@46spoony if your looking for something like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, yeah you'll be pretty disappointed... iv'e always considered it more of an american Henry V imo...
@Nomolos2010 im sorry but your just a fool if you think the south fired on fort sumter because of slavery. the number one reason for the south to fight was to defend states rights, and the norths was to preserve the union
@102LBC And frankly, I think the biggest problem with this entire discussion is trying to 'bottom line' the ACW as being about one thing or another, when the FACT is that it was an extremely complicated situation for both sides.
So, that brings a very interesting point. Why would the Southern States not jump at the chance to avoid a war that they knew beyond a shadow of doubt they had almost zero chance of winning if they could keep their slaves, if the war was indeed about slavery?
Also, the facts also say that ending slavery the way he did was likely the biggest mistake he made bar none as President although it did have the effect of motivating the troops and abolishionists.
BTW, I say that because namely, Lincoln himself never referred to the war as anything but a war of rebellion or Civil War. His Proclomation Presidentially freed the slaves in the South. It did NOT change the reason for the war. SIR.
@102LBC Would you kindly show me the reference that Lincoln ever made any statements to effectively support the allegation that he went to war to stop slavery? And yes, it was Lincoln that decided to invade the South, the South was scrambling for a peaceable way through the situation. It was also Lincoln that decided that that Ft. Sumter was still to be considered Northern property, when in fact, it should have rightfully been surrendered upon the demand of S. Carolina.
@HaggenPagan26 No, its reality. Just because justice was (essentially) on the side of the Union in that conflict doesn't mean the Union was always right. Do you claim to be always right? Well, neither are nations.
@zahir13 OMG! WOW! What an idiotic response to a blatant double standard that I suggested. I don't think justice was on the side of the Union. Maybe if you are talking about Blacks, but NATIVES, HELL NO!
@HaggenPagan26 With respect, you don't seem to have understood what I wrote. I didn't claim the Union treated the Natives with justice (for the record, it did NOT). Only that the Union pursued more justice for slaves than did the Confederacy (which it DID). Kindly re-read precisely what I actually wrote rather than make assumptions about what I meant. And calling me names (like "idiot") is not an argument. Period.
I am 15 and i have a role play assessment coming up in English, i have chose to do a monologue but don't know if i should do shakespeare, a movie or write my own, any suggestions?
@abisivepoo do this. find the actual text and sketch out both parts and do them if your teacher allows. If they don't, look up Chamberlain's speech to the "mutineers" ealiers in the plot. Both text parts can be found on line.
As a Native American of Canada, I really feel this speech!
"Equality? What I'm fighting for is the right to prove that I'm a better man than many of them. There are many a man better or worse than me and some better, but I don't think that race or country matter at that.
I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm "" and I'm damn all gentleman!"
I fell this way, because I worked my ass off to be better than the rest of my family. Am the only one to go to university ever
WHO INVADED WHO? Fort Sumter was a bloodless event that was staged by a mere 300 South Carolineans. Only 300 Southerners were responsible for firing on a Federal Garrison that refused to leave. How does this event justify Lincoln's invasion of Virginia? What the hell did Virginia have to do with Fort Sumter. Typically in War, the invaders are the aggressors. Stop trying to spin it another way.
@StonewallJackson26 if you are a different nation maybe. But there was no other nation. It was about keeping the peculiar institution alive,after the southern politicians lost a fair election that they seceded, and so that you know eveyone outside the USA sees it as it is that the South was wrong and treasonous. Only inthe south, and the northerners tat don't want to be offensive to Southerners give any credence to the Southern Cool Aid version of events.
@102LBC Why even waste time arguing with an ignorant bafoon like yourself. To say that States rights is "revisionist bullshit" just shows how drug addled your mind. You are incapable of thinking historically, you rather cling to the same propaganda that caused the War itself. You are a drone, a politically correct imbecile and you are seemingly difficult to reason with. You argument is elementary and a regurgitation of 3rd Grade history class.
There were blacks slaves, there were white slaves. Some were treated horribly, some were treated fairly. 5% of ALL Southerners owned Slaves. Slaves entered the country through Northern Slave ports. Textile Mills in NE in particular profited massively from cheap cotton.
With all this considered, it is hard for me to side with North, when they say that a War against the entire Southern populace is necessary. I think we could have found a better conclusion than 600,000+ body bags.
@102LBC No, I am not giving reasons why Slavery should exist. I am simply pointed out your exaggerations of the institution. I don't believe that Southerners were fighting to keep people in chains. They were fighting an out of control Federal Government that believed in the centralization of Power. Instead of giving power equally to unified state government. The War was mainly about a transition of power and the abolition of Nullification.
Some Blacks were treated miserably and that is disgusting. No man regardless of race deserves to be mistreated. But there were also Blacks who were treated fairly. And worked for the necessities of life. There were no factories in the South. Every common man worked hard and almost all worked with their hands.
Do you think a Southern carpenter gives two shits if some rich bastard owns a slave? Of course not. The War was a class struggle. The poor dying for the rich. Stop fantasizing.
You fail miserably to realize that it was Northern Slaves ports that served as the gateway for Slaves into America. You forget about the enormous profits that Northern Textile mills made off of cheap cotton. The first Northern industries relied on doing business with Southern plantations. Also you act as if they weren't any Free Blacks in the South, which there were and did you also know there were Scottish Slaves?
@102LBC No! My point is, is that you are exaggerating and distorting the relationship of Slavery to average Southerners. The common man in the South had nothing to do with Slavery. He didn't bring slaves here, he didn't own a slave and he didn't profit from Slavery. I can also assure you that I am not a racist. It is better that the blacks came here as slaves as opposed to not at all. Because Slavery would eventually die out and African Americans have a wayy better quality of life than Africans.
@102LBC And you are a politically correct brainwashed moron who sees history fro one frame of reference. Think outside the box you fucking clown. And calling me a racist is a petty convenient replacement for a logical argument, in which you lack. Once the term racist starts getting thrown around, you know at least one person has run out of material. Just bury your head in the sand and neglect real history.
You are a kool aid drinker. You have been embedded with history that is compliant with a politically correct system of gulags. aka(Public Schools). I doubt you have even read one piece or literature or even an excerpt from someone who sees and understands the position of the Army of Northern Virginia during the Gettysburg campaign. On that note I also understand the position of men in the Army of the Potomac. They were noble men fighting for a cause they believed in, just like the Confederates.
