150 years ago today the Battles began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Ya know one of the biggest reasons behind the civil war was the conferderate states wanted the right to govern themselves. With less Federal interference. Slavery was low on the list, it was there yes but not the main reason. It seems like America had one other war that was for basically the same reason. HMMMMM wonder what war that was?? Can you guess it? It was the Revolutionary war. We wanted the right to decide in the way we were governed. The way we were taxed and the laws that were imposed on us.
I guess both of those wars were lost in the long run. The goverment still controls you with very little say if any from the people it is governing. The goverment can run shod over a state by denying federal monies or aid. Think federal highways or Interstates. All the goverment had to do was cut off funding when they watned the max speed limit set at 55. Not the max on there roads but all roads in that state. This is only an example, the list of goverment controls goes long and deep.
I am just saying maybe it is time to take our country back. And this time make sure we win
slagmaker Its simpler then that,,
South , sore looser's
the election of 1860 when Mr Lincoln won the presidential election voted on by the people some southern leaders were mad because they didn't get the outcome they wonted , so being scared they would loose there slave labor witch was keeping the rich richer by way of there economic system of agriculture is why some Southern states began to to secede.
its that simple
Revolutionary war was a tad different
yes diffrent but it still boils down to the people wanting to govern themselves or at least have greater say in how they are governed.
I failed history class, so c'mon keep going....I'm learning some stuff here. ;yes;
First i like to say i am just conversating not Arguing i am a big histry buff and will talk about my thought on the subject till the cows come home
Democrats had one of there first conventions in South Carolina, at this convention 50 delegates from the Southern states walk out of the convention when the democrats wouldn't except a proposal that would allow rich southern's the right to have slave owners. and they walk out the next get together the dem's had in Baltimore. all because the slavery . so slavery was one of the big issues of the war.
did you know that Mr. Lincoln wasn't even on the bait in the south in 1860 in the south.
in my simple mined, here is how the revolutionary war started... Money money just like all wars
the rich get richer and the poor young die! Britain went to war with the french and Indians
Americans ( rich America) was upset to have to chip in and help pay for it after it was all over.
Nothing is as simple as it seems or what the books tell yea
Like George said, follow the money. At the time of the civil war, a large portion of our nations wealth was in the southern cotton industry. Them yanks up there in the big cities didn't want to loose control of it if the south succeded.
Did you know that a black confederate soldier was paid the same pay as a white soldier? The north didn't pay or treat their black soldiers anywhere near as good as the white soldiers.
sorry i don't Bellevue that, if I have my numbers right it was more like this .
0.1% of the entire black population in the Confederate states served in the confederate army .
Compared to 200,000 total blacks that served in the Union,
this may interest yea
around 5,000 blacks served in the USA Army.just from the state of Alabama.
a total of i think 100,000 blacks from southern states served in the US Troops.
the pay may have been the same but that may have somthing to do with trying to inlist more then 0.1 % of the southern blacks
There were approximatly 65,000 black troops seving in the south. Here's an interesting link to tell their story.
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm
I am on page 799 of one of the best books I have ever read, am reading, on the civil war, called Freedom, by William Safire, excellent read!!
http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-William-Safire/dp/0792424948
Quick trivia, what gentlemen was not only the youngest vice president in history, a senator, confederate general, and confederate secretary of war?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm
:eyebrownod: I'm a listening
Did you know that president Lincoln wanted all people of color deported to Brazil. He felt that blacks and whites should not live together in the same country
President Lincoln also said no black should ever hold property or be allowed to vote. By the way, Lincoln was a Republican. It was the Republicans for the blacks then and the Democrats for keeping them enslaved. Interesting how things have turned. Special interest groups started that chit.
The South had already stated that IF Lincoln were elected that they would secede from the Union. He was elected, sworn in and within months it started.
In my view, Lincoln was our first Dictator. Every state joined the United States Voluntarily. Then when the Confederate States formed and seceded they were forced, by war, to stay within the Union. That is exactly what the dang British did to us. When we wanted to self govern, reasons be damned, the British tried to keep us under the crown through war. Fortunately, the French saw a chance to dig at their old adversaries, the British and gave us a hand. That was more about money, but whatever.
Now, I also happen to believe that eventually, regardless of the war, slavery would have ended and the States would have once again joined. Maybe not formally, but we would have been countrymen. Kind of like England and Scotland. Those two fought a lot too. Now they co-exist peacefully. Same would have happened with the United and Confederate States.
