged a war of total attrition against southern citizenry and army alike. His march through South Carolina was more deadly and atrocious than Georgia if that can be imagined.


The Civil War should have never happened and there were indeed many underlying reasons other than Slavery but that was the great divider. The South's warm water ports and it's agrarian economy and textile mills were essential to the north and the north's mechanization and steel mills were essential to the south. A weak corrupted central government added to the problem. Lincoln was a decent man. We all have flaws and he did attempt to mollify the southern demands but extending slavery to new territories was not one of his options. He had to fight his own government and prosecute the war at the same time.

We are suffering some of the same problems now. We have a corrupt government that is dividing the citizens. Democrats are up to their old tricks that worked so well in the KKK. Divide and conquer. Fracturing the Nation would have ended in foreign control then and it will now. Look at the idiots in control of many of our states as it is. We must unite to defeat the Goliath Democrat Marxist union that has a grip on the Nation at present. We didn't get this way over night and it won't be fixed easily or soon either but it can and will if we stick together. Fighting a war that ended in the lost treasure of nearly 700K of out men will not bring back the dead nor mollify the living.


That is some stupid schit right there. No, that’s too harsh. But Lincoln was not a decent man and the war was not brought on by southern demands.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.

You have two different subjects. Secession is one fighting is the other. The south was attacked by the north. The south fought back.
Originally Posted by OldSchool_BestSchool
Slavery was the worst thing to happen to this country. Look at the millions of blacks here today as a result of it.

Best post of the thread
Originally Posted by rainshot
Lincoln was a decent man. We all have flaws and he did attempt to mollify the southern demands but extending slavery to new territories was not one of his options. He had to fight his own government and prosecute the war at the same time.


I vehemently disagree with your view on Abraham Lincoln. He was a thug who surrounded himself with atheists, socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, and Jacobins.
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Originally Posted by rainshot
Lincoln was a decent man. We all have flaws and he did attempt to mollify the southern demands but extending slavery to new territories was not one of his options. He had to fight his own government and prosecute the war at the same time.


I vehemently disagree with your view on Abraham Lincoln. He was a thug who surrounded himself with atheists, socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, and Jacobins.


Much truth in this down to his exchanging letters with Karl Marx.
I look at it all this way,

We must learn from the gross and ignorant mistakes make by both sides in our past, and we must remember not to repeat them in the coming conflict.

I feel the same brotherhood with my country brethren of Pennsylvania as I do those in Alabama.

And American brotherhood. We need to bury all those past differences again. And be one!
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
I look at it all this way,

We must learn from the gross and ignorant mistakes make by both sides in our past, and we must remember not to repeat them in the coming conflict.

I feel the same brotherhood with my country brethren of Pennsylvania as I do those in Alabama.

And American brotherhood. We need to bury all those past differences again. And be one!



I think we're getting closer to seeing allot of burying.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Why then we'll have to disagree.

As to why northern boys would enlist to fight the war, I have asked that question about my two great great grandfathers. Picture yourself as an Ohio farm boy. Your life is pretty boring. Your life is all laid out. You've never met a Southerner but heard bad things about them. Suddenly, they want to leave your country. Isn't that good? Why try to stop them?

Well, a local politician appoints himself a Colonel and raises a regiment. Aha, a chance for some excitement. To see the world. Spiffy uniforms. An enlistment bonus in cash. And everyone knows it'll be over by Christmas. This is your last--and maybe--only chance. Besides everyone's doing it. Danger? No, glory. One big battle and the Rebs will all run away like dogs....won't they?

The same sort of ferver infected the boys of hte European powers at the start of World War I.

The "fine print" in the contract said it was a 3-year enlistment. At the end of that time neither one re-enlisted, even though the war was not yet over.


It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of you being wrong.


1000% wrong. The "it was about slavery is pure horseshit
Originally Posted by Jim1611
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
I look at it all this way,

We must learn from the gross and ignorant mistakes make by both sides in our past, and we must remember not to repeat them in the coming conflict.

