I have a couple of thoughts related to the War Between the States brought on by the thread about N.B. Forrest, and I figured the discussion deserves its own thread. First off, I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I believe Lincoln brought on the war without trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He painted the south into a corner at Sumter, forcing them to seem the aggressor with no attempt to avert it. Remember, there were several southern states who hadn't seceded, but were waiting to see what was gonna happen. Who knows, maybe with some statesmanship and some compromise, war might have been avoided. With that said, I believe that Booths shot at Ford's Theater hurt the south far more than Sherman's March. With Lincoln gone, the radical republicans forced their idea of "reconstruction" on the south, which was far worse than what Lincoln had planned. And while we're talking about Sherman, I believe his "March" prolonged the war, both in 1864, and in the minds of southerners long after. The Confederate government's power rested on the Confederate Armies. Hood's Army of Tennessee was his rightful objective, not the farms and plantations of Dixie. Had he pinned Hood between himself and Thomas and Schofield, and afterward reinforced Grant in VA, the war may have ended much sooner. Thoughts? 7mm
The Founding Fathers tried to construct a Constitution that would prevent a large, central government from forming in their consolidation of states. They wanted the enumerated powers of the federal government to be subservient to the powers of the individual states. But it didn't last.
In fact, the federal government started flexing its muscle a decade or so after the Revolution,..which caused the whiskey rebellion.
Lincoln forced the upper south out because he knew nothing of statesmanship.
I speculate from my weak knowledge that the only chance the South had militarily was at first Manassas when Jackson wanted to pursue and obliterate the Unionist army including DC, right then and there. Jackson had the right wisdom from the get go.
The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out? Jerry
Lincoln forced the upper south out because he knew nothing of statesmanship.
I speculate from my weak knowledge that the only chance the South had militarily was at first Manassas when Jackson wanted to pursue and obliterate the Unionist army including DC, right then and there. Jackson had the right wisdom from the get go.
It was inevitable that somewhere along the way, the power that had been assumed by the federal government would be challenged. That's where the "Civil War" came from. The slavery issue is just the boogeyman that the federal government used to push the issue.
To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution is the story of its inversion. The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do.
The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out? Jerry
It is very easy to second guess what "might" have happened, be it a war, or anything else we're discussing. Had I bought a lottery ticket at the right time, I "might" be living on easy street. Had I been on a certain road at a certain time, I might have been in a wreck, and not be here today.
The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out? Jerry
It is very easy to second guess what "might" have happened, be it a war, or anything else we're discussing. Had I bought a lottery ticket at the right time, I "might" be living on easy street. Had I been on a certain road at a certain time, I might have been in a wreck, and not be here today.
However, it's fun to speculate.
Had the south won the war they "might" look like Mexico today.
I have a couple of thoughts related to the War Between the States brought on by the thread about N.B. Forrest, and I figured the discussion deserves its own thread. First off, I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I believe Lincoln brought on the war without trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He painted the south into a corner at Sumter, forcing them to seem the aggressor with no attempt to avert it. Remember, there were several southern states who hadn't seceded, but were waiting to see what was gonna happen. Who knows, maybe with some statesmanship and some compromise, war might have been avoided. With that said, I believe that Booths shot at Ford's Theater hurt the south far more than Sherman's March. With Lincoln gone, the radical republicans forced their idea of "reconstruction" on the south, which was far worse than what Lincoln had planned. And while we're talking about Sherman, I believe his "March" prolonged the war, both in 1864, and in the minds of southerners long after. The Confederate government's power rested on the Confederate Armies. Hood's Army of Tennessee was his rightful objective, not the farms and plantations of Dixie. Had he pinned Hood between himself and Thomas and Schofield, and afterward reinforced Grant in VA, the war may have ended much sooner. Thoughts? 7mm
First, I am a fan of Lincoln and born in the same state. Up river from Springfield. Finished high school in Wisconsin. Lincoln did try to compromise and avoid civil war. He asked for compromise in his first Inaugural address. He told the South to keep their slaves. He was more willing to a slow and gradual abolition to avoid war. After the war Lincoln wanted to give free land out west to former slaves. But Booth put the stop to that.
But there was to be no compromise over firing on our flag. You can not that and not pay a price.
The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out? Jerry
It is very easy to second guess what "might" have happened, be it a war, or anything else we're discussing. Had I bought a lottery ticket at the right time, I "might" be living on easy street. Had I been on a certain road at a certain time, I might have been in a wreck, and not be here today.
However, it's fun to speculate.
Had the south won the war they "might" look like Mexico today.
Or South Africa, or Haiti after their successful slave revolt in 1804.
The Confederate Army after First Bull Run was every bit as disorganized and I dare say scattered as the Federals were. There was no more chance of a "March on Washington" as there was of a moon landing. Both Armies were but armed mobs at that point in the war. I don't believe the AoNV really ever had a chance to win the war. By the fall of 1862, it was already lost in the west. Lee put off the inevitable, but the war was lost on the rivers of the west. 7mm
I have a couple of thoughts related to the War Between the States brought on by the thread about N.B. Forrest, and I figured the discussion deserves its own thread. First off, I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I believe Lincoln brought on the war without trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He painted the south into a corner at Sumter, forcing them to seem the aggressor with no attempt to avert it. Remember, there were several southern states who hadn't seceded, but were waiting to see what was gonna happen. Who knows, maybe with some statesmanship and some compromise, war might have been avoided. With that said, I believe that Booths shot at Ford's Theater hurt the south far more than Sherman's March. With Lincoln gone, the radical republicans forced their idea of "reconstruction" on the south, which was far worse than what Lincoln had planned. And while we're talking about Sherman, I believe his "March" prolonged the war, both in 1864, and in the minds of southerners long after. The Confederate government's power rested on the Confederate Armies. Hood's Army of Tennessee was his rightful objective, not the farms and plantations of Dixie. Had he pinned Hood between himself and Thomas and Schofield, and afterward reinforced Grant in VA, the war may have ended much sooner. Thoughts? 7mm
Shelby Foot who spent 20 years writing the "Civil War Series" said the only way to settle the issue of slavery was with armed conflict.
The south was as third world up until WW2 as Mexico is today in defeat. I doubt she would have been any worse off in victory.
I think slavery would have ended by 1900ish with the invention of mechanical farm implements. Housing and feeding a bunch of slaves would have no longer made any sense. Plus it would have been another generation of living under the stigma of being the only part of the western world that practiced slavery.
The south's best chance to win independence was to get a foreign ally or get the Yankees to give up. Had they won at Gettysburg it could have gone either way.......Lincoln may not have been re-elected and President McClellan would have sued for peace. Might have won at Gettysburg if they had not accidentally killed General Jackson. Even better, they should have fought guerilla style like their grandfathers did in the American Revolution. Then they would have been in the position to play defense on their home turf.
Good chance the states would have re-united at some point last century.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Radical Reconstruction caused more ill will than the war. If Lincoln's plan for reconstruction had been carried out, things would be different today. Almost all Southerners understood that Booth's assassination of Lincoln was going to lead to great suffering in the South. There would not have been a KKK if not for Radical Reconstruction. The Klan was first organized to deal with widows and orphans. Since ex-confederates could not meet, the robes were originally used to hide identities. Sadly, the KKK quickly devolved into a hate group.
My great-great-grandmother said the bayonet on an 1858 Springfield rifle was an excellent foraging tool for the troops from Ft.. Negley who occupied Nashville- - - -It was ideal for spearing chickens, ducks, geese, and the occasional young lamb or pig from the back yard of any Nashville resident they chose to prey upon during "reconstruction", Memories like that die hard. Jerry
My great-great-grandmother said the bayonet on an 1858 Springfield rifle was an excellent foraging tool for the troops from Ft.. Negley who occupied Nashville- - - -It was ideal for spearing chickens, ducks, geese, and the occasional young lamb or pig from the back yard of any Nashville resident they chose to prey upon during "reconstruction", Memories like that die hard. Jerry
LMFAO....Someone killed your great-great grandmothers goose and you’re still crying? GMAFB....everyone was starving, including the prisoners at Andersonville. 😉
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Heritage and beliefs Roy....
and it had nothing to do with Slavery...
3% of the people below the Mason Dixon owned ANY slaves...
97% didn't own any.....but they believed in States Rights vs The Nation First....
Most of those soldiers who fought for the south were people who were just farmers...
they didn't leave their farms, homes, families to go fight and put their lives on the line for the right for the small few that owned slaves to keep them.....
that would make as much sense as the average guy like you and I, leaving every thing behind, and and go fight so people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Warren Buffet etc, could have a lot of money by screwing the rest of us over....
When I was growing up, it was kept alive for your heritage...nowadays white liberals keep it alive to make the black man a victim, and present themselves as the people who are standing up against it....where would the democRAT party be without racism being kept alive and creating of social discourse.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Heritage and beliefs Roy....
and it had nothing to do with Slavery...
3% of the people below the Mason Dixon owned ANY slaves...
97% didn't own any.....but they believed in States Rights vs The Nation First....
Most of those soldiers who fought for the south were people who were just farmers...
they didn't leave their farms, homes, families to go fight and put their lives on the line for the right for the small few that owned slaves to keep them.....
that would make as much sense as the average guy like you and I, leaving every thing behind, and and go fight so people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Warren Buffet etc, could have a lot of money by screwing the rest of us over....
When I was growing up, it was kept alive for your heritage...nowadays white liberals keep it alive to make the black man a victim, and present themselves as the people who are standing up against it....where would the democRAT party be without racism being kept alive and creating of social discourse.
Along those lines there's a quote from a Confederate soldier to Union soldier; I don't recall exactly.
It basically said "I'm fighting because you're here"!
I have a couple of thoughts related to the War Between the States brought on by the thread about N.B. Forrest, and I figured the discussion deserves its own thread. First off, I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I believe Lincoln brought on the war without trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He painted the south into a corner at Sumter, forcing them to seem the aggressor with no attempt to avert it. Remember, there were several southern states who hadn't seceded, but were waiting to see what was gonna happen. Who knows, maybe with some statesmanship and some compromise, war might have been avoided. With that said, I believe that Booths shot at Ford's Theater hurt the south far more than Sherman's March. With Lincoln gone, the radical republicans forced their idea of "reconstruction" on the south, which was far worse than what Lincoln had planned. And while we're talking about Sherman, I believe his "March" prolonged the war, both in 1864, and in the minds of southerners long after. The Confederate government's power rested on the Confederate Armies. Hood's Army of Tennessee was his rightful objective, not the farms and plantations of Dixie. Had he pinned Hood between himself and Thomas and Schofield, and afterward reinforced Grant in VA, the war may have ended much sooner. Thoughts? 7mm
First, I am a fan of Lincoln and born in the same state. Up river from Springfield. Finished high school in Wisconsin. Lincoln did try to compromise and avoid civil war. He asked for compromise in his first Inaugural address. He told the South to keep their slaves. He was more willing to a slow and gradual abolition to avoid war. After the war Lincoln wanted to give free land out west to former slaves. But Booth put the stop to that.
But there was to be no compromise over firing on our flag. You can not that and not pay a price.
The Founding Fathers tried to construct a Constitution that would prevent a large, central government from forming in their consolidation of states. They wanted the enumerated powers of the federal government to be subservient to the powers of the individual states. But it didn't last.
In fact, the federal government started flexing its muscle a decade or so after the Revolution,..which caused the whiskey rebellion.
Out with the old boss,..in with the new.
Yep, and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were very close friends, weren't as friendly after Adams became President and Jefferson Vice-President.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
they didn't leave their farms, homes, families to go fight and put their lives on the line for the right for the small few that owned slaves to keep them.....
that would make as much sense as the average guy like you and I, leaving every thing behind, and and go fight so people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Warren Buffet etc, could have a lot of money by screwing the rest of us over....
Have to be people like a Trump or a Koch for THAT to happen....but they'd have to tell us us they were fighting for us, and our way of life, and our sacred women...THEN we would believe them.