Once last thing. Slavery wasn't all that started the Civil War, but let us not forget our that at the top of the South's Independence, it did indeed say, "The Slave Holding Confederate States of America". Alot of that started in bloody Kansas and Missouri. The deal was for every state that came into the Union they had to bring a second in at the same time. One had to be Free while the other had to be slave holding.
That way they stayed even voting power in Senate. If you'll ever notice, Oklahoma has a little panhandle coming of the Northwest side of it. That use to be Texas. That was the parallel that seperated the North from the south, so Texas lost it's northern most point. Enough for now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks&feature=player_embedded
Where did this misconception of slavery being the cause of the war come from? The answer is from the President's attempt to end the war prematurely through the emancipation proclamation.
In November of 1862,President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary emancipation proclamation. In this speech, Lincoln stated that any seceded state that does not return to the Union by the first of the year 1863 would lose its constitutional right to own slaves. Up until this point, the federal government was unable to legally abolish slavery because the southern states rights to slaves were protected under the constitution. But now the southerners were rebels. If the seceded states did not return to the Union, the government would have every right to reposes the southerner's slaves because it was now considered relieving property from outlaws who would now have no rights at all.
On January 1, 1863, after no state returned to the Union, Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that once the Union won the war, all slaves would be freed in the entire country. It is at this point that the war becomes a fight to free the slaves, not before. At this point the war had been burning strong for over a year. So it is obvious that this could not be the cause, because the threat of abolition did not come until long after the conflict began.
Only the extremely rich could afford to even own a plantation, and the majority of the populations of the south were not very rich. So it is obvious that hundreds of thousands of people could not be fighting for slavery.
1860 Federal Census
4 Million blacks were in the South 261,988 were not Slaves. 10,689 free blacks lived in New Orleans and 3,000 of these owned slaves and only 13% of whites owned slaves.
At least the guy in the above clip gets it. One of the biggest problems is the victors got to re-write the history books. Unfortunately we teach our children garbage when it comes to Southern history concerning the civil war. Most seem to think slavery was confined to color of skin. Slavery was still alive and well in the 40's and 50's it was called share cropping. Slavery was pushed out because it wasn't cost effective any longer to maintain slaves not because the South lost the war or the anti American Lincoln said so. Just because something was made illegal doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore.
I think people watch the movies and read the re-written history to much and believe all slaves were beatin everyday. Truth is you take care of what feeds your family whether your a slave owner or slave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyLhKQ&feature=related
Holy crap who's the new guy? :laf:
Welcome to Fins and Fur CCP :yoyo:
Rich you nailed it on the head ! Dont even expect some to believe or understand what you posted. Even some history teachers down here would tell you we were being taught what the gov says to teach, not necessarily the truth especially the us civil war. Do some research, slavery was NOT the reason the south wanted out of the union. None of my ancesters that fought for the south owned slaves, they worked along side of them in their fields. Most were on the same playing field , simple farmers black and white. Good post Rich.
Jeb
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p28/aggiecat/General/confederate_art_257_20080820155852.jpg)
QuoteEven some history teachers down here would tell you we were being taught what the gov says to teach, not necessarily the truth especially the us civil war.
What do we expect the Public school system began in 1865 with Government teachers that taught our children this civil war over slavery garbage and basically wrote there feel good perception and forced it on us as if it were facts.
The war was started over a TAX increase.
Slavery ended because of the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
By lying and trying to make it a feel good "we are freeing slaves" they have created a divide that is still present today. Today many of us right here on this board is against higher taxes and governmental control same as the Confederacy in 1860.
Same as the Tea party today being accused of being racist and wanting to destroy the planet.
Semp I like your flag. unfortunately a lot of people don't even know what it truthfully stands for or the meaning of it.
Here is a great film about the Civil War. One of the narrators, Shelby Foote, does an excellent job. Makes you feel like he was there and you are hearing first hand recollections of that terrible war. Over 600,000 died.
The Civil War: A film by Ken Burns
Yeh its a really good documentary with great pics from the time and some good stories by the late Shelby Foote. I could listen to him tell stories all day. But.........its very apparent Ken Burns was reading alot of those U.S. history books himself.
Quote from: Semp on April 13, 2011, 10:42:04 PM
Here is a great film about the Civil War. One of the narrators, Shelby Foote, does an excellent job. Makes you feel like he was there and you are hearing first hand recollections of that terrible war. Over 600,000 died.