I feel the same brotherhood with my country brethren of Pennsylvania as I do those in Alabama.

And American brotherhood. We need to bury all those past differences again. And be one!



I think we're getting closer to seeing allot of burying.


Jim, unfortunately I fear it’s just around the corner.
"One nation, under God"!
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
One of our strengths is diversity.


Diversity is our stench.
Originally Posted by add
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
One of our strengths is diversity.


Diversity is our stench.



For Christ's sake read the post and think.

I was hitting on our mixed attributes.
Urban/rural and ag/industry.

The diversity kind of fit. And was thrown in for humor.
And even gave a hint.

Ho-li-phudge!

No wonder we fought a civil war. People are so dam one sided and ready
to prove themselves right they get offended at a nothing joke.
That's pointed out as a joke!
Originally Posted by deflave
The construct of our republic is as close to perfect as any nation could hope. But our country was still very young at the time of the Civil War and there were legitimate disagreements on many issues from both sides.

In the end, the fact that the United States remained united caused our nation to be stronger.

The south was not wrong. The north was not wrong. Both sides had their reasons to fight at the time and it is absurd to question or undermine any American’s choice to fight in that war. Especially given the luxury of hindsight in 2021.

That war was the product of growing pains that were inevitable to occur in a republic like ours. All the men that fought in that war should be revered, and honored. All of them.





The Flave outdid himself here.

No one is gonna top this post.

Not a dam chance.

Some will argue it though.
Because you said their opposition wasn't completely, dead nuts, 1050%, totally, completely WRONG!
And "tupid too!
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


You certainly don’t know history. The initial attack was in Philadelphia over the price of tea that was being shipped to San Francisco through the Panama Canal without paying the duty on the storage containers. If Alaska hadn’t joined in the war effort for the North, it may have lasted into the 1860’s.
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Originally Posted by add
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
One of our strengths is diversity.


Diversity is our stench.



For Christ's sake read the post and think.

I was hitting on our mixed attributes.
Urban/rural and ag/industry.

The diversity kind of fit. And was thrown in for humor.
And even gave a hint.

Ho-li-phudge!

No wonder we fought a civil war. People are so dam one sided and ready
to prove themselves right they get offended at a nothing joke.
That's pointed out as a joke!


I got your post and mine was a play off it.

Sheesh.

Hold into the prickly.
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Originally Posted by deflave
The construct of our republic is as close to perfect as any nation could hope. But our country was still very young at the time of the Civil War and there were legitimate disagreements on many issues from both sides.

In the end, the fact that the United States remained united caused our nation to be stronger.

The south was not wrong. The north was not wrong. Both sides had their reasons to fight at the time and it is absurd to question or undermine any American’s choice to fight in that war. Especially given the luxury of hindsight in 2021.

That war was the product of growing pains that were inevitable to occur in a republic like ours. All the men that fought in that war should be revered, and honored. All of them.





The Flave outdid himself here.

No one is gonna top this post.

Not a dam chance.

Some will argue it though.
Because you said their opposition wasn't completely, dead nuts, 1050%, totally, completely WRONG!
And "tupid too!


The vast majority of Civil War conversations are taken part by people that have a preconceived notion about the war.

It ends up being "the books I read are right, the books you read were wrong."

Southerners are the worst about it. Obviously.
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Statements of Causes.....

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

...and the Confederate Veep on the causes of Secession...

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
I can say this about the Civil War. The government at that time, ran by Lincoln sent it's army into a state over reasons that have been debated since that day. That state fought back. Fast forward to today. When and if the president of whatever time uses armed forces against it's own citizens there will already be a propaganda play book in use to make it so all the blame falls on the side that opposes the federal government. You can bank on that.
Originally Posted by Jim1611
I can say this about the Civil War. The government at that time, ran by Lincoln sent it's army into a state over reasons that have been debated since that day. That state fought back. Fast forward to today. When and if the president of whatever time uses armed forces against it's own citizens there will already be a propaganda play book in use to make it so all the blame falls on the side that opposes the federal government. You can bank on that.