If you are going to claim that a FEDERAL Army needs to be raised to invade the states to the South for the purpose of suppressing the institution of Slavery, by any means necessary. And if you are going to claim that the justification for such an act is based on some high moral order. Why would you then unleash that same Army in post War years against the civilian populace of Native tribes? Where was the Governments self righteous virtues then? I can tell you. They didn't have any back then.
@102LBC No. Not all Slaves were treated poorly. THAT IS A FACT. Stop trying to take an instance in history and exaggerate it into something it wasn't. Slavery is wrong yes, but it isn't GENOCIDE. Which was the policy far "incorrigible" Natives who refused to bend at the will of an expanding Federal Government. This connection that I make between the two is for the purpose of illustrating the hypocrisy of the Federal Government.
Furthermore, not all Slaves were mistreated, some were treated as part of the family. Some were treated more like employees that lived with their employers. They worked for food and bored. Were some mistreated? Of course. Mainly on large deep South commercial plantations. And that is disgusting. NO ONE regardless of race should be mistreated. But their were others ways of correcting these injustices. Certainly not a military invasion of the ENTIRE South.
People don't understand the relevance of Slavery. The Slaves that came to America, at least 50% of them were already Slaves in Africa. When they got here, regardless of where they were. On a plantation, in a city or in the countryside as Free men. It would have been impossible for them to assimilate. They didn't know the language, they had no formal education in Africa, and the culture that they knew and understood was polar opposites of European based countries.
If you are going to claim that an invasion of the South was a righteous crusade against the indignities of man kind. How do you justify the post- war treatment of the Western Native?. Commanche, Apache, Navajo, Sioux and other Native cultures. We didn't just enslave these people. We killed them, pillaged their villages, burned their crops, killed their buffalo and eradicated any remnants of their culture. It is hard for me to see the Federal Government in the 1860s-70s on a righteous platform.
@102LBC I find it hilarious that you would support the war effort of the North against the South, because of the institution of slavery, and the treatment of the blacks. But you fail to see the hypocrisy of that same government then commanding that Army to lay waste to Native cultures. You fail to see history in the grand scheme of things. You can cherry pick historical facts. Fact is; Lincoln and the North didn't give two shits about the Negro, Native, or the Chinese or any other minority.
@102LBC AHAH! Not in comes out. You are obviously a hateful little man who assumes that every Southerner should have paid for the crimes of the rich. You still won't even admit that Slavery was a rich man's practice. It had nothing to do with poor Southerners, which is who made up the Southern Armies ranks. The British outlawed Slavery in their own country, but the horrors of British Imperialism lingered all the way up until WWl. Before then Britain had slaves in their colonies.
In Gods and Generals, Col Chamberlain makes his case against the South when he says, " I do question a system a system that claims they are fighting for their own freedom but denies it to others." I would comeback and challenge Chamberlain by saying, I question a system that pushes for black freedom and black rights, while denying it to the Natives in the West. It's like saying, All blacks deserve their rights and liberty, but those heathens to the west deserve to be conquered and killed
@102LBC BS. 15-20% of Southerners is a massive exaggeration. About 5% of all Southerners owned Slaves. And Slavery existed in the South not because of culture, but because of landscape. It was England, their previous colonial masters that deemed Southern North America as an agrarian based economy. Almost no middle class families owned slaves, that's a lie. Do you know how expensive it was to buy and slave, let alone afford keeping one around. Slavery was a rich man's endeavor.
Anyone who defends the actions of South Carolina in December 1860, and less specifically the actions of the Democratic party in their convention in April of 1860, should be castrated so we don't have to live with the stupidity of their future generations.
Anyone who claims the South had any basis in "right" should move out of the United States. Go live in a 3rd world racist country where you belong.
What the Federal Gov did was wrong. the same goes for the South. but it's not just the South's fault, remember the Majority of the slave owners were from the North. not the South.
IF you read history Lee was going to invade his own state, He was not going to be part of any of that.
@Dogmeat1950 Lee was a slave owner, and a slave beater. He was a coward, not a hero. He knew what was right and he took the easy choice.
You want a hero? Look at a man like George Thomas, a Virginian, who realized the error of southern ways.
Secondly, the majority of slave owners from the North? You know Einstein the data is available for free on the internet. Yes, there were slaves in the north at the time of the civil war; however they were all elderly and some had in fact filed lawsuits.
@mmmm66 Grant owned Slaves, and most Union troops did not want to fight to free black people. read history bud.
Lee and Stonewall Jackson knew slavery wouldn't be around to much longer in the USA, they knew it was going to die off.
Plus the Conditions in the North for Black works was not that much better then in the South. working conditions in the North were horrible. only thing was they didn't have to worry about a whip
@mmmm66 Keep in mind not everything on the Internet is true lol. so try to stick to a good book when talking about very important things hell Wiki messes up it's into on the Invasion of Poland very badly.
@Dogmeat1950 ...filed lawsuits to remain slaves. Read up on that.
Morally, politically and legally the south was wrong. I hate people who defend her 150 years after she was proved wrong and 50 years after her attitudes were shown to the world how hateful and spiteful they really were.
Neoconfederates=neonazis. Confederate flag is not heritage, it is hate.
Fly the national flags if you care so much about history.
@mmmm66 ya.. you have no idea what your talking about.
Nobody flies the Confederate Flag, most fly the Confederate Battle Flag, HUGE Difference!
O keep in mind the Law that started the war was not trying to end Slavery just Limit it, the Problem was the way the law was forced was against the U.S Constitution, so the South had every right to say it was wrong, plus if they could make that law happen and Force it on the South what else could they do?
@Dogmeat1950 —what a bunch of crap! The Federal government had EVERY right and the power under the constitution to limit slavery in the territories. The Slave Power however would recognise NO limitations on the spread of slavery and when a popular election didn't go the way they wanted it to, that's when they decided to bust up the country. "The South had the right to say it was wrong"? Uh uh —the Supremacy Clause says otherwise and the South had no argument.
@LordZontar um no, the fault of the war falls on both sides, but what your saying is that John Brown had a right to fight the USMC at Harpers? fairy he broke laws and killed people his action help sparked the war.
@Dogmeat1950 — Nice red herring about John Brown, but like all such, irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. And no, the South is solely at fault for the war. They had no right to secede from the Union and certainly no right to open fire on Ft. Sumter. They simply had no argument to justify their position at all.