The Civil War: A film by Ken Burns
I have been slowly watching through it on netflix. I agree a good documentary. and good post's CCP.
You southerners boyz bumped your heads! :eyebrownod: :eyebrow:
Hey all this is a fine and dandy discussion but Pat posted a good quote
"History is written by the victors.†- Winston Churchill
QuoteFrom CCP.......On January 1, 1863, after no state returned to the Union, Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that once the Union won the war, all slaves would be freed in the entire country.
Actually, Lincoln did no such thing. This is what he did......
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three,
all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
Snippity Snip......
"order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid,
I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. "
It is a common misconception that Lincoln freed all of the slaves. He did no such thing. He freed only those slaves from the states or parts of states mentioned above. It is also true that most northern states had of their own accord, done away with slavery, but Lincoln certainly did not free them all.
Here is the transcript of the actual Emancipation Proclamation
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
I did not realize that the last of my post above was cut off when I posted.....
As for weather Lincoln was for or against slavery, his letter to Horace Greeley might shed some light. You can read the full text here
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
But an excerpt from that letter says, Lincoln speaking here:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Lincoln says his chief aim was to save the Union.
However, his condoning the scorched earth policy of Total War by Grant and Sherman in the sacking and burning of Atlanta, and in Sherman's March To The Sea have often made me wonder why we consider him such a great President.
Today, we might call what Lincoln did, State Sponsored Terrorism.
the only person that had anything to do with the burning of Atlanta was Sherman, Lincoln or anyone ells had anything to do with it
no orders no dissuasion with any of the higher ups.
WAR IS HELL!
Sherman thought he could shorten the war if he would bring terra to the south.
No matter how you boys in the South see thing ,or some of you blue coats see thing ,
it was all over MONEY!
with the poor paying the highest price.
PS
the cows are home so i have to leave this conversation
George,
While there might not be any written record ordering Sherman to burn Atlanta, you have to look at how his march to the sea came about. Grant wanted him to go a different way. Sherman laid out his plan, and had to convince Grant that it could be done.
Now, dig a little deeper, and find that Lincoln insisted that the march to the sea not start until after the elections in 1864.
Both Grant and Lincoln had to have known what Sherman was going to do, because he had to convince them to let him do it, and Lincoln ordered him to wait.
Your comment that War is Hell holds no water. Sherman was a West Point Grad and surly knew what war crimes were. Taking what he needed to feed his troops would have been one thing, and was his original plan, but destroying what they didn't take was simply criminal, and Sherman would have known that. The whole point of the march to the sea was to demoralize the people of the south and show them that their government could not protect them from invaders, but leaving them to starve was simply uncalled for. If you believe Sherman acted on his own, why did he spare the people of Atlanta, why did he spare the churches and hospitals, (yes he was asked to spare them by a preacher) but are those not the acts of an Officer and a Gentleman? Why then, just weeks later, would he throw that away and wreck everything in his path, with no regard for the people, leaving them to starve in the dead of winter? Maybe it was his idea, maybe he never told Grant what his true intentions were. Maybe Lincoln never knew. Or perhaps they did, and simply turned a blind eye to it, or perhaps they ordered it.
I do agree the war was more about money than anything else.
So when the south burned down our own BigBens neighborhood following the burning of Atlanta who ordered that,,
yea i know the south paid them some moneys before hand and asked them to leave there home before they burned it down . but does that make it right . is the fact that the north didn't pay up to Atlanta first the problem.
was the bombs dropped in Tokyo to demoralize the people of that county .
war is Hell and man can to scary thing in battle that they wouldn't ever think doing at any other time.
i would like to see were you copying and pasting from and who the author of it is .
Lincolns letters, as well as Shermans Diaries are all on line. Google them. The only thing i copied and pasted were the Emancipation Proclamation and the letter to Horace Greeley. Sherman's march to the sea, as well as his rise in the Union army due to his friendship with Grant are well documented, as are the major battles George. Most of what I wrote is off memory, as at one time in my life they were required reading. I'm a yankee George, but there is no doubt that Sherman did was simply criminal. It has to make you wonder why one day he could have compassion, telling the people of Atlanta to evacuate, and then when confronted by a preacher from Atlanta, spare the churches and hospitals, and then the next day lay waste to anything in his way. Like I said, he was a West Point Graduate, and they considered themselves Gentlemen and professional soldiers. While history might not support it, I think he had orders to do some of what he did, if not all of it. Either that, or he got swept away in the moment, but that is unlikely in my mind. Read how he treated his troops who engaged in what we call war crimes today earlier in the war. Some of them were hung for the very things they did on the march to the sea. What changed his tactics and personality? I'm of the opinion it was orders, from either Grant, or Lincoln or both.