They will produce their "Emancipation Proclamation" to sanctify their cause.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Statements of Causes.....

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

...and the Confederate Veep on the causes of Secession...

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech





There are five states there. There were eleven in the Confederacy. Now tell me what event caused the last four states to join the Confederacy.

And I knew someone would drag out the Alexander Stephens speech. Tell me how you will feel being judged in history for a speech given by Kamala Harris. Does she represent your views? Does she represent the views of the people you know? The views of your state? The views of your state legislature? Or is she a politician saying things that may or may not be true for her own reasons?
Southerners hating Yankees, Yankees hating Southerners.
The middle off the U.S. hating those on the coasts.
Everyone absolutely Despising California...

All I know is that conservatives need to band together where ever they can be found. Things are going to get dicey and its not going to be a regional conflict. It's going to be a fundamental and moral conflict.
Know your Enemy.
Originally Posted by RUM7
Southerners hating Yankees, Yankees hating Southerners.
The middle off the U.S. hating those on the coasts.
Everyone absolutely Despising California...

All I know is that conservatives need to band together where ever they can be found. Things are going to get dicey and its not going to be a regional conflict. It's going to be a fundamental and moral conflict.
Know your Enemy.

In the manner that my Southern friends interpret/utilize the term Yankee……..I hate them too.
Used in simply the geographic sense, I don’t much give a phuque who dislikes me based on my location.
Yankee isn’t strictly a geographic term. It can be, but it is a bit more specific than that. Though it would be true to state that since slightly before the Civil War and mostly since, Yankees have hijacked the national government, set policy, and determined what is and isn’t “American”.
Originally Posted by Jim1611
I can say this about the Civil War. The government at that time, ran by Lincoln sent it's army into a state over reasons that have been debated since that day. That state fought back. Fast forward to today. When and if the president of whatever time uses armed forces against it's own citizens there will already be a propaganda play book in use to make it so all the blame falls on the side that opposes the federal government. You can bank on that.



The playbook will be the same. They’ll still be fighting backwards racists who wish to subjugate a race of noble and long suffering black people.
In Canada, a black from Mississippi is a yank.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
In Canada, a black from Mississippi is a yank.



Is yank Canadian for son-in-law?
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.


LOL
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Yankee isn’t strictly a geographic term. It can be, but it is a bit more specific than that. Though it would be true to state that since slightly before the Civil War and mostly since, Yankees have hijacked the national government, set policy, and determined what is and isn’t “American”.


“Yankee” means whatever a person wants it to mean.

Same as n—-er.

“Texan” on the other hand…

LOL
Originally Posted by wabigoon
In Canada, a black from Mississippi is a yank.


NGAF what anything means in Canaduh.

At all.
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Yankee isn’t strictly a geographic term. It can be, but it is a bit more specific than that. Though it would be true to state that since slightly before the Civil War and mostly since, Yankees have hijacked the national government, set policy, and determined what is and isn’t “American”.


“Yankee” means whatever a person wants it to mean.

Same as n—-er.

“Texan” on the other hand…

LOL


Nope, Yankee is actually a fairly specific historical term. It’s probably 300 years old at least.
Originally Posted by add
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Originally Posted by add
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
One of our strengths is diversity.


Diversity is our stench.



For Christ's sake read the post and think.

I was hitting on our mixed attributes.
Urban/rural and ag/industry.

The diversity kind of fit. And was thrown in for humor.
And even gave a hint.

Ho-li-phudge!

No wonder we fought a civil war. People are so dam one sided and ready
to prove themselves right they get offended at a nothing joke.
That's pointed out as a joke!


I got your post and mine was a play off it.

Sheesh.

Hold into the prickly.