@LordZontar you never heard of state rights vs federal rights? that's the main reason the war was fought. if the Government could force laws the states didn't want what else could they do?
it could have been avoided. both sides are at fault for the war.
@Dogmeat1950 — States' rights exist only in context to the overall Federal union as defined in the constitution. Federal law trumps state law, as per the Supremacy Clause. Period, end of sentence. And there is no state "right" to nullify Federal laws and certainly no state "right" to secede from the Union. The South, quite simply, was wrong.
@LordZontar Yes but the constitution also gives power to the states gives powers to congress, forbids certain owners to the states forbids certain powers to congress and the 10th amendment says any not given to congress or forbidden to the states is the domain of the states.
@badgerattoadhall — not quite. The Tenth Amendment does not confer phantom rights upon the states that cannot be implied by any thing in either Federal or state constitutions, such as the non-existent "right" of secession. The people have the ultimate right of revolution, if no other recourse is available to them and the central government is hopelessly oppressive. Sovereignty flows from the people, not the states, therefore the states cannot assume a right only the people hold as theirs.
What is ironic here is that NC was the very last state to secede and they suffered more battle dead than any Southern State. The 2nd State that suffered the most was VA and they both seceded after Sumter and way after Lincoln's inauguration. The first state that Lincoln invaded was VA. And to add fuel to the fire VA was one of the Southern states where slavery was becoming progressively more scarce.
Look at it like this. My family and yours aren't getting along. Maybe an argument over who owns a vast backyard. We try talking, doesn't really go anywhere and finally, because your dog pooped in the lawn I claim as my own, I start shooting at you. Naturally, I don't hit you but are you going to continue talking or are you going to fire back in defense?
I also like how you call it " Federal Property," as far as I am concerned it is Native property. The Federal Government over stepping it's bounds and claiming property that doesn't really belong to them definitely did nothing to ameliorate the crisis, it only made it worse. The Government also assumed full ownership to Sioux and Commanche lands and after fighting them, they evicted them.
It's federal property because, before secession, the federal government footed the bill.
As for Lincoln being hasty? I already told you, Stony, that things were spiraling out of control before he even took office. When the South, whoever you want to blame, fired on Sumter, that was the last straw. Again, I told you, when you engage in hostile activity, it shows that you have given up on diplomacy. Lincoln tried to negotiate, they fired, too bad.
For instance, it says "we are done talking". IE Diplomacy isn't really going to cut it any more. If the North allows it, it's a sign of weakness and acknowledgement of South secession. Internationally, the ramifications would be huge.
You also need to understand that no one expected that the war would last as long as it did or that as many people would die. This would shock both sides considerably as the war carried on.
The key decision that brought forth War was Lincoln's quick call up of volunteers and then eventually invaded VA, which is ironic. Because VA not only didn't secede until April, but was one of the Southern states that was slowly eliminating Slavery. Slavery being far more prominent in the deep South. I don't just blame Lincoln's decision making, I also blame the Deep South's initial secession. There is plenty of blame on both sides. I just feel sorry for the poor who were used as cannon fodder.
Indeed, the commoner suffered dearly for those in power and those impassioned. As I said, though, the situation is very complex and there aren't very many "easy" answers. No one should have to die but they died for a reason and we must never forget the results. Their bloodshed sealed the fate of our country, as we are all one people now. We are all Americans. Which does not mean we all have to believe or behave the same way; no, Americans are defined by diversity. Variety.
Whether you want it to be or not, Fort Sumter was an isolated incident and the rest of the South really had very little to do with SC affairs. Especially Southern States, because they were so strongly opposed to external incursion of State's rights and sovereignty . In retrospect, Fort Sumter is hardly an excuse to incite total war on the South.
But regardless, the Confederacy did fire first (because it was formed by that point). It fired on ships trying to resupply the fort and then fired on the fort itself. Whether or not you agree with with secession, the Confederacy fired first. This means that they gave up on diplomatic solutions and were willing to engage in open conflict.
Not only did they attack Fort Sumter, they seized other federal facilities and took federal equipment which may as well have been theft.
@Mahbu " The confederacy fired first.".............. There was no Confederacy in April of 1861. SC hadn't even seceded yet. The Confederacy of the Southern States didn't form until June of 1861. Secession was a 2 month long process, and the states didn't all secede at once. Many like VA, NC and TN were forced to choose sides.
300 South Carolineans fired on a Federal fort. Not the South as a whole. You are trying to put every Southern State in the same boat. What ignorance.
It's a bit of a reach to say that South Carolina's siege of Sumter was COMPLETELY detached from the fact that six other states were already out of the Union and pulling the same sort of crap at exactly the same time.
Six states left to form the Confederacy before the battle of fort sumter, Stony. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
South Carolina was first, obviously, then Mississippi followed by Florida and Alabama and Georgia. Louisiana followed suit. Those five states seceded in January of 1861 with Texas leaving in February to join South Carolina. And what he means, Stony, is that these states to greater or lesser extent seized federal facilities and property and antagonized feds.
You're clearly knowledgeable enough to know that South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana purported to secede from the Union before Lincoln's inauguration, so why are you even asking?
And by "pulling crap," I'm referring both to the purported act of secession itself and to the seizure of Federal property throughout the South.
@UdallIn72 I agree with everything u posted. However you are confusing secession with war. Those two are not the same. Most of the Confederate manpower was from VA, NC and TN and they didn't secede until later. Did you not read when I said that I blame the deep south's original secession too? There is plenty of blame to go around. I just hate when people talk of Lincoln like he was a Saint. His call up for 75,000 Volunteers and his order to invade VA was hasty to say the least.
It doesn't matter who seceded first or last. They all seceded and so they all paid the price. It wouldn't come to anything had they remained with the union. North Carolina had terrible luck They decided to join a conflict they probably never would've won and they were very close to the north.
Fort Sumter happened in April of 1861. By February of 1861, six states had joined South Carolina. As I mentioned. Five in January and one in February. I'm not lumping all of them together, but South Carolina did not act alone in seizing federal properties, munitions, and facilities. For all intents and purposes, it was the Confederacy or at minimum the foundation of the Confederacy.