The bombing of Tokyo in Doolittle's Raid was an attack on Military Targets George. As surgical as we could be at the time with the technology we had. They did not go in and bomb neighborhoods. It was done to show the Japanese Military that we could still strike back, and would, and yes, to demoralize them and let them know they had not crippled us as much as they thought they had.
Quotewar is Hell and man can to scary thing in battle that they wouldn't ever think doing at any other time.
Which is why there are places like West Point, and why we have leaders, professional war fighters, rules of engagement, and places like the Hague. Men do what they have to do to survive in battle, but there is still compassion, still right and wrong, at least on the American side. Which is why we react so violently to acts of terrorism against civilians in this country.
There is no doubt Sherman was an advocate of total war, but someone knew what he was doing, condoned it, or at least turned a blind eye to it.
al you said "They did not go in and bomb neighborhoods. "
google Hiroshima , is was a little bigger bomb then what Doolittle was dropping
professional war fighters and west point,
I am guessing you mean guys like Lieutenant Colonel Custer from west point
and what he did at places like Washita.
I don't need to google Hiroshima, I've been there. Stood as close to ground zero as you can get George. Let me just say, it is a moving experience.
I agree with you, we have done some horrible things in the name of what we thought was right George.
QuoteThe only person that had anything to do with the burning of Atlanta was Sherman, Lincoln or anyone else had anything to do with it
no orders no dissuasion with any of the higher ups.
If Lincoln or anyone else had nothing to do with it and new nothing of it or did not condone it then there would have been something done to Sherman and his rouge troops after the fact.
Putting Sherman’s march and Hiroshima even remotely in the same context or discussions would relay I know nothing of either.
Sherman should be labeled a terrorist along with all those condoning his actions.
George I believe Coal and Steel is the largest industry in PA? If the government decides to put a higher tax on all coal and Steel leaving PA and not on PA’s competitors outside the state and country, what economic impact would it have on PA? Now if PA doesn’t agree to pay the higher tax, then the federal government bans mechanical machinery and only in PA what effect would it have?
Sounds kind of crazy? Well it isn’t this is basically what the federal government did to states producing the highest amount of commodity.(Cotton)
If you believe the Government should not be able to impose unjust taxes or force their will and agenda upon your country men creating financial hardship on your countrymen and there lively hood and willing to fight for this then you just might be a Confederate no matter where you were born. North, South, East or West.
If you feel the Federal government should be able to impose unjust taxes or force their will and agenda upon your countrymen creating financial hardship on your countrymen and there lively hood then by all means continue to wave your 35 star Union flag in the spirit of Sherman.
THO I applaud you in looking at the Civil War with eyes of an individual, not just North and South lines on a map. Many men from the Union went to fight with the Confederacy and some the opposite. While some no matter there personal opinion stayed where they were to fight for there homes.
Putting Sherman’s march and Hiroshima even remotely in the same context or discussions would relay I know nothing of either.
Rich maybe read it again, the context in witch I put was to imply that man will do evil thing and both acts were done in hope to end the war.
I haven't chosen sides in this conversation if you read my post just stating my conception of what happen in that time
let me say I am a Northerner 100% and proud to be so , southern's don't have the Patton on being proud of were your from and your history.
So you know I am from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the state
George, I did google this, I knew it was out there, but could not find it in my old books so I resorted to the internet. It is Lincolns letter to Sherman after the fall of Savana,
Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift â€" the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that 'nothing risked, nothing gained' I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce. And taking the work of Gen. Thomas into the count, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantage; but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole â€" Hood's army â€" it brings those who sat in darkness, to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army â€" officers and men.
I think this shows that Lincoln had some knowledge of what was going to happen, and did nothing to stop it. When combined with the fact that he had them wait until after the elections so there would be minimal political fall out, it points to his culpability.
I have to agree with CCP, Sherman was a domestic terrorist. What is interesting is to read Shermans orders for the march, and then read his word of the aftermath. Two completely different things.