I did. About 3 feet too far! blush
I don't think anyone can prove that Lincoln was into Marx. Read this article;

https://www.aier.org/article/was-lincoln-really-into-marx/

It serves no one to attack each other especially over a war that was settled long ago. I have no animosity toward anyone or any color. I have plenty of demons to fight with democrats running rampant destroying our Nation and stealing elections with corruption.
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Originally Posted by rainshot
Lincoln was a decent man. We all have flaws and he did attempt to mollify the southern demands but extending slavery to new territories was not one of his options. He had to fight his own government and prosecute the war at the same time.


I vehemently disagree with your view on Abraham Lincoln. He was a thug who surrounded himself with atheists, socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, and Jacobins.


Too damn bad Booth didn’t shoot that POS before the Election.
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
Originally Posted by Jim1611
I can say this about the Civil War. The government at that time, ran by Lincoln sent it's army into a state over reasons that have been debated since that day. That state fought back. Fast forward to today. When and if the president of whatever time uses armed forces against it's own citizens there will already be a propaganda play book in use to make it so all the blame falls on the side that opposes the federal government. You can bank on that.


They will produce their "Emancipation Proclamation" to sanctify their cause.


Yep. I’m sure they’ve already working on it. Biden’s already threatened us with Nukes and F-15’s.
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Except for little POS Trolls. Like you. Tell us where the big ole Texan hurt your Pussy.
Douglas McCarther burning out the bonus marchers. [Linked Image from mstartzman.pbworks.com]
Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Except for little POS Trolls. Like you. Tell us where the big ole Texan hurt your Pussy.

Steers and queers come from Texas, my guess is you are the latter.
these civil war threads are the greatest.

Gold Jerry, Gold
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
I have pondered this. I know sectional differences had simmered for a long time...it puzzles me why so many would oppose a separate country and die to prevent it.... giving your life to keep the nation united

I also believe that few Northern whites opposed slavery on moral grounds... the phrase in the Battle Hymn of the Republic "let us die to make men free" is enigmatic.


This will NEVER happen! In fact they are getting ready to appoint ONE king over the entire world and we will have a one world government
I am only going to say this one thing about this. I had 2 Great Grandfathers that fought for the South and neither owned Slaves, nor did their families. miles
Originally Posted by milespatton
I am only going to say this one thing about this. I had 2 Great Grandfathers that fought for the South and neither owned Slaves, nor did their families. miles

Southerners did not fight so plantation owners could have slaves.
Originally Posted by callnum
Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Except for little POS Trolls. Like you. Tell us where the big ole Texan hurt your Pussy.

Steers and queers come from Texas, my guess is you are the latter.


Come on down. We’ll enjoy educating a POS like you on the difference.
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.



And that is perfectly fine with me.

Have a great weekend. Im doing pork ribs tomorrow.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Yankee isn’t strictly a geographic term. It can be, but it is a bit more specific than that. Though it would be true to state that since slightly before the Civil War and mostly since, Yankees have hijacked the national government, set policy, and determined what is and isn’t “American”.


“Yankee” means whatever a person wants it to mean.

Same as n—-er.

“Texan” on the other hand…

LOL


Nope, Yankee is actually a fairly specific historical term. It’s probably 300 years old at least.


OK
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Calls4cum,

Got any pics of that “big city” you live in?

LOL
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.

You have two different subjects. Secession is one fighting is the other. The south was attacked by the north. The south fought back.


That's a good point about two different subjects, now that you mention it. The Southern states actually wanted to secede peacefully and maintain relations with the North. They were willing to pay cash for Ft. Sumter et al. Lincoln would not allow that because what would happen if later Texas wanted to secede from the CSA or New England wanted to secede from the USA? Our country would have dissolved.

Is secession legal? Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. No court has ever ruled on whether it is or not.

California almost seceded in 1861. Their thought was to remain neutral. Kentucky declared neutrality but the South overreached a bit and invaded Kentucky. Maryland wanted to secede but northern troops prevented them.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Originally Posted by jdm953
The south didnt fight a war to keep slaves. They fought because they were attacked. They simply fought back.


