War between the States

[/dev/null]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

 

Began 150 years ago today

[Beerball]

NatGeo had a decent series last night where decendents of participants 'walked in the steps' of their ancestors. The most interesting parts for me were a mother & son taking a short boat ride across a river to freedom as her GGG grandfather had done, and a nurse finding out about the life her ancestor (also a nurse) had led during the war.

[birdog1960]

down here, some still erroneously refer to it as "the war of northern aggression". anger lasts a long time.

[KD in CA]

I watched Ken Burns' documentary a few weeks ago via Netflix (and I notice PBS is currently running it); there are just so many incredible stories about that war.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

down here, some still erroneously refer to it as "the war of northern aggression". anger lasts a long time.

 

The Battle for Southern Independence

[zow2]

I watched Ken Burns' documentary a few weeks ago via Netflix (and I notice PBS is currently running it); there are just so many incredible stories about that war.

 

I was flipping around last week and landed on PBS when they were showing it. No matter what I'm doing I always get sucked into that documentary. Still amazes me they have actual pictures of the event. the story telling and snippets from diaries are awesome.

[BuffaloBill]

I was flipping around last week and landed on PBS when they were showing it. No matter what I'm doing I always get sucked into that documentary. Still amazes me they have actual pictures of the event. the story telling and snippets from diaries are awesome.

 

The carnage that many of the pictures show is simply horrific.

[DC Tom]

The carnage that many of the pictures show is simply horrific.

 

I've been to Antietam and stood in the sunken road. It's an eerie feeling to stand there and recall the pictures after the battle.

[Acantha]

down here, some still erroneously refer to it as "the war of northern aggression". anger lasts a long time.

Not without reason.

[birdog1960]

Not without reason.

hmmmm...care to expound? interesting idea in a time when libyan rebels are widely considered the good guys but are you suggesting the northern states oppression of the south justified succession/rebellion?

[Acantha]

hmmmm...care to expound? interesting idea in a time when libyan rebels are widely considered the good guys but are you suggesting the northern states oppression of the south justified succession/rebellion?

Don't have time to type a lot, but in short, yes. Most of the southern states agreed to the Constitution based on the understanding that state governments would have control of their states with very little interference from the federal government. I know VA, and possible NC but I can't remember for sure, specifically stated that the only way they would ratify was with the understanding that if the federal government tried to instill too much power over them they would secede.

[boyst]

It was the war of northern aggression...

For people who say it is about slavery I want to kick you.

 

All of you idiots out there wanting more rights and states rights need to rethink your civil war stance. The North had slavery, too, and it was just another part of the issue that our crap school systems forced down our throats.

[birdog1960]

Don't have time to type a lot, but in short, yes. Most of the southern states agreed to the Constitution based on the understanding that state governments would have control of their states with very little interference from the federal government. I know VA, and possible NC but I can't remember for sure, specifically stated that the only way they would ratify was with the understanding that if the federal government tried to instill too much power over them they would secede.

yes, the states rights argument.... cited by many, believed by few. this has been put forth as the biggest fallacy about the civil war by some historians.

 

it was, as most wars are, mostly about money. in this case that equated to slaves. cotton was the leading US export at the time...the value of slaves has been estimated to have been in the 10's of billions in mid 19th century dollars, significantly more than many industries, including the railroads. the south had much to lose from emancipation.

[boyst]

Don't have time to type a lot, but in short, yes. Most of the southern states agreed to the Constitution based on the understanding that state governments would have control of their states with very little interference from the federal government. I know VA, and possible NC but I can't remember for sure, specifically stated that the only way they would ratify was with the understanding that if the federal government tried to instill too much power over them they would secede.

I wish more people would take the time to learn about the war. I am so sick of idiots just taking the stance that it was slave owners vs. freedom.

 

I was in Appomattox a few weeks ago for a few days - although, I did not get to see anything, I have spent time reading about the entire event for the first time in a while. About 5 miles away from my house General Lee met up with Jefferson Davis and spent the night trying to plan out some strategies. We still have the trees that were used to hang people, buildings that served as slave quarters, etc.

 

If anyone thinks that slave quarters looked that bad then they need to go look at the average home from that area. I am having a home we own taken down that is from 1820 and it is extremely plain, extremely simple, and nothing spectacular like those paintings show.

 

yes, the states rights argument.... cited by many, believed by few. this has been put forth as the biggest fallacy about the civil war by some historians.