In his orders he says
and you can find them here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_Special_Field_Orders,_No._120
Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass,
V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
Those were the official orders, but Sherman reported that
the campaign had inflicted $100 million (about $1.378 billion in 2010 dollars)[10] in destruction, about one fifth of which "inured to our advantage" while the "remainder is simple waste and destruction."[9] The Army wrecked 300 miles (480 km) of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills.
and before he left Atlanta, he stated "I will make Georgia Howl"
Read that again, 80% of what they did was simply waste and destruction. It is in complete disagreement with is orders to his men for the march.
The point I am trying to make George, is that in the military, there are orders, and then there are "orders", and someone higher up the food chain gives the unwritten "orders" and fully expects them to be carried out.
While I will agree with you that "war is hell" even today, we are taught not to follow what General Sherman did, for today, more than 150 years later, he is still reviled as one of the most evil men to have ever walked the earth by those who live in the South. And maybe rightly so.
Gentlemen,
I've read this thread with interest, and have kept silent, but feel a couple of points need to be clarified.
First, the war was not about slavery (at least, not in the point of view most are coming from....). Nor was it about money. It WAS about power and control.
Secondly, it was not the "Civil War". On the contrary, it was the War of Northern Aggression.
To boil it down to simple terms..... the North won and we gained an "Empire", but we lost our souls and our freedom.
However one wants to define or call it (The Civil War / War Between the States / War of Northern Aggression) the war was the second American Revolution.....
and America lost. :sad:
Quotethe war was the second American Revolution.....
and America lost. :sad:
You are correct SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QuoteFirst, the war was not about slavery (at least, not in the point of view most are coming from....). Nor was it about money. It WAS about power and control.
Secondly, it was not the "Civil War". On the contrary, it was the War of Northern Aggression.
you got it,, and the middle east conflicts isn't over rich men's oil.
George Bush jr was really on leave from the nation guard for a really long time.
Ted Nugget was really a collage student during Vietnam .
Sam Houston went to texas becouse he like the weather not that he was running from debt and he realy didnt leave his wife an kids behind to fend for themselfes.
And Dick Cheney hunting incident was really the fault of the guy that got shot
:nono: :nono: :nono: :biggrin:
George my friend, you need to look at the BIGGER picture....
When I was in Elementary School, I was taught that the Civil War was fought to end slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
When I was in High School I was taught that the Civil War was fought over States rights and to preserve the Union.
When I was in College, I was taught that the Civil War was actually fought to determine if the industrialized North could dominate the rural South.
As I have grown older (and hopefully wiser) and I actually look at what is going on around me, I have determined that the Civil War was actually fought over "slavery"..... but NOT in the context that most seem to argue and debate. No, "slavery" as in power and control irregardless of race and ethnicity....
It has been determined and postulated that one man cannot enslave another. Yet, the Federal Government has enslaved the ENTIRE country.
The Federal Government can do anything it wants because it has the POWER. They proved that when they killed 600,000 of their own citizens to preserve the Union and prevent Southern citizens from exercising their God given right to self determination.
They said, "If you try to leave, I'll kill you". And they backed it up with actions. Deeds speak louder than words.....
QuoteAs I have grown older (and hopefully wiser) and I actually look at what is going on around me, I have determined that the Civil War was actually fought over "slavery"..... but NOT in the context that most seem to argue and debate. No, "slavery" as in power and control irregardless of race and ethnicity....
It has been determined and postulated that one man cannot enslave another. Yet, the Federal Government has enslaved the ENTIRE country.
The Federal Government can do anything it wants because it has the POWER. They proved that when they killed 600,000 of their own citizens to preserve the Union and prevent Southern citizens from exercising their God given right to self determination.
thats your theory / interpretation of what went on not historical fact. and your thoughts are welcome
:yoyo:
The Federal Government of America was never intended by the founders to be a central, supreme power over the collection of States which made it up.
It was intended to be a governing body with a few limited, "enumerated" powers.
Sadly, we no longer live in America. We live in what the American Revolution was fought to escape from.....
Following is a link to one of my favorite essays. People need to read it until they understand....
Read and be freed....