Rich people ALWAYS fight their own battles, everyone knows that.
Like first thing in office, tax cuts. immigration and border wall, not so much.
My great-great-grandmother said the bayonet on an 1858 Springfield rifle was an excellent foraging tool for the troops from Ft.. Negley who occupied Nashville- - - -It was ideal for spearing chickens, ducks, geese, and the occasional young lamb or pig from the back yard of any Nashville resident they chose to prey upon during "reconstruction", Memories like that die hard. Jerry
LMFAO....Someone killed your great-great grandmothers goose and you’re still crying? GMAFB....everyone was starving, including the prisoners at Andersonville. 😉
The. I guess those a-s-sholes should have stayed home.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
they didn't leave their farms, homes, families to go fight and put their lives on the line for the right for the small few that owned slaves to keep them.....
that would make as much sense as the average guy like you and I, leaving every thing behind, and and go fight so people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Warren Buffet etc, could have a lot of money by screwing the rest of us over....
Have to be people like a Trump or a Koch for THAT to happen....but they'd have to tell us us they were fighting for us, and our way of life, and our sacred women...THEN we would believe them.
Rich people ALWAYS fight their own battles, everyone knows that.
Like first thing in office, tax cuts. immigration and border wall, not so much.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Heritage and beliefs Roy....
and it had nothing to do with Slavery...
3% of the people below the Mason Dixon owned ANY slaves...
97% didn't own any.....but they believed in States Rights vs The Nation First....
Most of those soldiers who fought for the south were people who were just farmers...
they didn't leave their farms, homes, families to go fight and put their lives on the line for the right for the small few that owned slaves to keep them.....
that would make as much sense as the average guy like you and I, leaving every thing behind, and and go fight so people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Warren Buffet etc, could have a lot of money by screwing the rest of us over....
When I was growing up, it was kept alive for your heritage...nowadays white liberals keep it alive to make the black man a victim, and present themselves as the people who are standing up against it....where would the democRAT party be without racism being kept alive and creating of social discourse.
Excellent post!!
The next civil war will be more about individual rights than states rights IMHO.
No states don't have the right to just leave the union and start their own nation any time they don't agree with the status quo. That notion is just silly. The Civil War never should have happened but since it did we might as well quit trying to fight it. Speculating on what might have happened if the South had won makes as much sense as speculating what would have happened if Germany had won.
No states don't have the right to just leave the union and start their own nation any time they don't agree with the status quo. That notion is just silly. The Civil War never should have happened but since it did we might as well quit trying to fight it. Speculating on what might have happened if the South had won makes as much sense as speculating what would have happened if Germany had won.
So, if you voluntarily get married, you don’t have the right to get a divorce? And even if you don’t have the right to a divorce, your souse has the right to go out, physically assault you, handcuff you, bring you home, and confine you to the house forever if you try to leave her?
I could have used the term Hispanics......I did not expect the Mexican group lawyer to start correcting.
Yes, several states have more % wise . Texas, Ca., New Mex., Arizona and maybe another 1 or 2. I forget.
We have to deal with a lot of Hispanics in FL.
Yeah I am kinda wrong.
We both were. I knew there were a lot of Central Americans there and of course Cubans, but I had no idea there were that many Mexicans. I know there are a lot up in North Carolina because of the tomato industry, but wow....
I could have used the term Hispanics......I did not expect the Mexican group lawyer to start correcting.
Yes, several states have more % wise . Texas, Ca., New Mex., Arizona and maybe another 1 or 2. I forget.
We have to deal with a lot of Hispanics in FL.
Yeah I am kinda wrong.
We both were. I knew there were a lot of Central Americans there and of course Cubans, but I had no idea there were that many Mexicans. I know there are a lot up in North Carolina because of the tomato industry, but wow....
I would say that the construction industry is the biggest draw for Mexicans in this state. There is a massive migration of northeasterners moving here here, creating a LOT of construction related jobs. I miss the way my state used to be.
I could have used the term Hispanics......I did not expect the Mexican group lawyer to start correcting.
Yes, several states have more % wise . Texas, Ca., New Mex., Arizona and maybe another 1 or 2. I forget.
We have to deal with a lot of Hispanics in FL.
Yeah I am kinda wrong.
We both were. I knew there were a lot of Central Americans there and of course Cubans, but I had no idea there were that many Mexicans. I know there are a lot up in North Carolina because of the tomato industry, but wow....
Lotsa mexicans everywhere. My Mom sold her house to one in a small town in Iowa where they have become the majority.
Reconstruction hurt the South far worse than losing the Civil War did. And the feelings left from Reconstruction go far beyond the bayoneting of someone's goose.
A good example of that was the 1866 burning of the town of Brenham, TX. "Historical records indicate on the night of September 7, 1866 there was an altercation between the citizens of Brenham and several drunken Union soldiers. The soldiers were part of a Union company stationed in the town following the end of the Civil War. As a result of this confrontation, part of the town was burned; one month later the Union soldiers again set fire to the town, destroying an entire block of businesses." The previous quotes were taken from information concerning a book titled The Burning of Brenham by Sharon Brass.
This part of Texas was not the site of fighting during the Civil War but with Texas having fought on the Confederate side it came under Federal Reconstruction, The Freedman’s Bureau, and Federal Troop occupation. To this day many Texans do their best to ignore the existence of a Federal Government and the imposition of Sheridan’s Black troops was not well received by the people at the time.
According to my father, my grandfather and his brothers remembered the occupation and the effects of Reconstruction from their boyhood and it angered him far worse in his later years than losing the war did. Losing the war was a 50/50 gamble that everyone recognized. Reconstruction was revenge on the part of the Union that got fueled in part by Lincoln's assassination. If Lincoln had lived, Reconstruction as it was allowed to occur may not have happened.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Hung up and interested and fascinated with the times are two different things. I think I fall in the latter. I love history.
Sooner or later, the communist snowflakes are gonna figure out what Sherman did to the Injuns and want to tear down his statues. I won't like that either.
Animosity towards Yankees over the war.....I don't have any. I get annoyed when some get sanctimonious about slavery but that is a case by case basis. The Ted Cruz thing with General Forrest being the latest example that comes to mind......but I don't want to fight or kill him over it. My Granddaddy was born in 1903 and probably could have heard some first hand war stories and legends since Sherman did some burning in his home area. Never said much if any about it, and I don't think it was instilled in the family too much.....so I did not get it. Other families are different. When you objectively consider it, the Yankees were very conciliatory, especially for the times. Had Lincoln not been killed, things would have moved along better. How much we don't know. Some historians speculate he did not have long to live because he was sick. May have wound up with President Johnson anyway. Hating the descendants of Yankee soldiers makes about as much sense as blacks hating whites for slavery. None of us alive today were involved.
What Bristoe said is big. We got the Federal Govt of today out of that war. However, there is no guarantee it would have been different had the South won. Man tends to gravitate toward tyranny not freedom.
No states don't have the right to just leave the union and start their own nation any time they don't agree with the status quo. That notion is just silly[]. The Civil War never should have happened but since it did we might as well quit trying to fight it. Speculating on what might have happened if the South had won makes as much sense as speculating what would have happened if Germany had won.
No states have the right to leave the Union? Lets analyze that real quick...
The is the United States Of America....United for a common good...
When that common good no longer fits a states "common good", the original framers figured that was that particular States Tough Luck? The STATE joins, its obligation to all the other states is perpetual?
Southern States felt the Union was no longer meeting or even recognizing their needs.. so they decided to end their contract with the "UNION" and form their own separate Nation.. for their "common good"....
Northern States didn't like that very much.. so they asserted Northern States 'rights' over Southern States "rights' by force.. essentially Invading " the South".. by massing and invading the state of Virginia from out of Washington DC....
they crossed Arlington County and Fairfax County.. but by the time they had invaded 30 miles into Prince William County VA, they got this rude awakening, because they were met at a creek called Bull Run, by armed forces of the State of Virginia...
and the invading troops, found themselves retreating back across the Potomac to DC having got their asses kicked....
that is kind of why at the time, in the south it was not referred to as the Civil War.. it was referred to as the War of Northern Aggression.....or lesser known in History, as being Called the Second War of Independence in the south and especially in the State of Virginia....
don't be another democRAT busy rewritting American History.. instead of looking at what REALLY happened...
I was born in 1950, and grew up hearing the stories my grandmother told about her childhood. She had a neighbor who was a veteran of the War Between the States. He told her stories about such things as being in a battle and getting so thirsty that he drank out of a creek filled with the blood of dead and dying soldiers. We lived near the birthplace of Jefferson Davis, and my grandfather helped build the 351 tall monument that honors him.
Although Kentucky was a border state, and didn't secede, I live in a part of the state that was pro-Confederate in it's sentiments, partly because of the large farms that were here, and the slaves that went with them. When you have been raised since childhood being told the stories that I was, it is very easy to be swayed by what you hear. As I got older and learned more about the war, and it's local connections, it was easy to become more and more pro-South in my feelings. My late brother was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and tried to get me to join up. I just didn't have the time to spend doing it, and wish now I had done so.
Anyway, I don't hold any animosity or hatred towards any from the North, but I do get pretty heated up when they tell the lies that they do as to what they perceive to be the causes of the war. Other than that, I'll go to my grave believing the South had every right to secede from the Union, and that Lincoln pushed the South into war.
I was born in 1950, and grew up hearing the stories my grandmother told about her childhood. She had a neighbor who was a veteran of the War Between the States. He told her stories about such things as being in a battle and getting so thirsty that he drank out of a creek filled with the blood of dead and dying soldiers. We lived near the birthplace of Jefferson Davis, and my grandfather helped build the 351 tall monument that honors him.
Although Kentucky was a border state, and didn't secede, I live in a part of the state that was pro-Confederate in it's sentiments, partly because of the large farms that were here, and the slaves that went with them. When you have been raised since childhood being told the stories that I was, it is very easy to be swayed by what you hear. As I got older and learned more about the war, and it's local connections, it was easy to become more and more pro-South in my feelings. My late brother was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and tried to get me to join up. I just didn't have the time to spend doing it, and wish now I had done so.
Anyway, I don't hold any animosity or hatred towards any from the North, but I do get pretty heated up when they tell the lies that they do as to what they perceive to be the causes of the war. Other than that, I'll go to my grave believing the South had every right to secede from the Union, and that Lincoln pushed the South into war.
It's only too late to join the Sons after you're in the ground.
My 3rd Great Uncle marched off with the boys in gray and was never seen again. My Mom's Great Uncle got the paper from his Brigade's executive officer saying he was a good and faithful soldier in all his duties and was present with Lee at the surrender. I have it. A bunch of other offshoots of my lineage served the Confederacy. My Great Great Grandfather helped build the works at Mobile Bay. My wife's 3rd Great Grandpa served the Confederacy at Vicksburg.
After the war, occupational troops came through and shot my Great Great Uncle's bulldog. He was just a little kid. The family moved west soon after that.
I believe the South was right. I believe Lincoln precipitated the war and that the main reason was to keep the South in the Union in order to tax them and force them to pay tariffs. There were powerful landowners in the South that did not wish to give up their slaves, so from the southern perspective, certainly the war was about slavery, but most did not own slaves and would not have gone to war just to protect the property of others. As Bristoe said, we are diminished by the outcome of the war.
If Ya'll are interested, there was a secessionist movement that never went anywhere in New England as a result of economic issues related to the war of 1812......some of their ideas were copied by the Confederates 50 years later. Google it.
Thats no doubt true....but to say it had nothing to do with slavery??
Is foolish.....
Most of the world’s cotton came from the south. It takes land, labor, and capital. Regardless of where the ships came from I’d say the south had a higher demand for cheap labor.
Slavery is an abomination in any society and existed at one point in all of them. The south’s transition out of it would have eventually happened, and they knew it. Just a matter of technology and time, both cut short during the war. Cotton gin for starters.