 

it was, as most wars are, mostly about money. in this case that equated to slaves. cotton was the leading US export at the time...the value of slaves has been estimated to have been in the 10's of billions in mid 19th century dollars, significantly more than many industries, including the railroads. the south had much to lose from emancipation.

Really? Nothing to do with the North wanting to impose taxes on the cotton or other crops? The North wanted to tax their way to prosperity taking advantage of the Southern farmers, poor simple folk who did not enjoy the lifestyles of those up North.

 

Also, before you sound like an idiot again Andrew Jackson had slaves, Grant had slaves. Both presidents after "Lincoln freed the slaves" and after the war...but nice try. Way to pay attention in school.

Edited April 12, 2011 by jboyst62

[birdog1960]

I wish more people would take the time to learn about the war. I am so sick of idiots just taking the stance that it was slave owners vs. freedom.

 

I was in Appomattox a few weeks ago for a few days - although, I did not get to see anything, I have spent time reading about the entire event for the first time in a while. About 5 miles away from my house General Lee met up with Jefferson Davis and spent the night trying to plan out some strategies. We still have the trees that were used to hang people, buildings that served as slave quarters, etc.

 

If anyone thinks that slave quarters looked that bad then they need to go look at the average home from that area. I am having a home we own taken down that is from 1820 and it is extremely plain, extremely simple, and nothing spectacular like those paintings show.

 

 

Really? Nothing to do with the North wanting to impose taxes on the cotton or other crops? The North wanted to tax their way to prosperity taking advantage of the Southern farmers, poor simple folk who did not enjoy the lifestyles of those up North.

 

Also, before you sound like an idiot again Andrew Jackson had slaves, Grant had slaves. Both presidents after "Lincoln freed the slaves" and after the war...but nice try. Way to pay attention in school.

so your argument boils down to:average homes weren't much better than slave quarters

there were poor people in the south

the federal govt wanted to tax an industry (that's novel and a valid reason for revolution and treason)

therefore,

the war wasn't about slavery.

 

brilliant. i wish i could cypher just like you.

[boyst]

so your argument boils down to:average homes weren't much better than slave quarters

there were poor people in the south

the federal govt wanted to tax an industry (that's novel and a valid reason for revolution and treason)

therefore,

the war wasn't about slavery.

 

brilliant. i wish i could cypher just like you.

I was sharing personal reflections from what I see in this area of the South that was heavily involved in the early parts of the war and the slavery issue and sharing my thought.

 

The Fed Gov wanted to tax its way out of problems, beyond that of what Lincoln faced, whom was doing so for as much a moral reason as anything else. The North saw the profits from increasing taxes on the South which was driven by a single-crop (cotton). The Southerns, who had argued for state rights since the constitution was signed argued that this was the fed gov trying to put their hand in their pockets just a little more. The social issues, beyond slavery, were that simply put that the South was still an slow, country lifestyle focused on a social order that the North did not agree with; the North becoming a melting pot of society did not understand the unrest of cultural relations. Of course, this is hypocritcal, as the North had as much segregation as the South despite slavery being unpopular and mostly unused.

 

In the North you had factories and business that provided wages and salaries to employees in a city lifestyle. In the west you had wheat and row crops that were harvested by machines. In the South you had cotton and row crops that could not be picked with machine. The Southern economy depended upon the slaves to survive - and as a result so did the rest of the world. The world got cotton from the South. The slaves received living quarters and food for this.

 

Kansas, Missouri, and other states were determining their choice by popular vote - states that needed cotton to survive.

 

The southerns did not like that all of their earnings would be taken by the feds and only pennies returned to their communities. The southerns wanted their taxed money to go to the state which would more ensure they would be provided local benefits for their community and not go to build bridges in Phili, statues in NYC, or other crap that was just not neccessary to a poor southern person.

 

The Yankees were just as wrong in as many points in the Civil War and the South suffered for years beyong the war; entire towns burned down, families destroyed, etc.

Edited April 13, 2011 by jboyst62

[birdog1960]

I was sharing personal reflections from what I see in this area of the South that was heavily involved in the early parts of the war and the slavery issue and sharing my thought.