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Good Lord Fos!!! I didn't realize we thought so much alike. Your last two responses said exactly what I was trying to do, but wasn't able to capture my thoughts as you did. Nice job. :highclap:
looky hre you johnny rebs youall copy and past to fast for me!
i am working on my reply
:eyebrownod:
Take your time "Yankee" George! :biggrin:
I'm personally rooting for you to overcome and put aside the preconceived and erroneous notions planted in your melon by liberal educational brainwashing!
fos, first i like to say that you are a funny reb! me and education HA,HA,HA :alscalls: :alscalls:
every thing i think i know is of my own doing :eyebrownod:
i read lots about history and interpert and work thing out on my own.
other words i dont run and copy and past others thoughts
now i told yea i was working on my reply and here it is
The first post by RICH aka CCP
QuoteWhere did this misconception of slavery being the cause of the war come from? The answer is from the President's attempt to end the war prematurely through the emancipation proclamation.
In November of 1862,President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary emancipation proclamation. In this speech, Lincoln stated that any seceded state that does not return to the Union by the first of the year 1863 would lose its constitutional right to own slaves. Up until this point, the federal government was unable to legally abolish slavery because the southern states rights to slaves were protected under the constitution. But now the southerners were rebels. If the seceded states did not return to the Union, the government would have every right to reposes the southerner's slaves because it was now considered relieving property from outlaws who would now have no rights at all.
On January 1, 1863, after no state returned to the Union, Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that once the Union won the war, all slaves would be freed in the entire country. It is at this point that the war becomes a fight to free the slaves, not before. At this point the war had been burning strong for over a year. So it is obvious that this could not be the cause, because the threat of abolition did not come until long after the conflict began.
Now i was with rich aka ccp
except for the part about the slaves being freed IF we won the slaves were freed at the reading of it by Lincoln to the public no if's .
now AL enters the conversation with his link
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
witch I think he misinterpret.
I read it as the presidents report and explanation to the people as to why he will be using military forces to up hold the freedoms of slaves mentioned in the Emancipation Proclamation .
now I also interpret this link as a explanation to congress why he will be doing this with out there ok first, thus the 100 day order.
then Al post the ""letter to Horace Greeley "" now go back and read it , Again I think AL interprets it different from me.
what i read is the most important thing to Lincoln was to save the union first i don't see anything that tells me Lincoln was for slavery ,all I see is the presidents first thoughts was to save the union .
THE LETTER
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
now for Lincoln knowing about Sherman burning of Atlanta,
I don't know what to say! history tells me Lincoln new nothing of it . so in my eye he is free from blame till proven other wise .............
why do I feel this way because of my readings on Lincoln I don't see this act being done by man with his honor, and this is only my interpation of Mr. Lincoln,,, not because I am from the north or a friend of the union I to also live my live a certain way and this isn't something that I would have allowed and as i stated from the first post I try and see thing to the there simplest manner.
now you dam johnny rebs can have at me
and lets get this out the way
bite me popeye you johhny red lol
Quote from: George Ackley on April 16, 2011, 04:14:40 PMevery thing i think i know is of my own doing :eyebrownod:
i read lots about history and interpert and work thing out on my own.other words i dont run and copy and past others thoughts
Who's thoughts are being copied and pasted George?
Here is a copy and paste to placate you:
"The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black.
And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference in principle - but only one of degree - between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: "All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace." Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day occur among all men, the world over, if the several "nations," so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, masquerading as "governments," that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them."Lysander Spooner
fos i am going to look up placate first to see then meaning then reply.
there was no aim at you about the coping and pasting you have been telling me your thought through out so i thought you would have none it wasn't aimed at yea , that's why i said your thought were welcome
ok i am appeased
but it isn't factual history, it just someone interpretation of and I can appreciated it i don't see what or how or if this changes anything, this guys thought are just that thoughts
my final rebuttal on this subject ,
we talk about why the war started , i likr to say why i think the south lost
I have read a lot about this and at the end this is why i think the war was lost by the south.
the South really didn't have what was needed to run a war.
and many things needed to go to war were over looked,
little things like the sale of cotton and it not because the slave wouldn't be there, it because the buyers and factory's of the north wouldn't be there along with many other things.and troops by the way cant eat cotton. they even ended up in Gettysburg not to fight the northerners, but to try and cloth and shoe there troops. and if your a fighting man the last place you wont to attack is Gettysburg nothing but one big killbox in the city and feild.