Slavery needed to end,..no doubt about it. It went on far too long in America. But one big issue that nobody knew how to address was 4 million slaves that had nothing being turned out to fend for themselves.
Slavery needed to end,..no doubt about it. It went on far too long in America. But one big issue that nobody knew how to address was 4 million slaves that had nothing being turned out to fend for themselves.
And more opportunity for exploitation. I don’t believe this county would be what it is had it never existed. What happened to slaves after the war was pretty damn bad and a lot of that crap still runs deep.
This country was built on a lot of backs that didn’t care to build it and got nothing in return. That’s a cold fact. And the USA isn’t the only place it’s happened.
I also don’t believe confederate monuments should be taken down, but dedications to slaves should be erected in proximity.
If you’re going to tell a story, tell the whole phuqqin story.
Slavery needed to end,..no doubt about it. It went on far too long in America. But one big issue that nobody knew how to address was 4 million slaves that had nothing being turned out to fend for themselves.
Thats no doubt true....but to say it had nothing to do with slavery??
Is foolish.....
Most of the world’s cotton came from the south. It takes land, labor, and capital. Regardless of where the ships came from I’d say the south had a higher demand for cheap labor.
Slavery is an abomination in any society and existed at one point in all of them. The south’s transition out of it would have eventually happened, and they knew it. Just a matter of technology and time, both cut short during the war. Cotton gin for starters.
Anyway, that’s kinda my perspective.
For what it's worth the cotton gin was a driver for the increased need for labor in south because it increased production so much. The civil war would never have happened if the emancipation proclamation would have been enacted at the beginning of the war since there was not even enough support for it in the northern states at the time. Blacks, Irish, and Chinese were not treated very well in the 1800's anyplace in the US. That was also the area when England starved millions of Irish to death so they could sell their food at a better profit. So really the whole planet was pretty harsh by today's standards
Slavery needed to end,..no doubt about it. It went on far too long in America. But one big issue that nobody knew how to address was 4 million slaves that had nothing being turned out to fend for themselves.
40 acres and a mule.
https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/exodusters.htm ...Slavery was nothing more than a bad memory; the Fourteenth Amendment to the ... unique to their condition also prevented many freed blacks from moving ahead. ... Movement to parts further west, such as Kansas, began almost immediately ...
...Thousands of African-Americans made their way to Kansas and other Western states after Reconstruction. The Homestead Act and other liberal land laws offered blacks (in theory) the opportunity to escape the racism and oppression of the post-war South and become owners of their own tracts of private farmland. For people who had spent their lives working the lands of white masters with no freedom or pay, the opportunities offered by these land laws must have seemed the answer to prayer. Many individuals and families were indeed willing to leave the only place they had known to move to a place few of them had ever seen. The large-scale black migration from the South to Kansas came to be known as the "Great Exodus," and those participating in it were called "exodusters." ...
Hundreds of thousands of slaves freed during the American civil war died from disease and hunger after being liberated, according to a new book.
The analysis, by historian Jim Downs of Connecticut College, casts a shadow over one of the most celebrated narratives of American history, which sees the freeing of the slaves as a triumphant righting of the wrongs of a southern plantation system that kept millions of black Americans in chains.
But, as Downs shows in his book, Sick From Freedom, the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death.
After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians.
Thats no doubt true....but to say it had nothing to do with slavery??
Is foolish.....
Most of the world’s cotton came from the south. It takes land, labor, and capital. Regardless of where the ships came from I’d say the south had a higher demand for cheap labor.
Slavery is an abomination in any society and existed at one point in all of them. The south’s transition out of it would have eventually happened, and they knew it. Just a matter of technology and time, both cut short during the war. Cotton gin for starters.
Anyway, that’s kinda my perspective.
For what it's worth the cotton gin was a driver for the increased need for labor in south because it increased production so much. The civil war would never have happened if the emancipation proclamation would have been enacted at the beginning of the war since there was not even enough support for it in the northern states at the time. Blacks, Irish, and Chinese were not treated very well in the 1800's anyplace in the US. That was also the area when England starved millions of Irish to death so they could sell their food at a better profit. So really the whole planet was pretty harsh by today's standards
This is an excellent point. Abolitionist, people who were against slavery for humanitarian reasons, compromised about 10% of the people in the North pre-civil war. The real opposition between the sections was along economic, political, and racial lines. Some western territories opposed slavery not because they liked black people but because they did not want any around under any circumstances. The war was indeed all about slavery but slavery was a very complex issue in those days. The founders punted on the issue to get the South on board with the Revolution and subsequent generations squabbled and made compromises up until the war.
Today everyone is against slavery for humanitarian reasons. So the war between the states is portrayed by media, entertainment, and what passes for academia as Northern abolitionists who were so tore up about blacks being mistreated and enslaved that they went to war to free them from mean Southern people. Not that simple by far.
Yes, the world used to be pretty harsh. Those of us from the boomer generation to present day with the exception of those who served in one of the wars have been living in the most gentle of times and we really don't have a clue what life was like in the 19th century.
Slavery needed to end,..no doubt about it. It went on far too long in America. But one big issue that nobody knew how to address was 4 million slaves that had nothing being turned out to fend for themselves.
40 acres and a mule.
https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/exodusters.htm ...Slavery was nothing more than a bad memory; the Fourteenth Amendment to the ... unique to their condition also prevented many freed blacks from moving ahead. ... Movement to parts further west, such as Kansas, began almost immediately ...
...Thousands of African-Americans made their way to Kansas and other Western states after Reconstruction. The Homestead Act and other liberal land laws offered blacks (in theory) the opportunity to escape the racism and oppression of the post-war South and become owners of their own tracts of private farmland. For people who had spent their lives working the lands of white masters with no freedom or pay, the opportunities offered by these land laws must have seemed the answer to prayer. Many individuals and families were indeed willing to leave the only place they had known to move to a place few of them had ever seen. The large-scale black migration from the South to Kansas came to be known as the "Great Exodus," and those participating in it were called "exodusters." ...
Probably isn't there anymore...
there use to be historical markers up in Stearns County MN, where a bunch of land was given to former black slave by the Federal Government in 1868....
yeah, good compassionate Northerners and their "love" for former slaves...
it was pretty much swamp land, where you couldn't grow nothing..
no shelter etc... most of them froze to death in the first winter....those that didn't starved...
Shelby Foot who spent 20 years writing the "Civil War Series" said the only way to settle the issue of slavery was with armed conflict.
If you read that entire tome my hat is off to you, sir.
I couldn't hang but for about half of the first book. Great for insomnia.
Really? It's one of my favorites on the ACW. I still go back and retread it occasionally. Not criticizing, just commenting because everyone I know who's read it agrees with me. I've heard folks say "Bruce Catton set the standard, and Shelby Foote raised the standard"! Who's your favorite? 7mm
Shelby Foot who spent 20 years writing the "Civil War Series" said the only way to settle the issue of slavery was with armed conflict.
If you read that entire tome my hat is off to you, sir.
I couldn't hang but for about half of the first book. Great for insomnia.
Really? It's one of my favorites on the ACW. I still go back and retread it occasionally. Not criticizing, just commenting because everyone I know who's read it agrees with me. I've heard folks say "Bruce Catton set the standard, and Shelby Foote raised the standard"! Who's your favorite? 7mm
Both were great writers and could really pull the reader into the war.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Southerners are the only Americans here that have lost a war. We made an honest effort at independence and after one hell of a fight, got beat down pretty bad. Not only our military and government, but our civilian population as well and our economy ruined. There was no Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of the South. Quite the opposite with the Reconstruction Period. We were a defeated nation in 1865. Done. Over with. Then systematically kicked and robbed of what little was left for years later. That does not do much to encourage much brotherly love and heal old wounds. I think that pretty much sums it up.
The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out? Jerry
It is very easy to second guess what "might" have happened, be it a war, or anything else we're discussing. Had I bought a lottery ticket at the right time, I "might" be living on easy street. Had I been on a certain road at a certain time, I might have been in a wreck, and not be here today.
However, it's fun to speculate.
Had the south won the war they "might" look like Mexico today.
Or South Africa, or Haiti after their successful slave revolt in 1804.
Had the south won the war they "might" look like Mexico today.
No "might" or "maybe" about it. They'd have been worse.
There were more millionaires in Mississippi than New York prior to 1865. The South would have prospered had it remained free from the Federal Empire tyranny. Think Switzerland, Sweden, or Rhodesia prior to Mugabe
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Southerners are the only Americans here that have lost a war. We made an honest effort at independence and after one hell of a fight, got beat down pretty bad. Not only our military and government, but our civilian population as well and our economy ruined. There was no Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of the South. Quite the opposite with the Reconstruction Period. We were a defeated nation in 1865. Done. Over with. Then systematically kicked and robbed of what little was left for years later. That does not do much to encourage much brotherly love and heal old wounds. I think that pretty much sums it up.
It was inevitable that somewhere along the way, the power that had been assumed by the federal government would be challenged. That's where the "Civil War" came from. The slavery issue is just the boogeyman that the federal government used to push the issue.
To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution is the story of its inversion. The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Southerners are the only Americans here that have lost a war. We made an honest effort at independence and after one hell of a fight, got beat down pretty bad. Not only our military and government, but our civilian population as well and our economy ruined. There was no Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of the South. Quite the opposite with the Reconstruction Period. We were a defeated nation in 1865. Done. Over with. Then systematically kicked and robbed of what little was left for years later. That does not do much to encourage much brotherly love and heal old wounds. I think that pretty much sums it up.
You sound like the Democrats after 2016.
What's that supposed to mean? The question was asked and I answered it with an honest observation. I see no comparison with the DemocRATS and the 2016 election results. That's not an apples and oranges comparison. That's more like trying to compare watermelons and walnuts.
There were more millionaires in Mississippi than New York prior to 1865.
....and also more slaves than there were free folks in that state.
Virtually every Southern politician for thirty years before the War of Secession was of the Plantation Aristocracy, making decisions for and about cotton.
The cotton gin and the steam engine doomed the South, the first for making slave-grown cotton a viable prospect and the second for powering the English textile mills that introduced machine-made cotton into what had been a world wearing homespun. Cheap, comfortable, durable and already pattered and decorated, a truely miracle product.
The South thought their virtual monopoly on raw cotton production would last forever, so much so they actually tried to pressure the British Empire into recognition of the Confederacy by withholding their own cotton exports.
England responded by growing their own cotton in India and Egypt, something which would prob’ly have happened eventually anyway.
Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?
No disrespect intended.
Southerners are the only Americans here that have lost a war. We made an honest effort at independence and after one hell of a fight, got beat down pretty bad. Not only our military and government, but our civilian population as well and our economy ruined. There was no Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of the South. Quite the opposite with the Reconstruction Period. We were a defeated nation in 1865. Done. Over with. Then systematically kicked and robbed of what little was left for years later. That does not do much to encourage much brotherly love and heal old wounds. I think that pretty much sums it up.
You sound like the Democrats after 2016.
What's that supposed to mean? The question was asked and I answered it with an honest observation. I see no comparison with the DemocRATS and the 2016 election results. That's not an apples and oranges comparison. That's more like trying to compare watermelons and walnuts.
It means I have no brotherly love for you or your griping about losing.
Look around... You feel that the present state of federal tyranny and suffocating over reach is just fine by you? Casual ambivalence in the face of such injustice and iniquity is no part of a southern man's ethic. You mistake "griping" with white hot burning righteous indignation fueled by faith in God.
Look around... You feel that the present state of federal tyranny and suffocating over reach is just fine by you? Casual ambivalence in the face of such injustice and iniquity is no part of a southern man's ethic. You mistake "griping" with white hot burning righteous indignation fueled by faith in God.
do you think things would be different today if the south would have won?...…..government is government …...bob
I don't believe the blame lies with either side, but more with a few short sighted people on both sides, and those were the ones with largest financial gains to be made, in the end, the cost to most was monumental, in the loss of both human and property, and so many have never recovered, and continue to perpetuate the hatred that helps no one. Gettysburg is a wonderful place to visit , and that about the only good thing that came from a senseless war !