@Mahbu No one died at Sumter. The Federal Garrison eventually surrendered and they weren't harmed. A gun explosion though, during the surrender ceremonies caused two Federal soldiers death's. Lincoln immediately calls for 75,000 Volunteers from every not secession state, including Virginia and NC, who had not yet seceded, to suppress the rebellion in the cotton states. When demands were made VA, NC, AK and TN secede from the Union, thus the Civil War starts. And the North invades.
You're operating under the assumption that people needed to die. However, this is not the case. The act is just as important as the result. Whether you consider it the whole south, the confederacy, or merely South Carolina, they fired on Federal Forces on Federal Property. Now, you might think that's not a big deal but considering how delicate things were already and the kind of messages that would be sent, the act of firing upon Fort Sumter becomes drastically more dire.
Of the Confederacy. It was a beginning point of where the North armed itself for war and further states seceded.
You're also missing the point. Sumter was merely an ignition of the powder keg that had built up to that point. Of all that tension and anxiety. Really, the conflicts have been going on a lot longer. Look at Bleeding Kansas. Those were nasty border skirmishes between free and slave states. In that specific instance, the belligerents were Southern pro-slavers.
@Mahbu That catalyst of the conflict was INVASION. Before the invasion the issue was only a political disagreement. War and secession are not synonymous. Ending Slavery was an end result to the conflict, it had nothing to do with it's cause. The Federal Abolishing of Slavery had more to do with crippling the agrarian South, economically, than any kind of righteous sentiment. Were there Abolitionists, like Chamberlain, in the Union Army, yes. But there was also opponents in the South.
Of course they aren't and I'm not saying they were. The invasion only happened after Fort Sumter ended any chance of a diplomatic solution. And that's what I said. Abolishing slavery was not so much the ignition but a contributing factor as it only became an issue later in the war when Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation proclamation. But, again, that is more complex than merely morality or crippling the south. Both are correct but are not the sole or only reasons.
Up to that point, people were quietly willing to live with the status quo. No slavery in the north, slavery in the south. But moods do change, mind you. The abolitionist movement was growing, political power was shifting. How slavery and the economics were viewed changed. More and more people realized that "hey, this isn't right" (though perhaps not as many felt the need to support equality, they merely felt that slavery itself was wrong).
@Mahbu Wrong again Idiot. The South did not attack first. ONE state represented by 300 men fired on a Federal Garrison, which had no right to be there in the first place, and to top it off, it was bloodless. Hardly a reason to invade the South with a Federal Corps and initiate a total War against the South as a whole. Fort Sumter is one pathetic excuse.
I'm sorry, Stony. I thought we wanted discussion. Calling me an idiot because you can't agree isn't very productive. Anyway. At best, that is debatable but it was a Federal base before and during the initial secession that took place. It was a fort built in the event that something like the War of 1812 happened again.
This, by the way, ties into the legality of secession and whether or not it was legal. One state, certainly, but one state that was the beginning --
Still. Part of the industrialization was fueled by what was produced in the south (though it continued just fine during the war). And that growing industry in part fueled the need for greater production in the south which meant a greater need for slavery. There's no doubt about that. I'm not denying that the North had a hand in it but, really, I think we should look at it as less of North/South but a country as a whole and how it evolved
As for slavery in the north, it's true that it's rarely discussed if only because it was a drop in the bucket compared to the South. The institution never caught on and what was in place was dismantled by the British during the revolutionary war as a sound tactical approach at weakening the colonies. What was left was given up for a multitude of reasons. Piety, morality, economics, ethics, climate. A little fear, too, as the black population was growing.
And remember, while the slave owners were a minority, they were a rich and powerful minority. And they were well connected to people with wealth and power who didn't necessarily own slaves but either supported slavery or supported the people who did.
And I'm not telling you the North didn't have a hand in Slavery, but we're forgetting that people change minds. A bully, for instance, might wake up some day and realize that beating weaker people up is wrong. After all, before the civil war there was a time when slavery was thought acceptable worldwide.
Serious ramifications on the world. Whether or not the rest of the world would take seriously North America/The United States. In that way, it was as much an internal thing as it was an external.
The union, international viewpoints/pressure, morality, economics, politics, technology, science, tactics, strategies, ideologies, culture. They all play a hand in why so many died and for what reasons.
Every one of them had a reason and while similar, I doubt any two were exactly alike,
@Mahbu The difference here is, is that the South wasn't a belligerent usurper. They were not invading sovereign countries and they were not endangering the world. They didn't even believe in expansionism. Comparing the Confederacy to the Nazi Empire or the Imperial Empire of Japan is just lunacy. The institutions that were controversial in the South were only practiced by a small minority. And to top it off the North played a key role in the creation and survival of the Slave and cotton trade.
It doesn't matter. Wars aren't always started because of belligerent usurpers or obvious evil. The Civil War itself is interesting because it was the "Defender" who attacked first.
And I'm not comparing the Confederacy to either one, only the idea that bitter enemies can get over differences. And before you tell me that I'm thinking in a contemporary mindset, you must realize that even in antiquity it happened.
But if nothing else, let me say this: United we stand, divided we fall. The war was to preserve the union and maintain a country. We are all one people now, that was paid for in blood.
There's no way to know for sure but I'm willing to bet that the Americas would not have played a significant role in the world had the North and South been divided. Who knows how long slavery would've continued.
But they understand, at least, that the fate of the civil war would have. .
Another thing is attitude. Going into the war, both sides believed it'd be a quick affair. That it'd be over quick and everyone would get back to their lives. They were unprepared for the gruesome realities of war and that it would not be as easy or as quick as everyone hoped/expected. Neither side really comprehended the ramifications of what a conflict at that point in time would mean.
After all, the only reason they used Napoleonic tactics was because muskets were inaccurate. They massed up like that to make up for it but now? Now weapons were super accurate and more bullets were hitting. More bullets were inflicting more grievous injuries and more people were dying because medical science hadn't yet caught up. Amputations for just about everything? Not cleaning medical instruments? Primative medicine? Yeah. So, yeah, a lot of people died unnecessarily.
You say I haven't considered the attitudes of the day. Hardly. I've considered them fully and they play a very significant part. Militarily speaking.
Another thing to understand is that technology had soared at that point. Better bullets, rifled guns, improved ignition. Improved artillery, etcetera. All these things made for better killing instruments.
The problem? Technology might've changed but attitudes on use, on tactics and strategy, did not.