Gen Lee was a top noch leader and fighter but most of his leadership wasn't. if you know anything about the battle of little round top or read about you will see that battle was lost only do to the negligence of 1 officer was told to get his troops there and take the hill and any cost, but that was lees thought the negligent officer thought better to do other wiz and rest his troop after the long days walk , doing so he aloud the north to reinforce and in that sealing the fate of the battle . then Sherman burnt down Atlanta.... both these things ended the war in my eyes
with that said and what I think from reading battle story's is this America would be in trouble if not for the fighting capabilities of the southern man, the south can put a fearless soldier into a battle, and I am talking from then till this day. so they didn't loose do to the fact of bad soldiering more to the fact of bad fighting leadership .
they fought tuff for a long time again's a larger force and better supplied force.
well iam a good old rable and that just what i am i hate the yank......
.........................
you know the song you johnny rebs
peace i am out like a trout
I hear you George. I'm just looking at the BIGGER picture and the end results.
As I stated earlier, the North won and we gained an "Empire", but we lost our souls and our freedom. :sad:
What is important to remember and keep at the forefront is the fact that the Southern States attempted to exercise their Constitutional right of secession, and were wrongly prevented from seceding.
I suppose we could have avoided the first American revolution too...if the colonists had just accepted the authority of King George III over them!
Government is government. :shrug:
Occasionally, the people don't like the form it takes and attempt to break free.
Sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't.
What's happening to America today is a direct extension of Lincoln's consolidation of power under a central authority.
You don't like Obamacare??
You don't like having 50%+ of your earnings stripped away from you through all the various taxes?
You don't like Socialism?
Blame Lincoln for you not having a voice in the matter!
Since Lee met Grant at Appomattox in 1865, our asses have been "owned".
Tyrants can be real bastards when secession comes along...whether their name is King George or Abe Lincoln. :wink:
George, I did not misinterpret the Emancipation Proclamation, I just copied it word for word, showing that Lincoln did not free all the slaves. It was a counter argument to what CCP had posted.
As for the letter to Horace Greeley, what you state, that Lincoln wanted to save the union is exactly my opinion. It had little to do with slavery. That is why I posted that.
I think, in many ways, we are on the same page.
I also think anyone who has spent a few years, and by that I mean 15 or 20 or more, in the military will tell you that not everything is written down. Not everything is a direct order. Some things are implied, some are assumed, and some are disavowed to protect those at the top. Not everything is as it seems on face value George. Somethings are shades of gray, and some are just outright black, if you know what I mean.
Hey Fos,
You wrote
QuoteThe Federal Government of America was never intended by the founders to be a central, supreme power over the collection of States which made it up.
It was intended to be a governing body with a few limited, "enumerated" powers.
Doesn't history show that there were two sides? One wanted a large central government, the other a small government that would let states rule themselves?
Isn't that why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate? Isn't that why the Bill Of Rights was introduced? To give back the power to the people, or to at least keep the central government from taking it?
I don't think all of our founding fathers were on the same page. I think they were split between a strong central government and a limited one.
What are your thoughts on that?
Good read you posted by the way. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
THO,
Yeah, you're right. Whenever a group of people are brought together, there's obviously going to be dissenting views, debate, disagreements, and contention!
Hamilton was a big central government guy, no doubt, and it cost him later. Madison and Jay strongly supported the power of the central federal government over the states too.
Obviously the Founders weren't perfect, but they were a lot closer to a history of real oppression and tyranny than anyone is now, so they were very concerned with safeguarding against it.
The mentality of the Founders can easily be gleaned from the Federalist Papers, the letters of John Adams, the writing of Thomas Jefferson on the nation and the state of Virginia, and a ton of other sources. Read any, some or all, and you'll see "reasonable man test" thinking a pervasive theme to be quite common. But I wager you've already read much of the above and given it a thunk! :biggrin:
The Federalist Papers give us very detailed insight into the arguments about federal versus state governments in the hierarchy, individual rights versus collectivism at the expense of liberty, etc etc etc. And if a generalized statement is to be made about how the Founders would want the Constitution interpreted, it would clearly be to favor first the individual, then the state, and finally the federal government.
We can copy and paste all kinds of things to support our arguments, so I have tried to refrain from that.
Our founding father, George Washington, was a slave holder from a very early age.
The North was more industrial, while the south was more agrarian.
There were many matters into which the North and South disagreed.
Finally, the south decided to separate from the north. The reasons were very similar to why America left England.
The South was forcibly held in place. Am I glad? I am glad that I call a great majority of you yanks my countrymen. You are my brothers.
Did I like the way it was done? Not one bit.