So cotton was modern day oil, microsoft, Facebook, amazon...of sorts?
The loom lent itself easily to simple mechanization, HAD already been mechanized where applicable using water power. Machine-made cotton becomes the first product of the Industrial Revolution to take the world by storm, England’s leading export.
More to the point, the insatiable demand for raw cotton makes the Cotton Plantation the fastest way to wealth across the South wherever it could be grown, cotton cultivation grows exponentially, nailing down slavery as the centerpiece of the Southern economy such that most of the capitol wealth in the South consists of enslaved humans.
The cotton gin and improved steam engine designs appear nearly simultaneously in the early 19th Century, cotton takes off, within a generation the collective South is calling itself “The Land of Cotton” and self-identifying as “The Slave States”.
The exponential growth of contton--and slavery--started around 1800. Before that, it was widely assumed that slavery would just wither away within a generation or so. Without cotton growing, it would not be worthwhile to keep slaves, and they would eventually be freed as they were in the North. In the Ordnance of 1787, it was declared that slavery would be illegal in the Northwest Territory. Nobody objected. Cotton hardened the positions on slavery. 75 years later there were shooting wars in Kansas over the question of whether slavery would be legal there. I have an essay written about 1830 in Virginia that discusses freeing the slaves--the government buying them. The essay concluded this was financially impossible because slaves represented more than half the assets of businesses (plantations) in the South.
Some say that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. But without slavery it never would have occurred.
The irony is that in the decades after the war, machines were invented to pick cotton (as opposed to ginning it) which would have made slavery too expensive to keep.
If the South had hired free whites to pick cotton, it would probably have only raised their cost of labor about 20%, all things consided, and we'd be a lot better off today. And (in my opinion), if air conditioning had not been invented, the South would have never recovered from the war.
Maybe the dumbest thing the South ever did was to try to threaten the economy of England by withholding cotton exports.
First off, Queen Victoria was strongly pro-abolition so they were facing an uphill battle anyway.
But mostly, whatever the Southerner’s own self-perception was, the British Nobility and Upper Classes would view the “Southern Plantation Aristocracy” as one step removed from monkeys (and two steps removed from us Irish, hey, I grew up in England).
To presume to try and grab England by the short hairs via a cotton embargo would sting British pride and GUARANTEE they would develop other sources.
I don’t believe southerners are as bent about the outcome of the war as some want to believe, but many still can’t stand the arrogance of northerners. Just spend some time where there’s an influx of Yanks retiring in the south. Holy schit.
I don’t believe southerners are as bent about the outcome of the war as some want to believe, but many still can’t stand the arrogance of northerners. Just spend some time where there’s an influx of Yanks retiring in the south. Holy schit.
We are just truly amazed, at how you twits have turned simple words, like July into a three syllable conversations among yourselves !
It was inevitable that somewhere along the way, the power that had been assumed by the federal government would be challenged. That's where the "Civil War" came from. The slavery issue is just the boogeyman that the federal government used to push the issue.
To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution is the story of its inversion. The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do.
Fantastic article...
Whatever happened to Sobran? Ha!
William F. Buckley ran him out of National Review after Buckley decided that he would toe the narrative line.
Joseph Sobran died in 2010. Ann Coulter memorialized him here.
My friend Joe Sobran died last Thursday, and the world lost its greatest writer.
To my delight, some obituaries noted that he had influenced my writing style. I only wish I had known he was so close to the end so I could have seen him again to let him influence me some more.
The G.K. Chesterton of our time, Joe could deliver a knockout punch with a single line. Many of his aphorisms were so catchy that everyone repeats them now without realizing their provenance.
It was Joe who came up with the apocryphal New York Times headline: “New York Destroyed by Earthquake; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.”
Joe created the phrase “strange new respect” to describe the sudden warm admiration the media have for any conservative who becomes a liberal.
In the ’80s, Bill Buckley suggested that AIDS sufferers be required to get tattoos on their buttocks to protect other gays. As all hell broke loose over his proposal, Sobran simply suggested that it might borrow from Dante: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”
I’ve recently been telling a friend who talked me into agreeing to an interview with the Times that I wouldn’t be mad at him no matter what the Times does to me because “your enemies can never hurt you, only your friends can.” I remember now that it was Sobran who told me that, years ago, in reference to his treatment by Buckley.
Ironically perhaps, I’ve often used a Sobran observation to explain why I have a greater affinity to Israel than to the Muslim world after 9/11: Watching a death-match fight on Animal Planet once, Joe said he found himself instinctively rooting for the mammal over the reptile.
Joe was comically immune to group-think. Every Christian should be, but with Joe it was nearly pathological.
A Shakespeare expert, Joe became convinced that the real author was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Among his vast trove of evidence were the sonnets, some of which clearly expressed love for another man.
When Joe was writing what became “Alias Shakespeare,” he used to tell me he was going to title the book: “He’s Here, He’s Queer, He’s Edward de Vere!”
Reading through some of his columns after he died and being reminded of what an eloquent writer Joe was, I realized that the best tribute would be to quote him extensively.
As Joe himself said: “I note that my enemies have written a great deal about me, yet they rarely quote me directly. Why not? If I am so disreputable myself, I must at least occasionally say disreputable things. Is it possible that what I say is more cogent than they like to admit?”
Joe’s quotes are much better when you’re reading his columns and a beautifully turned phrase sneaks up on you, but here are a few good ones, even in isolation:
— On our democracy: “Your chances of meeting an IRS agent are far greater than your chances of meeting anyone you voted for.”
— On Clinton: “Once again, his defenders, furiously attacking the prosecution and equating opposition with ‘conspiracy,’ don’t dare mount the best defense: ‘He’s not that sort of man.’ It’s because Clinton is, supremely, ‘that sort of man’ that this whole thing has happened. He’s a lying lecher, a prevaricating pervert, an utterly slimy crook, without a trace of honor or loyalty, desperately trying to save his own skin one last time.”
— On big government: “Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean whatever we are still permitted to do.”
— On Obama: “Nor has he said anything memorable — not even a single aphorism over this long campaign. And the title of his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ — what on earth does that mean? He is always hinting at a substance that is never disclosed to us. He seems to live by raising vague aspirations he never fulfills.”
— On Buckley’s book “In Search of Anti-Semitism”: “Its real message is not that we should like or respect Jews; only that we should try not to hate them. But this implies that anti-Semitism is the natural reaction to them: If it’s a universal sin, after all, it must be a universal temptation. … When he defends Jews, I sometimes feel like saying: ‘Bill! Bill! It’s all right! They’re not that bad!'”
— On evolution: “If our furry and scaly friends were still evolving, none of them appeared to be gaining on us.”
— On Canada banning Dr. Laura: “Canada has to protect itself against such pernicious, hate-filled American notions as the Law of Moses. If Dr. Laura wants to spew the Ten Commandments, let her do it in her own country.”
After I made some point to Joe once, he paid me a compliment that describes exactly why it was so fun to be around him. He said, “Your mind is always going.”
His body is gone, but I’m sure his mind is still going like gangbusters. And I’m insanely jealous that he’s giving God all the good belly laughs now.
It was the southerners arrogance that caused the war. They should have agreed to let their slaves buy their freedom thru work over 10 years with the expectation that they would become paid farm workers when set free. That would have prevented the war and the destruction of the south at very little cost.
Some say that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. But without slavery it never would have occurred.
Much as I hate to say it, slavery was the root cause of Southern Secession. Any look at a map of the southern states shows that the cotton belt states all seceded as soon as Lincoln was elected. All the rest waited to see what was going to happen. The fact that they remained in the union until the government started the war kinda proves that the war was a result of government coercion of the states! Slavery never entered the equation until after the Emancipation Proclamation was released in the fall of 1862. The war was already a year and a half old, and even then, emancipation was only a carrot and stick approach to ending the war. Slave ownership was still protected in states and sections of the confederacy under federal control. Freeing the slaves was only a secondary consideration to the government's war policy. In fact, Lincoln actually relieved 3 Union Commanders for giving orders freeing slaves in their districts! Emancipation only came about as a result of the loophole General Ben Butler discovered by declaring escaped slaves as "Contraband of War". He assumed (rightly) that holding escaped slaves instead of returning them (as was SOP) was actually weakening the Confederate war effort! 7mm
I really enjoy the history threads, especially the War Between the States, as that's where the majority of my knowledge is. My reason for starting another discussion was merely to get others thoughts regarding A, was the war necessary? and B, was Sherman's March necessary? Funny how these things always turn into a whizzing contest. You'd think I'd know better. 7mm
I really enjoy the history threads, especially the War Between the States, as that's where the majority of my knowledge is. My reason for starting another discussion was merely to get others thoughts regarding A, was the war necessary? and B, was Sherman's March necessary? Funny how these things always turn into a whizzing contest. You'd think I'd know better. 7mm
Think of the total irony of it, Lincoln went total war, throwing off all moral restraint, tossing Augustine to Grotius in the trash to what proposed end? To force the secessionist back into a brotherly union of states, "pinned together with bayonets"???
You will be my kith kin and brother or I will rape plunder burn and enslave you.
I really enjoy the history threads, especially the War Between the States, as that's where the majority of my knowledge is. My reason for starting another discussion was merely to get others thoughts regarding A, was the war necessary? and B, was Sherman's March necessary? Funny how these things always turn into a whizzing contest. You'd think I'd know better. 7mm
Think of the total irony of it, Lincoln went total war, throwing off all moral restraint, tossing Augustine to Grotius in the trash to what proposed end? To force the secessionist back into a brotherly union of states, "pinned together with bayonets"???
You will be my kith kin and brother or I will rape plunder burn and enslave you.
That's spot-on. How can people be free when their duly elected representatives aren't free to leave a consortium of states that the majority of their constituency want to leave? How can people be free when they are not free to do with their own body what they wish? (ie put "illegal" drugs in it.)
People aren't free when such basic freedoms are denied. A union of states isn't free unless the states are free to leave what they freely joined.
It was not about slavery-- it was about the North needing the resources the South had! The North had the industry, the South had the food and cotton--
Not quite, but close. The north actually exported food through most of the war. Tons of grain went to Russia and other European countries owing to a drought in Europe. As a matter of fact, food exports from the north influenced European foreign policy away from recognizing the Confederacy. What the north did need from the south, and caused them to force the war, were import tariffs. Since the south had very little industry, they had to import tools, clothing, you name it. So the tariffs were a great source of money for the federal government. Trouble was, to collect the tariffs they had to control the ports. To control the ports, they had to hold places like Ft Sumter, hence the re supply, and the resulting Confederate gunfire. They painted the south into a corner, forcing them to fire the first shot and appear the aggressor. If you boil anything down enough, you'll find money and greed at the root. The War Between the States is no different. Slavery in the cotton states meant money, and import tariffs to the government meant money. 7mm
The war would have ended a whole lot sooner except for the logistics of the time, tens of thousands of men walking for weeks on end, just to get to a battle, the time spent just trying to feed and arm these men, dirty water and diseases took hugh tolls on both men and mules. It was an ugly time for America.
Has anyone here ever read anything on the slave revolt in Haiti?
This had a direct bearing on things in the United States. Like the very first time the fledgling republic had to deal with a immediate large influx of refugees, and the stories they brought with them. Also the insuing slave revolts in places like Louisiana ( German Coast for example). This had a large impact on the question of just what might be done with freed slaves. How would they be able to become infused with the society. Other than the push to return them to their original homeland.
The Louisiana territory went from slave-holding French, to non-slave Spanish, back to slave holding French, in just a matter of a few decades before finally ending up US territory. During this time, freemen and slave had gained much more liberal rights and privileges in the territory. The Hatian revolt changed all this all over the US of A
There existed many slaveowners in the south that were not abolitionist, but they were truely anti-slavery. It sounds weird, but they did exist. They knew it was more economically feasible to use free labor. Not having to house, feed, and clothe them. But,,,, the also knew the consequences of the sudden release of 1000’s of individuals into the local populance. Akin to dumping a big box of puppies in your nice, clean living room. And what you’d find there after you returned in a few hours.