Fear. Fear played an important role, too. Fear that the Republicans and Abraham would end slavery all together or prevent future states from being slave which they felt would reduce their power (even though the "island" that is the south is actually quite large). Fear that the North would ruin their culture, their way of life. Pride, I suppose, ties into it as well.
But there's something else that we aren't considering.
That's politics and power. The abolitionists make up morality. Then there's economy.
Between the agrarian south and the industrial north, Tariffs and taxes existed. The South did indeed feel threatened as the north increasingly industrialized and put pressure on the south which had little inclination to change. Slavery and agriculture was working swell, why change that? But it also was having difficulty keeping up with industry so it created a great deal of conflict.
That minority was rich and powerful. That minority was tied in with other rich and powerful groups. Politicians, various people in industry, notable and important figures, etc. So together that had considerable power and they didn't want to lose that power. So that's one probable cause. These people who didn't want to lose power if slavery ended or was limited. It ties into states rights. The state rights, mind you, to maintain that institution.
Now when I say slavery, as I said, I don't mean freeing the slaves. That was only a part of it. Granted, the abolitionists were pushing for it and they did have influence, but the government didn't really take any great steps until the middle of the war.
What I mean is the institution. Top to bottom. The Slaves, the plantations, the products of slavery, the lifestyle and culture, the politics tied to slavery. Even though slavers were owned by a minority. . .
Some people will tell you that it was about freeing the slaves, but that isn't it at all. Some will say states rights but they are only half right and it's only a part of the equation.
The very basic reasons are who had power and how that power would be managed but also, and despite what any southerner will tell you, Slavery was a significant part of it. Just probably not in the way you assume.
Furthermore, I was also making a point that body count was not a measure of significance. Did you forget that part? You probably did because your'e talking out of your ass. Or trolling. Either way.
And like I said. If it's a waste of time, don't come. You keep coming back. So, again, either you're an idiot or a troll. Which is it? Prove me wrong. Or just go away if you have anything better to do (clearly you don't).
@Mahbu No there isn't a point in talking to you. Your understanding of history is elementary. You are trying to compare the 1860's with the standards of that today. You are an idiot because you can't decipher between time periods and your position on the Civil War has been fabricated by Hollywood propaganda and Socialist rhetoric in schools. Why don;t you read a book about the conflict, maybe by a qualified historian because you are brainwashed.
Oh, so you do care? You keep responding. Do you want the last word? Tell me right now. Do. You. Want. To. Have. The. Last. Word. Easy enough question to answer for someone clearly "educated".
And I'm sure your list of authors is of all qualified historians in the eyes of people who worship the south and refuse to call it a "Civil War". I mean, you could try and prove me wrong but you apparently don't care.
But you weren't doing a very good job. You went off on all these weird little tangents that I addressed. If that's what you want, all you had to do was say it instead of saying I'm not worth your time and declaring how much you don't care.
The first thing you must understand is that the answer isn't simple or easy. War is never simple or easy. Life, as it turns out, is not simple or easy.
Don't get so angry. I respect both sides. I am just giving you another point of view about the conflict. One that isn't and never will be taught in school. I am not being malicious or hateful about it. I respect and mourn EVERY soldier, North and South, that had to experience those horrible and destructible 4 years. I used to be a die hard Union supporter. But then I started reading, and it became clear that the conflict was so much more than meets the eye.
No you don't. Don't even try to pretend to take some high road now. You accused us of being BRAINWASHED earlier. You don't respect any view but your own. That's abundantly clear now. This has nothing to do with soldiers, either. I'm sure you were some big "union" man until you read some biased book written by some southern "the south shall rise again" type idiot who still thinks the South should be separate even though he'd never be where he is if it did.
Slavery existed in the South NOT for cultural reasons. But for Topographic reasons. In the South you had more fertile land that was more appropriate for farming and agriculture. Many Slaveholders where even former Northerners, who moved South to seek an agrarian life. I can't stand when people say that Slavery in the South was a " Cultural" aspect, that couldn't be further from the truth.
If it was cultural, explain why 95% of Southerners had never owned a Slave?
Slavery didn't exist because of cultural reasons and I didn't say it did. I said it was ingrained INTO their culture. People say it because it's true. Because the South believed that slavery was a part of its culture, the patriarchal society, plantation life. Who were the people to emulate? Rich white plantation owners. How did they get there? On the backs of slavery. And it's reflected in how they viewed slaves. Many thought that slaves were happy being, well, slaves.
What always strikes me as hypocritical is that the North facilitated Slavery for over 80 years. New England textile mills generated a lot of revenue based on their ability to buy cotton at a cheap price. Many Boston Abolitionist's who funded the War in the South had wealth that was directly generated from cheap cotton. All Slave ports were located in the North and slaves were auctioned in Northern cities. Than the entrepreneur would move South, in search of farm-able land.
Idea in the making? Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president. There were 15 before him. The idea of "strong central government" was already there. And no one had a serious problem with it up until that point. You want to know why? Because until that point, the south was a spoiled child that always got its way. But lo and behold, suddenly it might not get its way on a couple of issues and suddenly we should all secede? Get the fuck out of here.
You know America was a Federation of colonies before a strong central government was created. Your problem is that you are not distinguishing between time periods. Quit trying to compare the Civil War with that of today's standards. Back then men were loyal to their sovereign state and a strong centralized government was merely an idea in the making. In this day in age it is hard to consider an individual being loyal to a state. that is because it is 2011, not 1861.
Stony, you keep asking why I call your person into question and why i call you names. It's because you say shit like "you're brainwashed" like it's some proven fact when really all you're going on is your own bias/opinion which hardly carries that much weight. Especially after some of the moronic stuff you say.
Like for instance. You say I'm a waste of time but you KEEP. COMING. BACK. Now, either you're a bigger idiot than I thought or you're a better than average troll.
@Mahbu Once you started comparing the Civil War to WWll, I really stopped listening to what you had to say. That alone right there, shows how ignorant you are. This conversation is a waste of time.
Why? What's so wrong about comparing them for that specific instance. We weren't talking about causes, we weren't talking about the way the war was waged. We were discussing how enemies regarded each other after a serious and bitter conflict. In that way, the comparison is legitimate. You just didn't want to address it because you didn't have an adequate response.
Listen. The more I read your stuff, the more I think you're a sick fuck. No, it's not just that you believe most Germans were innocent and wanting to be "liberated" or that you completely ignored the point on Japanese who most certainly did not.