AS far as Gettysburg goes, that was Lee's blunder. Cost the South the war. He should have marched around it and on to D.C., but pride cometh before the fall and it did. The south was out manned, out gunned, and far less prepared. Even won most the battles, but in a war of attrition which is exactly what it was, the side with the most men, guns, powder and bullets wins. Everytime. Read the battles and how many were killed and/or wounded on each side. Both numbers will be staggering, but look who killed more of who in most battles. It was a sad day in our history for sure.
NOW WE GOT OBAMA!!! Talk about another one that could cause a split, but it won't be between North and South. More like East/West Coasts against the Heartland of America. Heartland would probably take a beating, since they really could use the Anaconda method like they did during the Civil war. Surround and conquer.
Quote from: CCP on April 16, 2011, 02:01:43 PM
Quotethe war was the second American Revolution.....
and America lost. :sad:
You are correct SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed whole heartedly
Quote from: Bopeye on April 17, 2011, 07:16:20 PM
AS far as Gettysburg goes, that was Lee's blunder. Cost the South the war. He should have marched around it and on to D.C., but pride cometh before the fall and it did. The south was out manned, out gunned, and far less prepared. Even won most the battles, but in a war of attrition which is exactly what it was, the side with the most men, guns, powder and bullets wins. Everytime. Read the battles and how many were killed and/or wounded on each side. Both numbers will be staggering, but look who killed more of who in most battles. It was a sad day in our history for sure.
exactly. if ewell would have pushed hard enough on the first day gettysburg would have had a different tune to it. lee had plenty of skilled commanders on his side. longstreet was one of lees commanders that wanted to move to the southeast get between the union army and dc and force the union army to do something. lee was prideful and wanted to fight the enemy at that time. along with the fact that picketts charge was a failure. even with as many that got killed they almost broke the line. gettysburg was lees biggest mistake in his command.
I plan on visiting gettysburg again this summer. I was at antitam last year and that was pretty neat.
Quote from: THO Game Calls on April 16, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
I have to agree with CCP, Sherman was a domestic terrorist.
While I will agree with you that "war is hell" even today, we are taught not to follow what General Sherman did, for today, more than 150 years later, he is still reviled as one of the most evil men to have ever walked the earth by those who live in the South. And maybe rightly so.
I disagree. Sherman knew how to win. His victory at Atlanta and his march across Georgia was the key to the Union's winning of the war that claimed over 600,000 dead on both sides.
Now we have "rules of engagement" imposed by politicians that ham string our troops. I think the Romans, and probably Sherman, would have found these rules laughable. Today our wars last for many years with many dead and wounded. And in the end, the politicians give away what blood bought.
Quote from: Semp on April 22, 2011, 05:21:35 AM
Today our wars last for many years with many dead and wounded. And in the end, the politicians give away what blood bought.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. There isn't a country in the world, except maybe China, that we couldn't annihilate in a matter of days, a few weeks at most, but will we? Heck no. Why? Politics. It just plain sucks.
I, at no time in any of my post denied slavery and hatred wasn't prevalent in the north .
Gettysburg had to happen southern troops were at the point if they didn't get what they needed from Gettysburg the war was over anyhow . they would have move in and took what they needed if they could without a fight .
if you look at a map of the city of Gettysburg at the time it was one big pin wheel , with the northern forces held fast at the hub of the wheel. much like the story of the 300 each street could only allow so many southern fights down them and like I said before one big kill box. and with us holding the high ground above the fields of Gettysburg it was a loose loose situation for the south. if not for the need for food ,clothing and boots they may have headed to Washington.
as U2 sings , IT'S ALL OVER MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY .
Quote"So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
At least them southern boys were fighting for self determination.
Those poor deluded Yankee carpetbaggers were fighting and dying in order to establish their own servitude...under the guise of "preserving the Union".
What a crock of.....!!
Gettysburg did NOT have to happen. Lee could have left a token force of Cavalry there to occupy the Blue Bellies, while he took his main force on to Washington D.C. At that point, any help for D.C. would have been too late and Lee could have easily re-supplied there along with capturing the first american Caesar, Abe Lincoln himself. Check Mate boys. Like I said, Lee's pride cost him the battle and the war. Losing Stonewall Jackson was a great blow to the Southern Cause as well. Lee himself said it would have been better if he would have died than Jackson.
Jackson was killed by friendly fire too, which is the damnable misery of that one. "Friendly Fire", now there's an oxymoron. Actually died of pnuemonia brought on by being wounded.
Quote"I see from the number of physicians that you think my condition dangerous,
Jackson,