I admit that although I knew of the slave revolt in Haiti, I never read any of the details about it. I never gave any thought to what influence it might have had on either the north or the south. Thanks for pointing that out, and I'm hoping you would fill in some of the blanks. JoeBob, I looked into that book, "A Disease In the Public Mind", and it looks very interesting! As a matter of fact, I read the preface on my Nook, and I'm looking forward to reading the book. (I've got 30 pages left of "The General and The Jaguar") Thanks to you for pointing that out as well. 7mm
The reason that Lincoln went easy on slavery during the first part of the war was that he didn't want the four remaining slave states to secede.
At the outset, Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery where it existed but it could not be extended to the new territories. But the cotton states knew that, as states were created from these territories, the South would eventually be out voted and slavery would be ended.
As for the remaining slave states, Kentucky said it was neutral but the South invaded it, causing much anger against the South. Maryland was occupied by the Union Army as was Missouri. Delaware saw which way the wind was blowing. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to deprive the South of slave labor and eliminate any chance that England and France would come to the aid of the Confederacy.
Was Sherman's march necessary? Yes. In 1964 Jefferson Davis still thought the South would win. Why? Because voters in the North were getting fed up with all the casualties and Lincoln could lose the 1964 election. In fact, Lincopln himself thought he would lose. McClellan, his opponent, would let the South go. But Sherman's capture of Atlanta turned the sentiment of the voters.
Was secession legal? No court has ever ruled on that question. But if the South could secede, then other states could also secede. And southern states could secede from the Confederacy. The United States would soon be like Central America. Lincoln's point was that since the US was the only real democracy in the world back then, secession would eliminate democracy from the face of the earth. The war would determine whether "any nation conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could survive and the goal was that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Lincoln was right. The federal government encroachments since then, which many of us resent, only exist because the people are dumb enuough to want things that way.
The book I recommended covers the Santa Domingo slave revolt very well and the way it dominated thought in the American South. And in so doing it brings up some points. One, American slavery was relatively benign in that slaves were increasing in numbers. But that fed right into the fears of a slave revolt. Slave owners were hemmed in by the various laws not allowing them to take slaves to some of the territories. So it was like a steam kettle with the lid tied down. They had an ever increasing number of slaves, many of them young men in prime physical condition, and they couldn’t get rid of them.
The slave trade was abolished. So they couldn’t sell them out of the country. They couldn’t take them to new territories. And they couldn’t set them free because they then would be running loose with no means of support and would surely resort to crime and mayhem. The primary reason the South wanted to expand slavery to the territories was not to expand “slave power” as the abolitionists claimed, but to get rid of some of the slaves and lesson the chances of slave revolts.
Was Sherman's march necessary? Yes. In 1964 Jefferson Davis still thought the South would win. Why? Because voters in the North were getting fed up with all the casualties and Lincoln could lose the 1964 election. In fact, Lincopln himself thought he would lose. McClellan, his opponent, would let the South go. But Sherman's capture of Atlanta turned the sentiment of the voters.
Was secession legal? No court has ever ruled on that question.
First off, I would say that taking The Army of Tennessee out of the war would be worth much more to public sentiment than capturing Atlanta. And easily done in conjunction with Thomas' army and Schofield's army, each numbering around 25000 to 30000 troops. Sherman allowed Hood to go on his merry way, he's lucky Hood was pretty much incompetent as a strategist. With Hood bottled up or destroyed, the union could have forced Lee's surrender much sooner than April of 1865. At least that's my thinking.
Secondly, secession was legal under the Federal government. They allowed the western countries of Virginia (under federal control) to secede from VA and form the state of West Virginia. (handily adding a few more electoral votes for Lincoln!)
I can see your point about the cotton states going out in spite of Lincoln's promise not to directly interfere with slavery. Unless slavery expanded into other states it was doomed in the U.S. But I still contend that secession didn't necessarily mean war. With VA, TN, and NC refusing to secede, I think a compromise could have been reached short of gunfire. What would the cost be of government funded manumission of slaves versus 4 years of Civil War be?
Once again we see that government went to war to coerce states, not to end slavery! 7mm
" The slave trade was abolished. So they couldn’t sell them out of the country. They couldn’t take them to new territories."
This is where folks like the Lafitte bros and Jim Bowie were making a killing in the illegal slave trade. The would bring them into the port of Galveston, bribe a few local officials, and in turn smuggle them back into US territory in Louisiana. They weren’t the only ones involved in the activity.
Edit!
Btw, the Lafitte boys were also In the pay of the Spanish intelligence service. Just like US General Wilkenson!
Bowie and his brothers made their first fortunes by exploiting a loophole in the laws barring the importation of slaves.
Sort of "We found these Africans wandering around in the swamp, so here they are"! Once they were turned over to the state, the state could sell them as slaves and keep the money. Now they were legal slaves! The Bowie Boys were entitled to half the price, since they'd "found" them. That meant they could handily outbid other buys. Once they had legally "bought" the slaves at half price, they could make a killing reselling the newly legal African slaves. It's good work if you can get it! Bowie did this a while, then he started forging "Spanish Land Grants" for fun and profit. If he hadn't "Gone To Texas", he'd likely been locked up or hanged! If he hadn't died at the Alamo, he'd probably have made a helluva Confederate General in his old age. But that's information for another thread! Never heard that about Jean Lefitt. I know he helped Jackson defend New Orleans in 1812, but never knew he was mixed up with that snake Wilkerson. 7mm
You are forgetting the real reason for how Sherman conducted his campaign He was in the deep south and for the most part cut off from his supply line. How do you expect he was supposed to feed them while he chased Hood around? Go to the local Whataburger? He took the Southern plantations and farms for 2 reasons. To feed his own and to take it away from the Confederates.
In addition Sherman hated war, but knew if you were in a fight, the best strategy was to eliminate the enemy as quickly as possible.
One has to attempt to view the CW threw their eyes and not ours.
Sherman:
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
Sherman's supply lines weren't cut until the Army of Tennessee cut them! The whole idea of Hood going north was to draw Sherman away by threatening his supply lines. Even then, Forrest did more to disrupt Uncle Billy's grub then Hood ever did! The facts were though, by summer of 1864 Confederate logistics were nearly non existent. Burning barns full of grain didn't matter because the Rebs had no way of getting the grain to the armies! The Confederates had to keep moving from place to place because after a couple days they'd exhausted all the food in the area. Pinning them down in one spot would force them to fight or surrender, and with 100000 troops of his own, and 2 armies of 30000 each to the north of Hood, trapping him wouldn't have been hard. I've said it before, the power of the Confederate government rested on the Confederate armies. "Those who aren't skinning can hold a leg" Grant said. What leg was Sherman holding? 7mm
What you don’t get is Sherman had no desire to play nice. He wanted to make the South hurt in every possible way, and did. Your view is from 2020 hindsight and nothing more. It means little now and even less to Sherman then.
You admitted the South had to move because they quickly exhausted the local food supply. Sherman was making sure they had one less move. Along with how much more of this do you want, because I’ll give you all of it and more.
Addition: The South proved it could fight and more than once. More than one fight the North should have won and didn’t. Pinning them wasn’t always the best strategy. Especially on their home ground.
The Army of the Tennessee wasn't going anywhere, it could either go after Sherman or batter itself to destruction against the Federals in Tennessee, Hood chose the latter.
By that stage in the war it was so over-matched Sherman didn't have to go against it.
"Never heard that about Jean Lefitt. I know he helped Jackson defend New Orleans in 1812, but never knew he was mixed up with that snake Wilkerson."
They were operating independent of association with Wilkenson. But were in cahoots with Spanish authorities while they were the principle "businessmen" on Galveston Island.
I think a compromise could have been reached short of gunfire. What would the cost be of government funded manumission of slaves versus 4 years of Civil War be?
Maybe but at the outset, nobody had the slightest suspicion that the war would last four years and cost 750,000 lives.
It's always like that. In World War I all the nations thouight the war would be over by Christmas, 1914.
And LBJ would never have started/escalated the viet anm War had he kknown it would cost 58,000 American lives, not to mention the lives of many Vietnamese, and that our aims would not be achieved.
You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.
Sherman:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.
Sherman:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
But just like the Irish and the war crimes of Cromwell the South never learned to fear Yankees, just hate them for 150 years and more.
Hood was a good general brigadier general taking orders Clebuurne should have had hoods position but instead was slaughtered amongst many others at Franklin
You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.
Sherman:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
But just like the Irish and the war crimes of Cromwell the South never learned to fear Yankees, just hate them for 150 years and more.
I understand how the feeling could have a time frame and admit Sherman miscalculated how his words would be taken. But150 years???? Please, it is the same as slavery. None living today had slaves and none think it was right. To say any hate today’s Yanks, 150 years later, who had nothing to do with any of it, is the same as blacks beetching to me about slavery. They have to look at in the context of the times, while accepting the country has moved on, while respecting their sacrifices. So do any Southerns still carrying a CW grudge after 150.
And for clarification, I think the South has every right to keep it’s memorials to those who stood for their country when it was the Confederacy. Brave men and women sacrificed greatly during that period of our history and their deeds and memory should not be discarded.
You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.
Sherman:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
But just like the Irish and the war crimes of Cromwell the South never learned to fear Yankees, just hate them for 150 years and more.
I understand how the feeling could have a time frame and admit Sherman miscalculated how his words would be taken. But150 years???? Please, it is the same as slavery. None living today had slaves and none think it was right. To say any hate today’s Yanks, 150 years later, who had nothing to do with any of it, is the same as blacks beetching to me about slavery. They have to look at in the context of the times, while accepting the country has moved on, while respecting their sacrifices. So do any Southerns still carrying a CW grudge after 150.
And for clarification, I think the South has every right to keep it’s memorials to those who stood for their country when it was the Confederacy. Brave men and women sacrificed greatly during that period of our history and their deeds and memory should not be discarded.
It is very simple. We don’t hate Yankees because there was a war that we lost. There was a war because we hate Yankees and they hated us. We haven’t forgotten the reasons we hate them. Whenever we think about easing up on our feelings about them, some more of them more down and remind us why they are the scourge of the earth.
I guess I’m a Yankee (funny, I don’t feel like a Yankee, I’m just some guy living his life, doing his job, being a good husband and father, and trying to fish more than I do) but I don’t hate y’all. Maybe some of y’all, but not all y’all. And the ones I hate, I hate for a reason, not because of an accident of birth.
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
According to this post, you sound like you are more Yankee than Southern. You know everything about everyone above the line and have to tell all about it. And that is some funny schittt coming from you.
And the thing is, most of you on this thread are historical illiterates. Not every person from the North is a Yankee. Do your research and you’ll see where the Yankees came from, what sort of people they were, and then you can spot them and their literal and spiritual descendants today.
Hood was one of the better tactical brigade and maybe division commanders, but with an army he was completely out of his realm. After he got shot up at Gettysburg, he was in Richmond for most of his recovery. While there he got to rubbing elbows with the confederacy's upper crust, and became friends with Jefferson Davis. Joe Johnson was commander of The Army of Tennessee, he did a pretty good job of avoiding catastrophe facing Sherman's Army Group. Trouble was Davis didn't see it as avoiding catastrophe, he saw it as avoiding a fight. He replaced Johnson with Hood, and the rest, as the saying goes, is history. Hood weakened the army trying to force Sherman away from Atlanta, and pretty much Wrecked it at Franklin against Schofield. Till he got done with it at Nashville, The Army of Tennessee was nothing but an armed mob. Joe Johnson rebuilt it, but he wasn't much of a threat to Sherman then. "I can only annoy him". I think Johnson in 1864 understood Northern Moral and Lincoln's reelection, and did his best trading Territory for time. Davis was unable to see it that way, and he had a hardon for Joe Johnson anyway. 7mm
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
According to this post, you sound like you are more Yankee than Southern. You know everything about everyone above the line and have to tell all about it. And that is some funny schittt coming from you.