I've read most of the declarations of independence published by each of the southers states. Preserving slavery was mentioned as the prime cause of their secession. I don't recallany mention of being attacked.


No you haven’t, or you wouldn’t say that.


Why then we'll have to disagree.

As to why northern boys would enlist to fight the war, I have asked that question about my two great great grandfathers. Picture yourself as an Ohio farm boy. Your life is pretty boring. Your life is all laid out. You've never met a Southerner but heard bad things about them. Suddenly, they want to leave your country. Isn't that good? Why try to stop them?

Well, a local politician appoints himself a Colonel and raises a regiment. Aha, a chance for some excitement. To see the world. Spiffy uniforms. An enlistment bonus in cash. And everyone knows it'll be over by Christmas. This is your last--and maybe--only chance. Besides everyone's doing it. Danger? No, glory. One big battle and the Rebs will all run away like dogs....won't they?

The same sort of ferver infected the boys of hte European powers at the start of World War I.

The "fine print" in the contract said it was a 3-year enlistment. At the end of that time neither one re-enlisted, even though the war was not yet over.


It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of you being wrong.


Could be but please read the Georgia Declaration of Independence (and others) that Birdwatcher posted about a page after my post.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.


Come try phaggot. Bring your friends
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Calls4cum,

Got any pics of that “big city” you live in?

LOL

Sure isn’t anywhere in Florida. Only state worse than Texas.
Why did you follow the beat bag there?
LOL
Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
Originally Posted by Jim1611
I can say this about the Civil War. The government at that time, ran by Lincoln sent it's army into a state over reasons that have been debated since that day. That state fought back. Fast forward to today. When and if the president of whatever time uses armed forces against it's own citizens there will already be a propaganda play book in use to make it so all the blame falls on the side that opposes the federal government. You can bank on that.


They will produce their "Emancipation Proclamation" to sanctify their cause.


Yep. I’m sure they’ve already working on it. Biden’s already threatened us with Nukes and F-15’s.

They have a playbook for everything under the sun just waiting for the right event to let them use it.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.


That’s because you will need the help of the three Mexicans to throw that one Yankee in the ocean. It’s not like you can send the slaves to do it for you anymore. LOL!
The last American Civil War was about taxation and (lack of) representation. You are seeing it again.
Originally Posted by ltppowell
The last American Civil War was about taxation and (lack of) representation. You are seeing it again.


Yep!
This time it's not about cotton, pine and indigenous savages. The boundaries are not nearly as clearly defined. Every Yankee is not dependent on government and every Southerner is not independent of Government as was the case last time. It's a little different when D.C. robs a Rebel business and it wrecks a Yankees 401k.
Michigan, Illinois, and Kansas should have been invaded and burned by the South. But Be Well, RZ.
Originally Posted by Rustyzipper
Michigan, Illinois, and Kansas should have been invaded and burned by the South. But Be Well, RZ.


Lol...most of the "burning" did not occur until after the war was over. That's what the hard feelings stem from.
Originally Posted by ltppowell
Originally Posted by Rustyzipper
Michigan, Illinois, and Kansas should have been invaded and burned by the South. But Be Well, RZ.


Lol...most of the "burning" did not occur until after the war was over. That's what the hard feelings stem from.


Bingo.

Reconstruction was this nations grandest black mark. The equal of slavery in all its attributes.
Originally Posted by ltppowell
This time it's not about cotton, pine and indigenous savages. The boundaries are not nearly as clearly defined. Every Yankee is not dependent on government and every Southerner is not independent of Government as was the case last time. It's a little different when D.C. robs a Rebel business and it wrecks a Yankees 401k.




How was every Yankee dependent, and every Southerner not?
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Originally Posted by ltppowell
This time it's not about cotton, pine and indigenous savages. The boundaries are not nearly as clearly defined. Every Yankee is not dependent on government and every Southerner is not independent of Government as was the case last time. It's a little different when D.C. robs a Rebel business and it wrecks a Yankees 401k.




How was every Yankee dependent, and every Southerner not?