It's that you're completely engrossed in this. You refuse to let go. I think you'd rather live in the past than the present and so you cling to this issue desperately, dreaming of a nostalgic but exaggerated image of the South.
@Mahbu You are a zombie, you can't get past race. You have run out of material and now you have to revert to revising my character. You are a waste of time.
See? That's part of the problem! You think the issue is race! It has nothing to do with race. All you saw was "German" and "Japanese" and assumed the conversation had somehow shifted to race.
I call your character into question because you're saying nonsensical things! Hypocritical nonsense and ass backwards comments. Like, for example, you just called me a "waste of time". If you think you're wasting time, just GO. GO. Like I asked before, do you want the last word?
I under no circumstance blame Northern fighting men,( I am half Northern myself) what I am just trying to shed light on here is that you need to focus more on the catalyst of the War, rather than some philosophical sentiments of New Englanders and Minnesotans. The catalyst was for this war, as it was for so many others, was INVASION. After Bull Run, the conflict it self spiraled out of control and it grew to a TOTAL WAR, where war is not only waged on Armies, but the civilian populace.
You can't argue that your opponent is using speculation and then go on to speculate yourself. That's just poor etiquette. It's called hypocrisy but you are familiar with that aren't you?
I've focused on the catalyst but you keep brushing it off because you refuse to accept any perceived "evil" on behalf of the South. I'm starting to think you'd believe slaves were happier in bondage.
But you really are a lunatic. I mean "I'm half northern myself"? What does that even mean. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. That's like saying "I'm Half New Yorker" or "I'm Half Dallas". Worse, it's the kind of bullshit that keeps our country so divided in the sense of "us vs them". Seriously. "New Englanders and Minnesotans"?
Either you're an obnoxious troll or you honestly believe this. I don't know what to do with you. You don't care about the catalysts.
@Mahbu Well it is hard for you to comprehend my analysis because you are brainwashed. You believe everything you have been told in 11th Grade history class. And I doubt you have read one book by a qualified historian. You haven't given me one interesting or engaging fact. Just a mountain of commentary and pointless comparisons.
The only hypocrite here is you, Stony. You keep saying I haven't given you anything interesting or engaging and then you go off on weird little tangents, ignoring entirely the point behind those comparisons that prove that your idiotic ideas are just that, idiotic.
Like, for instance, I pointed out many examples of bitter enemies getting over their differences but you shrug it off entirely and fail to provide any good reason why the south is still butthurt.
Germans were grateful to surrender to us, rather than fighting and possibly being captured and tortured by the Soviets. Most Germans knew nothing really about the Holocaust and most were jaded from War. That is why there is little resentment. Now on the other hand the South wasn't at war. They didn't invade anyone. All that happened was one State(SC) seceded, help was asked of the other Southern States to quash the rebellion. When they refused the Governments order, a line was drawn in the sand.
And here you are yelling "get your facts straight" as an easy but overused tactic of trying to undermine another person's point.
You're also delusional. Many of the Germans wanted us? No, you're an idiot. I want to be nice but you're a complete idiot for suggesting that. At the height of the Third Reich most people were behind it. Not all were a 100% but then when are all people a 100% behind a leader?
Stop spamming the channel with commentary.Find a fucking chatroom if you are going to do that. Your posts are way too full of opinion and not enough fact. Stop comparing this War to WWll, because they are not even close to synonymous. We liberated most Germans in WWll, many of them wanted our presence and had had it with their government which murdered 4 million Germans and countless Jews, Poles, Slavs, Gay and others.
See? This is why I can't take you seriously. If you think we need a "chat room", stop replying. You wanted to have a discussion? We're having one. You don't want it? Go away. No one's keeping you here. No one's forcing you to sit here and listen to me. You had the option of backing off a long time ago.
Or is this about having the last word? I assume you just want to come out sounding "right". If that's all you want, I'll let you have it. I don't care.
It's funny you mention slavery ending "peacefully" in other places. It didn't actually aways end easily or peacefully but an important observation here is. A law was passed in england and slavery ended without any kind of civil war.
The mere notion or fear of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans barring future states from having slavery? SECESSION AND WAR. The south didn't even wait for them to say it. They gave no chance, they wanted no part. Funny how that works.
@Mahbu Booth killed one person. Lincoln ordered an invasion of Northern Virginia which spark military campaigns, that were conducted around American homesteads and ended with 652,000 Americans dead. The point that I am making is that secession is ONE thing. War is something totally different. Ending Slavery wasn't a causes, it was a result of the War. Ending Slavery was the quintessential way of crippling Southern economy, and that it why it was done.
You're partly right though I know your intentions aren't about getting facts straight; all you are concerned about is ignoring any possible faults with the south while heaping all blame on the North. As how the Lost Cause dictates.
Ending slavery was not the cause. The ISSUE of slavery, however, was a major cause of the war. Complete abolition was a result. Crippling the southern economy was one of several good reasons to push for it but by no means the only.
Anyway, going back to grudges. France and England have foguht many wars with many deaths on both sides. While people jest, they were still close allies.
No, the South is unique in its extraordinary bitterness over the loss of the civil war. In part it has to do with the Lost Cause Phenomena which is a really sad case of extreme denial.
The only one who is brainwashed is you. Or, at the very least, you're so dumb you have your head stuck in the past (and in your ass) and refuse to look forward. You act like the Union kicked in your door and kicked your dog. News flash. The Union? The Confederacy? Gone. In their place? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. United we stand. But no. All you care about is defending a defunct paradoxical ideology because your life is mediocre at best.
The North doesn't hold as strong of a grudge because they won. They didn't have their cities demolished and their civilians weren't murdered in the street by a murdering psychopath like Sherman. The Civil War never touched many Northern cities and most of the wealthy Northerners who funded the invasion of the South stayed in the giant brick houses in perfect safety, while the poor fought and died. Think outside the box here men. You and many other people on this channel are brainwashed.
Let's take this one step further, you bitter halfwit. We NUKED Japan. Not burned a couple of cities to the ground. We killed entire cities worth of people. Twice. Japan and the US, today, are in good relations with each other.
I was waiting for you to mention Sherman. Oh yes I was. Sherman? Didn't murder anyone. In fact, the civilian death toll was extremely low.
And I won't claim to understand why the South is so bitter about losing. England and America fought each other TWICE and now we're best buddies. Essentially. Lord knows we went to their aid in TWO wars.