That’s funny as hell. I don’t give a crap what you do and I sure as hell don’t know better. Battue is 100% right, including the part about me being an [bleep].
Hood was one of the better tactical brigade and maybe division commanders, but with an army he was completely out of his realm. After he got shot up at Gettysburg, he was in Richmond for most of his recovery. While there he got to rubbing elbows with the confederacy's upper crust, and became friends with Jefferson Davis. Joe Johnson was commander of The Army of Tennessee, he did a pretty good job of avoiding catastrophe facing Sherman's Army Group. Trouble was Davis didn't see it as avoiding catastrophe, he saw it as avoiding a fight. He replaced Johnson with Hood, and the rest, as the saying goes, is history. Hood weakened the army trying to force Sherman away from Atlanta, and pretty much Wrecked it at Franklin against Schofield. Till he got done with it at Nashville, The Army of Tennessee was nothing but an armed mob. Joe Johnson rebuilt it, but he wasn't much of a threat to Sherman then. "I can only annoy him". I think Johnson in 1864 understood Northern Moral and Lincoln's reelection, and did his best trading Territory for time. Davis was unable to see it that way, and he had a hardon for Joe Johnson anyway. 7mm
Speaking of General John Bell Hood for whom Fort Hood was named for, this will piss you off.
You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.
Sherman:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
You make it sound a little like Sherman was out for vengeance over the Confederacy's starting the war. I know at the time an awful lot of people in the north felt that way. As far as the March to the Sea advancing Lincoln's reelection, I don't buy that. A lot of people in the northern states, including Lincoln himself, were worried about Sherman being destroyed or trapped. They were very relieved when Uncle Billy finally reached Savannah in December. 7mm
I saw that the other day on Real Clear History. Renaming bases hasn't really been seriously discussed (yet) but the House is pushing to make DOD stop using names or words that commemorate anything having to do with the Confederacy. This of course is another example of democratic pandering to Blacks. It'd be nice if they'd try pandering to Americans by maybe closing the border or fighting government corruption! I scares the heck outta me what happens when they regain control. One really has to wonder what might happen these SJWs and politicians did something to help Black communities instead of stirring up heartache over something that happened long ago. 7mm
I don’t know all the particulars as much as you. However, Sherman has my attention and from books and his quotes, I’m more than fairly sure vengeance for secession most certainly was his mindset. He took particular measure to destroy S. Carolina because they were the first State to do so.
This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. William Tecumseh Sherman Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/william_tecumseh_sherman_205668
“I have for some days held and controlled every avenue by which the people and garrison of Savannah can be supplied, and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city…I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah and other large cities which have been so prominent in dragging our country into civil war.” ― William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman
I don’t know all the particulars as much as you. However, Sherman has my attention and from books and his quotes, I’m more than fairly sure vengeance for secession most certainly was his mindset. He took particular measure to destroy S. Carolina because they were the first State to do so.
This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. William Tecumseh Sherman Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/william_tecumseh_sherman_205668
“I have for some days held and controlled every avenue by which the people and garrison of Savannah can be supplied, and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city…I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah and other large cities which have been so prominent in dragging our country into civil war.” ― William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman
Sherman made Bloody Bill Anderson look like a shrinking violet.
And the thing is, most of you on this thread are historical illiterates. Not every person from the North is a Yankee. Do your research and you’ll see where the Yankees came from, what sort of people they were, and then you can spot them and their literal and spiritual descendants today.
I don’t know all the particulars as much as you. However, Sherman has my attention and from books and his quotes, I’m more than fairly sure vengeance for secession most certainly was his mindset. He took particular measure to destroy S. Carolina because they were the first State to do so.
This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. William Tecumseh Sherman Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/william_tecumseh_sherman_205668
“I have for some days held and controlled every avenue by which the people and garrison of Savannah can be supplied, and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city…I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah and other large cities which have been so prominent in dragging our country into civil war.” ― William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman
Sherman made Bloody Bill Anderson look like a shrinking violet.
Lee was fortunate it was Meade and not Sherman at Gettysburg. Lee wouldn’t have walked away in the middle of the night. He would either have surrendered or never again set foot on Virginia soil.
Just so you know I don’t hate you. I know you are an assshole, but I don’t hate you for it.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
This stuff directed at me or some other freakin Yankee?
Ok, I can understand Billy's motivation a little better. Ike hated the Germans, and Mac the Japanese, but regardless, neither ever deliberately targeted civilians. Not all that different from Bloody Bill Anderson or Qauntrell. In their minds they were vengeance fighters too. Some guys can't tell the difference between acts of war and terrorism. Admittedly it's a fine line, but Nowadays they punish people for that.
"Grant was to go for Lee, and I was to go for Joe Johnson" Sherman on the conference he and Grant had in Cincinnati before Grant left for Washington. Notice any differences in your quotes of Sherman versus mine? 7mm
“I have for some days held and controlled every avenue by which the people and garrison of Savannah can be supplied, and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city…I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah and other large cities which have been so prominent in dragging our country into civil war.” ― William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman
Savannah gave up without a fight and Sherman presented the city to Lincoln as a Christmas present. They probably thought about putting up a fight but it was time for Christmas parties and bowl season was just starting. Just a little joke for those that know the place......
Neither deliberately target civilians? The carpet bomb air raids over Germany killed civilians on a daily basis. An estimated 400,000 to 500,000 civilians.The A bomb is estimated to have killed somewhere around 200,000 civilians, and rather quickly.
Things most certainly have changed today and one of the reasons we become entangled in long term wars today. Sherman was willing to be nice, after you had enough.
And you are FOS. They see the government and big business as having control over their rights.
They are opposed to a right wing government which they feel is oppressive and not in their best interest. Thus going rogue is justifiable.
No, they want to get control of the apparatus made possible by your team in the late war of which you are so proud, and use it to hammer your pecker in the dirt for eternity.
Karl Marx knew what a great man Lincoln was and exchanged kind letters with him telling him so.
I will say this about Sherman. When Louisiana seceded, and he left the superintendent job at the school that was later to become LSU, he told Lincoln look! These people are forming state guards and militias! They are prepping for a war! He was pretty much laughed at.
“At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see that in the end you will surely fail.”
…The prophetic words of William Tecumseh Sherman on December 24, 1860, after he learned of South Carolina’s secession.
You still pulled the short stick. Anyway, run up to Portland, I’m sure antifa will welcome you. Maybe you can even make a buck off them as a motivational speaker. You know, a rally around the flag type gig.
You still pulled the short stick. Anyway, run up to Portland, I’m sure antifa will welcome you. Maybe you can even make a buck off them as a motivational speaker. You know, a rally around the flag type gig.
You're totally lost. Unfortunately, you're far from being unique.
Poster #1; "Hey! I picked up an awesome original Springfield Model 1861 Rifle Musket with bayonet!"
Poster #2; "Wow! That’s cool! Post up some pics!”
Poster #3; "Damn yankee musket!!!"
Poster #1; “But it has confederate provenance!"
Poster #4; "Some Inbred redneck took it off dead union soldier!”
Ad nauseam
The conclusion of the Battle of Gettysburg saw the Confederate Army in full retreat, forced to abandon all of its dead and most of its wounded. This left the Union Army and the local citizens with the job of cleanup. It was when the weapons were being gathered and added to a master list of enemy possessions found that people started to notice something strange.
The numbers we have today state that at least 27,574 rifles were recovered, although some sources claim the number to be as high as 37,000. Of the weapons that were salvaged, an incredible 24,000 rifles were still loaded (that’s either 87% or 63%, depending on which estimate you accept.) Of the total number, half had been loaded more than once, and a quarter had been reloaded multiple times. Apparently, one poor soldier had reloaded his weapon twenty-three times, but the weird thing is that he never fired a single shot. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/08/30/guns-gettysburg-found-loaded/
After the Battle of Gettysburg, the discarded rifles were collected and sent to Washington to be inspected and reissued. Of the 37,574 rifles recovered, approximately 24,000 were still loaded; 6,000 had one round in the barrel; 12,000 had two rounds in the barrel; 6,000 had three to ten rounds in the barrel. One rifle, the most remarkable of all, had been stuffed to the top with twenty-three rounds in the barrel.
Naturally the Gettysburg NPS museum has a really nice selection of weapons on display. Amazing the non standardization of weapons and ammo. A logistic nightmare.
I found this an interesting bit of research. N B Tanner’s factory was here in Bastrop Tx. A very small building. Perhapes 12 x 12. Still stands in town not far off SH 71.
Neither deliberately target civilians? The carpet bomb air raids over Germany killed civilians on a daily basis. An estimated 400,000 to 500,000 civilians.The A bomb is estimated to have killed somewhere around 200,000 civilians, and rather quickly.
Things most certainly have changed today and one of the reasons we become entangled in long term wars today. Sherman was willing to be nice, after you had enough.
For the most part during WW2 in Germany, the U.S. chose military or industrial targets, and used Daylight raids to avoid excessive civilian casualties. Britain, OTOH, were using nighttime raids on civilian neighborhoods. They were taking a beating early in the war trying to hit well protected military targets in daytime, but after Germans started bombing London the gloves came off. I ain't saying the U.S. Didn't. There were several cities firebombed into nothing but soot, Dresden being the most famous. But as a rule, the U.S. concentrated on stuff to damage the German war effort. As a matter of fact the U.S. Refused the Dresden raid until the Brits pointed out the huge rail depot there. Hiroshima was picked as a target for the bomb mainly because it was (A) relatively undamaged by bombing and (B) the seaport and small army base located there. Nagasaki was hit because of cloud cover over the primary target. (I forget what city) Japanese industry was broken up into smaller cottage shops in civilian areas. Most everything there was built of paper and wood. Comparing Sherman's March to bombing Germany and Japan is pretty Apples to oranges to my mind. I still maintain that his primary concern should have been The Army of Tennessee. The shortest route to the end of the war was by destroying the Confederate Armies. 7mm
Neither deliberately target civilians? The carpet bomb air raids over Germany killed civilians on a daily basis. An estimated 400,000 to 500,000 civilians.The A bomb is estimated to have killed somewhere around 200,000 civilians, and rather quickly.
Things most certainly have changed today and one of the reasons we become entangled in long term wars today. Sherman was willing to be nice, after you had enough.
For the most part during WW2 in Germany, the U.S. chose military or industrial targets, and used Daylight raids to avoid excessive civilian casualties. Britain, OTOH, were using nighttime raids on civilian neighborhoods. They were taking a beating early in the war trying to hit well protected military targets in daytime, but after Germans started bombing London the gloves came off. I ain't saying the U.S. Didn't. There were several cities firebombed into nothing but soot, Dresden being the most famous. But as a rule, the U.S. concentrated on stuff to damage the German war effort. As a matter of fact the U.S. Refused the Dresden raid until the Brits pointed out the huge rail depot there. Hiroshima was picked as a target for the bomb mainly because it was (A) relatively undamaged by bombing and (B) the seaport and small army base located there. Nagasaki was hit because of cloud cover over the primary target. (I forget what city) Japanese industry was broken up into smaller cottage shops in civilian areas. Most everything there was built of paper and wood. Comparing Sherman's March to bombing Germany and Japan is pretty Apples to oranges to my mind. I still maintain that his primary concern should have been The Army of Tennessee. The shortest route to the end of the war was by destroying the Confederate Armies. 7mm
An aerial armada of 334 B-29 bombers took off from newly established bases in the Mariana Islands, bound for Tokyo. In the space of a few hours, they dropped 1,667 tons of napalm-filled incendiary bombs on the Japanese capital, killing more than 100,000 people in a single strike, and injuring several times that number. It was the highest death toll of any air raid during the war, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By comparison, the bombing of Dresden a month earlier had resulted in around 25,000 deaths. Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-history-180954512/#IjBBLkTxSSAlibib.99
What? I didn't compare anything other than your comment. "neither ever deliberately targeted civilians." Now you admit sometimes they did in WW!! and the A bomb was unleashed on civilians.. Approximately 600,000 civilians is a not insignificant number.