It’s just more made up bullschit.
Originally Posted by callnum
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by callnum
Absolutely no one cares about Texas.


Calls4cum,

Got any pics of that “big city” you live in?

LOL

Sure isn’t anywhere in Florida. Only state worse than Texas.
Why did you follow the beat bag there?
LOL


Because I can afford it.

You cannot.

LOL
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...


You’re right. I shouldn’t be so closed minded. I’ll consider taking four or five Mexicans for every Yankee I can throw in the ocean.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...


You’re right. I shouldn’t be so closed minded. I’ll consider taking four or five Mexicans for every Yankee I can throw in the ocean.

If they weren’t so dirty leaving trash everywhere
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...


You’re right. I shouldn’t be so closed minded. I’ll consider taking four or five Mexicans for every Yankee I can throw in the ocean.

Oh...IF you mean "yankee" to mean a state of mind or ideology, then I can see your point, but your meaning is a "blanket statement" of everyone above the Mason-Dixon, then it's an incredibly misguided statement...
False narrative.
Men went to fight because men were going to fight.
Same as all wars.
Peer pressure, socially constructive guilt, with a pinch of "adventure".
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...


You’re right. I shouldn’t be so closed minded. I’ll consider taking four or five Mexicans for every Yankee I can throw in the ocean.

Oh...IF you mean "yankee" to mean a state of mind or ideology, then I can see your point, but your meaning is a "blanket statement" of everyone above the Mason-Dixon, then it's an incredibly misguided statement...


I really don’t care if you think it’s misguided or not. They can all go to hell and I’ll take Mexicans over the bastards.
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Dam good chance that if it had split, it wouldn't have looked good after
a few decades. One of our strengths is diversity.

That was fun!

Seriously. We had manufacturing, ag, mining. Steel was coming on,
infrastructure to put it all together. And it all worked as one machine,
without too much BS competing among jurisdictions.

Couple that with the Europeans circling like buzzards to grab a
foothold and move back in.

Heck, they were supplying both sides in our war and looking to
slip into the fray at the first easy chance.

This is all mental masturbation, some think of today's political
makeup and feel the south would be better off. Possibly.

Or, the migrations north for work,
then South by manufacturing, wouldn't have happened.
The Depression and run up to WWII are what modernized
the rural South. What would that look like if the country was split?

Would the south would be like some "used to be great" ag centered
countries that are now 3rd world s-holes. Probably not. It's not
like there was no industry in Dixie.
But who knows.

Some like to play regional rivalry BS.
It's all history to me. An incident 150 years over is interesting.
But long over.

Right now, we are in a fight of at least as much importance.
Some here talk stupid crap of relinquishing territory to our
enemies.

Never!






Not important. We had slaves. Bleck Power.

Anyway, as it was, the war has maybe destroyed us anyway and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US servicemen.

How?
By leading to war debt Grant paid off by selling the US out to the Crown and Vatican in the acts of 1870 and 1871 which put foreign Zionists in positiins of power in the Military/Industrial Complex and banking system.

It let Lincoln put in a different economic system.designed to fail.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JoeBob
You don’t have to read a book to hate Yankees. I’ll take three Mexicans for every Yankee we get to throw in the ocean.

Dealing in absolutes is absolute idiocy...


You’re right. I shouldn’t be so closed minded. I’ll consider taking four or five Mexicans for every Yankee I can throw in the ocean.

Oh...IF you mean "yankee" to mean a state of mind or ideology, then I can see your point, but your meaning is a "blanket statement" of everyone above the Mason-Dixon, then it's an incredibly misguided statement...


I really don’t care if you think it’s misguided or not. They can all go to hell and I’ll take Mexicans over the bastards.

IT was a "simple" question, sorry you didn't get it...I used "misguided" trying to be civil, but there were better words...
Thank god, it had been too long since we had a thread like this
Division! Remember division. "we few, we happy few" MUST remain united if we are going to weather whats coming and come out on top!

Or die trying!
© 24hourcampfire