I'm sure it has to do with "pride", but for what? What is there to be proud of? For starters, none of these people were there for it. Don't even know what it's like to live back then. Yes, family must've fought at some point and, yeah, be proud of that. Don't be obnoxious.
@Mahbu England and America. The Revolution was a small conflict compared to the Civil War you moron. More Americans died in the Civil War than in every American War put together. You are not thinking, you are an idiot. Every other country in the world got rid of Slavery without murdering each other Wholesale. Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves and most of that 5% had one slave and most treated them like they were part of the family. A minority amount of slaves were ever beaten.
You'll have to forgive me but I laugh at you if only because you seem to think that significance is measured in bodies. Because the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 didn't have as many people dead as in the civil war, they mean less? They aren't as significant? Like I said, you haven't any room to insult anyone.
Fine then. Germany. World War II. Nazis. Godwin forgive me. Germany and the US are now best friends. Japan, us. AMAZING RELATIONS.
That resentment you speak of? Only in the south, pal. It's only because bitter kids like you refuse to let it go. I hold no grudge against the south. I like the South. I have friends from Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Texas. Whites, Blacks, Republicans, and Democrats. I hold no grudge. None. Why? Because that war happened long before I was born.
I don't hate the Japanese because they bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't hate the Spanish for the Inquisition.
At the outset of the Civil War, fewer than one in four men owned a slave in the South. Of them, the majority had only one,and he/she was treated as a member of the family. Not to forgive the practise of owning another person ever, but just to set straight that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. Most Yankees didn't care either way. The South seceded because the Federal Government was exceeding it's bounds and they were unable to stop it any other way.
@46spoony is a fucking peewit.
360Nomad 3 months ago
you rarely see men of such open and honest conviction anymore...
Sidewinder5O4 4 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
One of the most boring, poorly acted war movies of all time.
46spoony 4 months ago
@46spoony if your looking for something like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, yeah you'll be pretty disappointed... iv'e always considered it more of an american Henry V imo...
Ropjet 4 months ago
@Ropjet
I actually walked out on this one. Maybe I'll take a second look.
46spoony 4 months ago
@46spoony What the fuck is wrong with you? How is this movie boring?
360Nomad 4 months ago
@46spoony you prick
tavenlee123 3 months ago in playlist speeches
Six hundred thousand brave ones died to resolve this issue. The United States is one. All citizens are free
SaphirBlackMoon 4 months ago
@102LBC Ok, that's your story and you're obviously sticking with it, so this commenting back and forth is essentially moot.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
@Nomolos2010 im sorry but your just a fool if you think the south fired on fort sumter because of slavery. the number one reason for the south to fight was to defend states rights, and the norths was to preserve the union
tavenlee123 3 months ago in playlist speeches
@tavenlee123 'scuse me sir? My comments were arguing against that notion of the war being about slavery.
Nomolos2010 2 months ago
@102LBC And frankly, I think the biggest problem with this entire discussion is trying to 'bottom line' the ACW as being about one thing or another, when the FACT is that it was an extremely complicated situation for both sides.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
So, that brings a very interesting point. Why would the Southern States not jump at the chance to avoid a war that they knew beyond a shadow of doubt they had almost zero chance of winning if they could keep their slaves, if the war was indeed about slavery?
Also, the facts also say that ending slavery the way he did was likely the biggest mistake he made bar none as President although it did have the effect of motivating the troops and abolishionists.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
BTW, I say that because namely, Lincoln himself never referred to the war as anything but a war of rebellion or Civil War. His Proclomation Presidentially freed the slaves in the South. It did NOT change the reason for the war. SIR.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
@102LBC So much for your theory that it was a war over slavery.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
@102LBC Would you kindly show me the reference that Lincoln ever made any statements to effectively support the allegation that he went to war to stop slavery? And yes, it was Lincoln that decided to invade the South, the South was scrambling for a peaceable way through the situation. It was also Lincoln that decided that that Ft. Sumter was still to be considered Northern property, when in fact, it should have rightfully been surrendered upon the demand of S. Carolina.
Nomolos2010 5 months ago
It is hypocrisy in the purest form.
HaggenPagan26 6 months ago
If the Federal Army was fighting for Freedom and Justice. Why was that same Army unleashed to lay waste to Native cultures in the post War years?
HaggenPagan26 6 months ago
@HaggenPagan26
Because the racist slave holders in the south would not concede to the US and the Constitution.
enverpasha55 6 months ago
@enverpasha55 That doesn't answer my question nimrod.
HaggenPagan26 6 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Because nothing is perfect, life is messy, and justice isn't a place or a thing but a process.
zahir13 5 months ago
@zahir13 That's a dodge!
HaggenPagan26 5 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 No, its reality. Just because justice was (essentially) on the side of the Union in that conflict doesn't mean the Union was always right. Do you claim to be always right? Well, neither are nations.
zahir13 5 months ago
@zahir13 OMG! WOW! What an idiotic response to a blatant double standard that I suggested. I don't think justice was on the side of the Union. Maybe if you are talking about Blacks, but NATIVES, HELL NO!
HaggenPagan26 5 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 With respect, you don't seem to have understood what I wrote. I didn't claim the Union treated the Natives with justice (for the record, it did NOT). Only that the Union pursued more justice for slaves than did the Confederacy (which it DID). Kindly re-read precisely what I actually wrote rather than make assumptions about what I meant. And calling me names (like "idiot") is not an argument. Period.
zahir13 5 months ago
@zahir13 Call em like I see em.
HaggenPagan26 5 months ago
JUSTICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SupernalOne 6 months ago
"What do you think of negros?" lol. If you ask that question today you get shot.
ComfortableLate 8 months ago 6
Seven people are now piwits
NatanelYaHu 8 months ago
I am 15 and i have a role play assessment coming up in English, i have chose to do a monologue but don't know if i should do shakespeare, a movie or write my own, any suggestions?
abisivepoo 8 months ago
@abisivepoo do this. find the actual text and sketch out both parts and do them if your teacher allows. If they don't, look up Chamberlain's speech to the "mutineers" ealiers in the plot. Both text parts can be found on line.
brotherjohnfsc 8 months ago
i love that word......peawit. lmfao
thesash97 8 months ago
7 people didnt think they had to win this war.
EricW1063 8 months ago
As a Native American of Canada, I really feel this speech!