Other than reply on your comment of deliberately targeted civilians, did I at anytime compare Shermans tactics to Germany and Japan. Damn, make sure you don't decide to ever write a history book.
You are guessing on what his primary concern should have been. Simply put he didn't think much of your suggestion, and his object was to wreck havoc and horror on each and all that left the Union ranks.
Having your opinion of the whys and whats is fine with me. However, making incorrect comments about mine isn't.
"Fierce Patriot" by Robert O'connell will give some lacking insight into Sherman.
"Memoirs of General William T. Sherman" by the man himself would be another.
War isn't pretty and the things the Japanese did to our soldiers was pretty remarkable. They were brutal not only to us but to anyone they fought. Ask the Chinese and Burmese what it was like under Jap control. We didn't want to have to invade Japan so decisions were made. Those bombs were horrific but ultimately brought the war to an end. It had been predicted we'd loose a million troops if we invaded. Hitler had no problem dropping bombs on London so "he that sows the wind will endure the whirlwind". Or something to that effect.
The Civil War is not much different. It was another time with other ROE. I tend to let it rest in peace. We lost a lot of good men on both sides. As for the rifles left at Gettysburg Who knows what happened in the heat of battle. one thing's for sure the Confederates lost that one and ultimately the war.
7mm wants to know if they killed any civilians. If they did, he thinks it was an exception and most certainly not done on purpose.
Sherman probably smiled from somewhere:
“If war with the Japanese does come, we’ll fight mercilessly,” General George C. Marshall told news reporters in an off-the-record briefing on November 15, 1941, three weeks before Pearl Harbor. “Flying Fortresses will be dispatched immediately to set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians—it will be all-out.” Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-history-180954512/#MBfmJT23mjXg2ttq.99
I found this an interesting bit of research. N B Tanner’s factory was here in Bastrop Tx. A very small building. Perhapes 12 x 12. Still stands in town not far off SH 71.
I’ve got evidence in writing one of my great great grand fathers was on a furlough and hid in a chimney cause he knowed he’d be killed by the dam Yankees this was bout the time of hunters raid on Lexington and Lynchburg Virginia I’ve heard stories about yankee wagons being ambushed by locals there used to be a marker not far from my home called yankee bin some body stole it and I can’t find anything that it ever existed
I found this an interesting bit of research. N B Tanner’s factory was here in Bastrop Tx. A very small building. Perhapes 12 x 12. Still stands in town not far off SH 71.
Filthy yankees are still ruining our homeland. Look at the way they come and fill up subdivisions. Where I live was beautiful woods and pastures ten years ago. Today, subdivisions all around.
I found this an interesting bit of research. N B Tanner’s factory was here in Bastrop Tx. A very small building. Perhapes 12 x 12. Still stands in town not far off SH 71.
You’re welcome Neal! Yeah! Lots went on here. I live on the old 1831 (Mexican) Joseph Rogers land grant. About 1/2 mile across the hayfield in front of my house is The old Josiah Wilbarger grant!
Most of the meat of the history of the Civil War is always left out, the victor always gets the right to write history. If you really dive into what the men that fought that war thought, by reading some of the letters that these men wrote, you may see the war in a whole different light. I don't mean the historic accounts of the officers either. The controversy of the Civil war will always live on in the hearts of people. The era in our history produced violence and hatred that is still thriving even today.
I sometimes wonder when people talk about " it is their heritage" if they are actually talking about the Civil War or the Jim Crow era, where segregation began being enforced well after the end of the war.
I am not trying to stir the pot, but then again I am. I find some of information and opinions of a war that ended 154 years ago very interesting. I have my own opinions and I have read a ton of information about the civil war, but I am in no way an expert on the subject.
Oh and the question of what would have happened if the South had won, who knows, we may be speaking German or Japanese these days. Just my opinion.
In my mind it is time to let the past be the past, we don't owe anybody anything for what decisions our ancestors made back in that time. The issue of slavery is now just being used to create sympathy and attention for those that refuse to get out their and overcome the odds and the circumstance that they find themselves in. Those that refuse to rise above the situation and make life better for themselves. Those that are looking to cash in on the suffering of their ancestors.
I will not be one of those that will be apologizing for my ancestry or skin color anytime soon, what my ancestors did is what they did, and in no way shape or form will I be held accountable for their actions or beliefs. This is coming from a guy that has ancestors who fought and died on both sides of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.
History can never be erased wether right or wrong regardless blood was shed and lives were given for freedom or defense of states and homes all were Americans and heroic and should be remembered
This place is just too much. A thread on Evolution AND another on the Civil War. Both recreating facts and history and science and "new" math as if it were only personal opinion and beliefs that matter. Thanks for all the entertainment.
You’re welcome Neal! Yeah! Lots went on here. I live on the old 1831 (Mexican) Joseph Rogers land grant. About 1/2 mile across the hayfield in front of my house is The old Josiah Wilbarger grant!
Most of the meat of the history of the Civil War is always left out, the victor always gets the right to write history. If you really dive into what the men that fought that war thought, by reading some of the letters that these men wrote, you may see the war in a whole different light. I don't mean the historic accounts of the officers either. The controversy of the Civil war will always live on in the hearts of people. The era in our history produced violence and hatred that is still thriving even today.
I sometimes wonder when people talk about " it is their heritage" if they are actually talking about the Civil War or the Jim Crow era, where segregation began being enforced well after the end of the war.
I am not trying to stir the pot, but then again I am. I find some of information and opinions of a war that ended 154 years ago very interesting. I have my own opinions and I have read a ton of information about the civil war, but I am in no way an expert on the subject.
Oh and the question of what would have happened if the South had won, who knows, we may be speaking German or Japanese these days. Just my opinion.
In my mind it is time to let the past be the past, we don't owe anybody anything for what decisions our ancestors made back in that time. The issue of slavery is now just being used to create sympathy and attention for those that refuse to get out their and overcome the odds and the circumstance that they find themselves in. Those that refuse to rise above the situation and make life better for themselves. Those that are looking to cash in on the suffering of their ancestors.
I will not be one of those that will be apologizing for my ancestry or skin color anytime soon, what my ancestors did is what they did, and in no way shape or form will I be held accountable for their actions or beliefs. This is coming from a guy that has ancestors who fought and died on both sides of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.
One thing about the Civil War is that the loser has got about as many books out as the victor.
Oh and the question of what would have happened if the South had won, who knows, we may be speaking German or Japanese these days. Just my opinion.
In my mind it is time to let the past be the past, we don't owe anybody anything for what decisions our ancestors made back in that time. The issue of slavery is now just being used to create sympathy and attention for those that refuse to get out their and overcome the odds and the circumstance that they find themselves in. Those that refuse to rise above the situation and make life better for themselves. Those that are looking to cash in on the suffering of their ancestors.
I will not be one of those that will be apologizing for my ancestry or skin color anytime soon, what my ancestors did is what they did, and in no way shape or form will I be held accountable for their actions or beliefs.
Filthy yankees are still ruining our homeland. Look at the way they come and fill up subdivisions. Where I live was beautiful woods and pastures ten years ago. Today, subdivisions all around.
Don't feel pregnant. I assure you that it happens here in Pennsylvania too. Lotta my favorite hunting spots growing up are now somebody's back yard!
I read about the rifles recovered from Gettysburg, and the number of them being loaded with multiple rounds. I could forgive a guy one or two. In the heat of battle it'd be easy to forget or drop a percussion cap. But you think after 10 or 12 rounds they'd notice that the ramrod had gotten longer!
Kaywoodie, I love to see history like that still standing. So much of it disappears over time. One of the really cool things about living near Route 30 here in Pennsylvania is the number of books about "The Lincoln Highway" corridor. There are still a number of toll houses from the 1830s when it was the Bedford/Chambersburg Pike. Some of the small towns never change. Other than the cars in the driveways they look like they did 80 years ago. 7mm
Filthy yankees are still ruining our homeland. Look at the way they come and fill up subdivisions. Where I live was beautiful woods and pastures ten years ago. Today, subdivisions all around.
Damn shame your southern landholder neighbors all sold out on you. Sold out for the big developer dollars and left you high and dry. What are the odds there were some Southern home builders involved in the deal also. Sucking up those Yankee dollars and not giving a rotton pecan thought about you.
Some of you are like the old movie cartoons. Something to laugh at and nothing more.
Two really cool schools of Pennsylvania rifles!!!! I do like me some Pennsylvania rifles!!!
Freesone peaches grown in the Chambersburg area are some of the best grown anywhere. And right now they are at their peak.
I'll put them up against any Georgia peach ever grown, and I wish they would keep their Georgia peaches down there where they belong. To even be in the same store and next to a Chambersburg peach PMO.
This spring was pretty wet. First crop here were a bit watery. Later peaches were pretty good! All my trees succumbed years ago. Never replanted. But old son and neighbor share! There’s are pretty tasty.
Last week at Rocky Mountain National Rendezvous about 40 miles or so SE of Gunnison Colo.
(Forgive me 7mmbuster for slight hijack. But I’m firmly established in the fact that Pennsylvania is pretty dang responsible for the American rifleman!).
Beautiful rifle! I've always wanted to build something like that, but lack the time, money, and above all, the patience! Inletting the stock for the furniture and lock worries me. I'm thinking I could screw that up in a heartbeat. I'd probably bang it all up in the brush anyway! Here in Pennsylvania we have a flintlock only deer season after Xmas into January. I've got a Pennsylvania Rifle rocklock in 50, but some of the places I like to hunt ain't exactly where you want to go with a 5 foot, 9 pound piece of artwork! 7mm
Filthy yankees are still ruining our homeland. Look at the way they come and fill up subdivisions. Where I live was beautiful woods and pastures ten years ago. Today, subdivisions all around.
And you blame someone else for that!?! Remarkably obnoxious.
Filthy yankees are still ruining our homeland. Look at the way they come and fill up subdivisions. Where I live was beautiful woods and pastures ten years ago. Today, subdivisions all around.
Damn shame your southern landholder neighbors all sold out on you. Sold out for the big developer dollars and left you high and dry. What are the odds there were some Southern home builders involved in the deal also. Sucking up those Yankee dollars and not giving a rotton pecan thought about you.
Some of you are like the old movie cartoons. Something to laugh at and nothing more.
There is a LOT of truth to this. I have been amazed at the lack of respect for family history down here. So many folks don’t care that Ma and Pa Kettle busted their ass to carve an existence out of the wildernesses, many years ago. The family land and heritage means nothing when a pos developer is offering up the big bucks. Seem like the same old pot bellied dude with a goatee talking about selling family land, so they can buy a place at Holden Beach. Can’t put all the blame on those moving down, when locals are selling out like they are. The biggest issue with those moving down here is the lack of integration and respect for our way of life. Also, the northeasterners have a bit of a brash personality at times, which doesn’t translate well to our culture. Many down here feel a bit invaded and overwhelmed.
Terryk may know a bit more on this. But the vast majority of firearms that the State of Virginia had stockpiled before the war (Virginia State Manufacturoy at Richmond) were mostly unconverted flintlocks. Converting them to percussion system didn’t really kick off until after secession.
7mm!! They are a killin’ machine!!! Tote it to the killin’ fields!!!!!!! 😉.