 

The Fed Gov wanted to tax its way out of problems, beyond that of what Lincoln faced, whom was doing so for as much a moral reason as anything else. The North saw the profits from increasing taxes on the South which was driven by a single-crop (cotton). The Southerns, who had argued for state rights since the constitution was signed argued that this was the fed gov trying to put their hand in their pockets just a little more. The social issues, beyond slavery, were that simply put that the South was still an slow, country lifestyle focused on a social order that the North did not agree with; the North becoming a melting pot of society did not understand the unrest of cultural relations. Of course, this is hypocritcal, as the North had as much segregation as the South despite slavery being unpopular and mostly unused.

 

In the North you had factories and business that provided wages and salaries to employees in a city lifestyle. In the west you had wheat and row crops that were harvested by machines. In the South you had cotton and row crops that could not be picked with machine. The Southern economy depended upon the slaves to survive - and as a result so did the rest of the world. The world got cotton from the South. The slaves received living quarters and food for this.

 

Kansas, Missouri, and other states were determining their choice by popular vote - states that needed cotton to survive.

 

The southerns did not like that all of their earnings would be taken by the feds and only pennies returned to their communities. The southerns wanted their taxed money to go to the state which would more ensure they would be provided local benefits for their community and not go to build bridges in Phili, statues in NYC, or other crap that was just not neccessary to a poor southern person.

 

The Yankees were just as wrong in as many points in the Civil War and the South suffered for years beyong the war; entire towns burned down, families destroyed, etc.

what you fail to grasp is that like most modern wars, this war wasn't fought for the common man (even though it was fought by him- the rich could buy their way out in the north)). poor southerners didn't own slaves. they commanded lower wages because of the presence of slaves (in much the same manner as asian laborers hurt american blue collar workers today- history does repeat itself). this was a war to decide who would stay rich, get richer or lose their wealth. the southern planters lost. yes, there were post war abuses but again that has nothing to do with the reason for the war.

 

btw, listen to tonights news hour on PBS (i'm watching it as i type- the president of harvard, an historian from univ of south carolina (listen closely to what he says) and a professor from howard univ all weigh in. it seems you didn't listen too well in class. they all agree that the vast majority of historians agree that the civil war was about slavery and not states rights. maybe you had an outlier teacher.

Edited April 13, 2011 by birdog1960

[Acantha]

yes, the states rights argument.... cited by many, believed by few. this has been put forth as the biggest fallacy about the civil war by some historians.

 

it was, as most wars are, mostly about money. in this case that equated to slaves. cotton was the leading US export at the time...the value of slaves has been estimated to have been in the 10's of billions in mid 19th century dollars, significantly more than many industries, including the railroads. the south had much to lose from emancipation.

What caused the war has nothing to do with what I was talking about. But good job on the tirade.

[CosmicBills]

If anyone thinks that slave quarters looked that bad then they need to go look at the average home from that area. I am having a home we own taken down that is from 1820 and it is extremely plain, extremely simple, and nothing spectacular like those paintings show.

 

... The slaves received living quarters and food for this.

 

That is one of the most ignorant, insensitive, and ridiculous posts I have ever read on this board. And that's saying something. I'm flabbergasted to be honest.

 

Forget your points on the reason for the war, it's the rest of your statements that are alarming.

 

Are you really justifying slavery by saying it was the only way to grow cotton and thus the only way for the South to survive? Then, in the same breath claiming that because the slaves got room and board it was a fair deal?

 

Seriously?!

 

You're implying that slaves lived a better life (or at least as good of a life) as the northern factory worker or the poor southern farmer? Do you even understand how absolutely bat-**** crazy that sounds?

Edited April 13, 2011 by tgreg99

[Captain Hindsight]

I think there were many causes to the war. people believed in their state and not the federal government. So when the federal government threatened the states rights to own slaves, many southern states just couldn't understand or accept it. They felt Lincoln was going to destroy their way of life. So they attempted to protect it.

 

It was a combination of the two factors I think. General Lee turned down the offer to lead the Union army because he couldn't fight against his native Virginia. West Virginia succeeded from Virginia because they did not want to succeed from the Union. Many abolitionist movements in the North had been going on for years.

 

When it comes to War, the winner writes the story. If the South had won, we would read something different in history books. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia we might be talking about the amazing success of the Third Reich still.

 

Even with my hindsight I can never be sure. It was before my powers came to me but Slavery had something to do with it and states rights and money and an inability to agree and x and y and z and I'm sure Aaron Maybin was somehow at fault too