Trust me, dragging that damn thing through grown over choppins and crabapple the only thing you're killing is yourself! Alas, in deep winter after rifle season, that's where the deer tend to hang out. I got a Hawken for that stuff. 7mm
There is a LOT of truth to this. I have been amazed at the lack of respect for family history down here. So many folks don’t care that Ma and Pa Kettle busted their ass to carve an existence out of the wildernesses, many years ago. The family land and heritage means nothing when a pos developer is offering up the big bucks. Seem like the same old pot bellied dude with a goatee talking about selling family land, so they can buy a place at Holden Beach. Can’t put all the blame on those moving down, when locals are selling out like they are. The biggest issue with those moving down here is the lack of integration and respect for our way of life. Also, the northeasterners have a bit of a brash personality at times, which doesn’t translate well to our culture. Many down here feel a bit invaded and overwhelmed.
30 years ago I got the chance to buy may Grandparents farm.
Now it is time to transfer it to my Daughter. I told her when I’m gone she can decide what to do with it and circumstances may make it the best thing to do. However, before she does, think about a piece of land her blood has owned for almost 100 years and what that means.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman
____________________________
But Mr Sherman! Lincoln was the one who decided to invade. He alone decided to take the path of invasion.
Sherman was an open bare faced idolator who worshipped some fanciful notion of the nation as some demigod. That is what drove him and many others to justify their war crimes in their own perverse darkened minds.
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
According to this post, you sound like you are more Yankee than Southern. You know everything about everyone above the line and have to tell all about it. And that is some funny schittt coming from you.
Really cool to watch. Wish the audio was a little better, but I'm glad you posted it.
Battue, while I do admire some of Sherman's qualities, I still believe he shoulda done things a little different. How 'bout just for chits and giggles, let's put Sherman in a German uniform at Nuremberg. How do you think he'd have made out? And yeah, I like to stir the pot!
As we have discussed, believe what you want, however history is history. It is not a play, that can or should be transferred to a different time. The facts are what they are and were. The best we can do is treat them as fairly and accurately as the info available.
Now as far as Nuremberg, that is the stuff of fantasy and again not history. Something akin to what CNN would do when trying to falsely associate one with someone that is looked on with contempt. Mostly shiiit and little giggles. Was that your ulterior purpose? if you want to try and make your point by the application of 1940 standards to those of the 1860's, it will never be accurate or honest to the individual. Sherman was influenced by the standards of his time.
However, to give some factual history, this would be page 168 of the book Fierce Patriot, and it is in regards Shermans conditions of surrender at Savannah. The book was written by one who has a Phd in History from the University of Virginia, and was a professor of the Naval Post Graduate School when the book was written. He admits Sherman is a mercurial many faceted individual. One who others, can often come to different conclusions, regarding how they view his place in history. All that said, he is still considered the father of modern warfare.
Stir your pot how you want, and I'll do the same with mine.
In my rush to crucify Sherman, I'd forgotten the very lenient surrender terms he offered Johnson once he'd finally been brought to bay. Lincoln himself would probably have disapproved them had he been around. 7mm
Ah the truth comes out. You really didn't want to just "stir the pot", your goal was to crucify Sherman by association. Figured it as such.... CNN may be hiring, perhaps you should give their HR a call....
The North had to win so that one day, white people in the north could send poor, clitless, oppressed Ilhan Omar to Congress in order for America to be saved by diversity.
We don’t hate you as long as you stay there, leave us the frick alone, and don’t tell us what to do. Do that and you’re fine. The thing is, Yankees never do that. They always know better.
According to this post, you sound like you are more Yankee than Southern. You know everything about everyone above the line and have to tell all about it. And that is some funny schittt coming from you.
Historically speaking, I believe the artist had General Grant a bit over-dressed for the occassion! 🤣
The North had to win so that one day, white people in the north could send poor, clitless, oppressed Ilhan Omar to Congress in order for America to be saved by diversity.
Despite the protestations of some on this board, it was all foreseeable. Or else, this guy had a time machine.
It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.
The North had to win so that one day, white people in the north could send poor, clitless, oppressed Ilhan Omar to Congress in order for America to be saved by diversity.
Since we are quickly moving along to how the CW effected modern day politics. Should we be thanking the South for LBJ and the Great Society-from which we may never recover-along with your most famous peanut farmer Mr. Caaarter- or didn't you refer to him as Mr. Jimmy-who must have done something. But i'll leave it to you to come up with it.
More absurdity, if only back then there was a Trump. I would have voted for him just on the wall platform. Ya'll would have been knocking at the gates. "Let me in, let me in."
Ah the truth comes out. You really didn't want to just "stir the pot", your goal was to crucify Sherman by association. Figured it as such.... CNN may be hiring, perhaps you should give their HR a call....
CNN would never work out because I'll usually admit being wrong. (Although I did sorta double down myself here)
One thing I picked up from Birdie's video about JEB Stuart that I overlooked before. Power = Means X Will. Reduce means or will to zero, and it all ends up the same. Sherman was reducing will. I think he might have ended the war sooner had he gone after means, (The Army of Tennessee), but will was probably much cheaper in blood. 7mm
I’m sure everyone hates it. Seems the north was fine for fighting to preserve the Union, but sure didn’t want to fight for abolition, which apparently Lincoln wanted them to.
The tone of this thing certainly nods “patriotism” (of sorts) to the south. At least in spirit.
I’m sure everyone hates it. Seems the north was fine for fighting to preserve the Union, but sure didn’t want to fight for abolition, which apparently Lincoln wanted them to.
The tone of this thing certainly nods “patriotism” (of sorts) to the south. At least in spirit.
“I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.”
“I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.”
Robert E. Lee
THIS.... Splitting the country up was and remains a STUPID notion...
The entirety of it: re secession, a portion of a letter from Lee to his son....
"The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father"
Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father"
Just thought I would highlight that part from Lee’s letter to his son.
Below is from Lee’s letter to Lord Acton after the war.
I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.
You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason.
Maybe not. Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, taken directly from the Declaration Of Independence. 7mm
You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Where is it stated in the Constitution that keeping the Union intact is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government?
Quoting Lee’s thoughts on secession at that time being treasonous, as it relates to 1808 implies only his position. My thoughts were directed towards the inconsistency of his conclusion.
Lee makes it hard justify his ultiłmate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason.
Maybe not. Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, taken directly from the Declaration Of Independence. 7mm
You continue to see history from primarily a 21st century windshield. I suspect you may believe in global warming.
The question was even argued back then. Jefferson was a people’s rights proponent. Hamilton advocated big government.
Both signed their names on the Declaration.
Lee with “What can it be now?” Seemed to have answered the question in his own mind.
You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Not really. Lee may have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
My thoughts were directed towards the inconsistency of his conclusion.
He was put into a terrible position by the times in which he lived.....his being an intelligent man only made it worse. He could either fight the Union or fight his friends, neighbors, and family which I suppose he decided was the "dishonor" that he could not abide. I suppose he could have resigned from the army and NOT fought for either side, making his name mud with both.
"Treason" is only treason if you lose. George Washington, the Sons of Liberty, the signers of the Declaration were no more or less treasonous than the Confederates......but they won and until recent times were nearly deified. Had they lost, their executions would be footnotes in British history.
As for today, if the country eventually votes in communism with all that goes along with it like confiscation of property and guns, if any of us raises our hands against it, guess what......we'll be traitors if we lose.
Should Lee and some others been hung? I don’t think so. However, one was, and that would have been the poor fellow running Andersonville. Neither side was good at it, and it was the North that discontinued prisoner exchange. Whoever signed of on that may have also deserved a hanging.
Ok, I can agree on that being his personal conclusion.
Was Lee always right? Some agree, some don’t. Was Lee infallible? Obviously not.
Sure, he was one hundred percent right. The primary check of the old constitution was swept away by the war and now the balance is skewed with the federal government having all the power. The only power the states have is what the federal government allows them to have. And certainly we have been far more aggressive abroad than we used to be. And does anyone really even want to argue that we don’t have a level of despotism today in this country that would have had our forefathers taking up arms 50 years ago?
Not really. Lee May have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
It isn’t rocket science.
As far as prophesy, he also advocated no CW monuments should be erected and battlefields should not be commemorated. That it would be in the countries best interest to ensure the CW did not become a future division. Where do you stand with that prophesy?
You are so quick to agree with anything Lee, but show a limited knowledge of who he was. Either that or you choose to ignore the whole of him.
Little doubt, given the chance he would give you a proper education.
Not really. Lee May have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
It isn’t rocket science.
As far as prophesy, he also advocated no CW monuments should be erected and battlefields should not be commemorated. That it would be in the countries best interest to ensure the CW did not become a future division. Where do you stand with that prophesy?
He might have been right, but they were. So should they be torn down creating more resentment division or be left alone?
There was a pile of opportunities before the seventh to not go to war.
Such as?
Maybe be an American Nanking? We already knew what they had done there. 17 million civilians and 3 million military killed in a few months. The Japanese officers gave their troops full support for all the murder and raping they wanted to do as it would give them "power".
I will say this..growing up in Virginia, a history lesson is never far away. We’d find bullets just plowing our garden. Pick up a piece of history like that and hold it in your hand and you can’t help but to be in amazement. We had a bucket of them. My dad was a relic hunter....had stuff everywhere.
Always wondered “what happened here?” when he’d find something.
There was a pile of opportunities before the seventh to not go to war.
Such as?
Maybe be an American Nanking? We already knew what they had done there. 17 million civilians and 3 million military killed in a few months. The Japanese officers gave their troops full support for all the murder and raping they wanted to do as it would give them "power".
He might have been right, but they were. So should they be torn down creating more resentment divisionnir left alone.
As I’ve mentioned before, definitely not. Both sides have their history invested in the CW. Only problem I have with the likes of you, is you think yours is more significant than ours. You are always playing the victim, always on your high horse telling us how special you are. No wonder some of us pass your kind by, only acknowledging the very little considerations you do deserve. Got it????
There was a pile of opportunities before the seventh to not go to war.
Such as?
Maybe be an American Nanking? We already knew what they had done there. 17 million civilians and 3 million military killed in a few months. The Japanese officers gave their troops full support for all the murder and raping they wanted to do as it would give them "power".
You think the second world war was spontaneous?
Of course not. It took many years for the Japanese to start a war with us, but 4 years earlier they had invaded China and were not taking any prisoners. They were murdering and raping all they came in contact with. That should tell people something.
But what does that have to do with all those things we could have done but didn't to keep us out of the war with Japan?
China? To expand the empire. They took over Korea in the late 1800's and finalized full take over in 1910. They wanted complete domination of Asia. Thot they were special.
They didn't invade us. They just bombed us
What about the pile? It's smelling more like the pile I had in mind. lol
He might have been right, but they were. So should they be torn down creating more resentment divisionnir left alone.
As I’ve mentioned before, definitely not. Both sides have their history invested in the CW. Only problem I have with the likes of you, is you think yours is more significant than ours. You are always playing the victim, always on your high horse telling us how special you are. No wonder some of us pass your kind by, only acknowledging the very little considerations you do deserve. Got it????
Mine is more significant than yours because I’m better than you. And, of course, you’re a dumbass Yankee.
The Japs were empire building for a lot of reasons. Pride was certainly one. They believed themselves to be the apex of the human race. All others were inferior. Of course by taking over huge areas of country, they would also have access to that countries natural resources, which the Japs needed to feed their war machine.
Are you a Jap? You surely seem to want to defend them, murderous butchers though they were!
I think you are looking at the issue more idealistic than practical.
I think you're grabbing for straws. We KNOW what happened and why. There is nothing idealistic about that. It's factual history. And with that, I'm done with this rabbit hole, Alice.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/sD4mNCF5/6050751-D-FB8-E-42-A7-A5-A5-DDFDE6-DD47-D9.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/YC2RcDkZ/D6651185-2897-423-C-BFC1-2-C75146-D9256.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/mgWcNgCK/109-C80-B7-6478-41-F6-BA86-3-B62-CF35-E210.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/J0nC0n7N/F4-C8830-D-8-F55-4-C33-9599-3167803-FE607.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://paintingandframe.com/uploadpic/severino_baraldi/big/general_ulysses_grant_accepting_the_surrender_of_general_lee_at_appomattox.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48376933206_086f1774bc_c.jpg)