"Equality? What I'm fighting for is the right to prove that I'm a better man than many of them. There are many a man better or worse than me and some better, but I don't think that race or country matter at that.
I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm "" and I'm damn all gentleman!"
I fell this way, because I worked my ass off to be better than the rest of my family. Am the only one to go to university ever
Snowman20 8 months ago
WHO INVADED WHO? Fort Sumter was a bloodless event that was staged by a mere 300 South Carolineans. Only 300 Southerners were responsible for firing on a Federal Garrison that refused to leave. How does this event justify Lincoln's invasion of Virginia? What the hell did Virginia have to do with Fort Sumter. Typically in War, the invaders are the aggressors. Stop trying to spin it another way.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 if you are a different nation maybe. But there was no other nation. It was about keeping the peculiar institution alive,after the southern politicians lost a fair election that they seceded, and so that you know eveyone outside the USA sees it as it is that the South was wrong and treasonous. Only inthe south, and the northerners tat don't want to be offensive to Southerners give any credence to the Southern Cool Aid version of events.
titisuteu 8 months ago
5% is the most accurate claim you nitwit. Way too low my ass.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC Why even waste time arguing with an ignorant bafoon like yourself. To say that States rights is "revisionist bullshit" just shows how drug addled your mind. You are incapable of thinking historically, you rather cling to the same propaganda that caused the War itself. You are a drone, a politically correct imbecile and you are seemingly difficult to reason with. You argument is elementary and a regurgitation of 3rd Grade history class.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
There were blacks slaves, there were white slaves. Some were treated horribly, some were treated fairly. 5% of ALL Southerners owned Slaves. Slaves entered the country through Northern Slave ports. Textile Mills in NE in particular profited massively from cheap cotton.
With all this considered, it is hard for me to side with North, when they say that a War against the entire Southern populace is necessary. I think we could have found a better conclusion than 600,000+ body bags.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC No, I am not giving reasons why Slavery should exist. I am simply pointed out your exaggerations of the institution. I don't believe that Southerners were fighting to keep people in chains. They were fighting an out of control Federal Government that believed in the centralization of Power. Instead of giving power equally to unified state government. The War was mainly about a transition of power and the abolition of Nullification.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
And the comparison of Nazi Germany to the Confederacy is nuts.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC Ok! But you keep calling me a racist because I have tried to explain this. Just like I don't know you, you don't know me. I am not a racist.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
Some Blacks were treated miserably and that is disgusting. No man regardless of race deserves to be mistreated. But there were also Blacks who were treated fairly. And worked for the necessities of life. There were no factories in the South. Every common man worked hard and almost all worked with their hands.
Do you think a Southern carpenter gives two shits if some rich bastard owns a slave? Of course not. The War was a class struggle. The poor dying for the rich. Stop fantasizing.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
You fail miserably to realize that it was Northern Slaves ports that served as the gateway for Slaves into America. You forget about the enormous profits that Northern Textile mills made off of cheap cotton. The first Northern industries relied on doing business with Southern plantations. Also you act as if they weren't any Free Blacks in the South, which there were and did you also know there were Scottish Slaves?
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC No! My point is, is that you are exaggerating and distorting the relationship of Slavery to average Southerners. The common man in the South had nothing to do with Slavery. He didn't bring slaves here, he didn't own a slave and he didn't profit from Slavery. I can also assure you that I am not a racist. It is better that the blacks came here as slaves as opposed to not at all. Because Slavery would eventually die out and African Americans have a wayy better quality of life than Africans.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC And you are a politically correct brainwashed moron who sees history fro one frame of reference. Think outside the box you fucking clown. And calling me a racist is a petty convenient replacement for a logical argument, in which you lack. Once the term racist starts getting thrown around, you know at least one person has run out of material. Just bury your head in the sand and neglect real history.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
You are a kool aid drinker. You have been embedded with history that is compliant with a politically correct system of gulags. aka(Public Schools). I doubt you have even read one piece or literature or even an excerpt from someone who sees and understands the position of the Army of Northern Virginia during the Gettysburg campaign. On that note I also understand the position of men in the Army of the Potomac. They were noble men fighting for a cause they believed in, just like the Confederates.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
If you are going to claim that a FEDERAL Army needs to be raised to invade the states to the South for the purpose of suppressing the institution of Slavery, by any means necessary. And if you are going to claim that the justification for such an act is based on some high moral order. Why would you then unleash that same Army in post War years against the civilian populace of Native tribes? Where was the Governments self righteous virtues then? I can tell you. They didn't have any back then.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC No. Not all Slaves were treated poorly. THAT IS A FACT. Stop trying to take an instance in history and exaggerate it into something it wasn't. Slavery is wrong yes, but it isn't GENOCIDE. Which was the policy far "incorrigible" Natives who refused to bend at the will of an expanding Federal Government. This connection that I make between the two is for the purpose of illustrating the hypocrisy of the Federal Government.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
Furthermore, not all Slaves were mistreated, some were treated as part of the family. Some were treated more like employees that lived with their employers. They worked for food and bored. Were some mistreated? Of course. Mainly on large deep South commercial plantations. And that is disgusting. NO ONE regardless of race should be mistreated. But their were others ways of correcting these injustices. Certainly not a military invasion of the ENTIRE South.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
People don't understand the relevance of Slavery. The Slaves that came to America, at least 50% of them were already Slaves in Africa. When they got here, regardless of where they were. On a plantation, in a city or in the countryside as Free men. It would have been impossible for them to assimilate. They didn't know the language, they had no formal education in Africa, and the culture that they knew and understood was polar opposites of European based countries.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
If you are going to claim that an invasion of the South was a righteous crusade against the indignities of man kind. How do you justify the post- war treatment of the Western Native?. Commanche, Apache, Navajo, Sioux and other Native cultures. We didn't just enslave these people. We killed them, pillaged their villages, burned their crops, killed their buffalo and eradicated any remnants of their culture. It is hard for me to see the Federal Government in the 1860s-70s on a righteous platform.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC I find it hilarious that you would support the war effort of the North against the South, because of the institution of slavery, and the treatment of the blacks. But you fail to see the hypocrisy of that same government then commanding that Army to lay waste to Native cultures. You fail to see history in the grand scheme of things. You can cherry pick historical facts. Fact is; Lincoln and the North didn't give two shits about the Negro, Native, or the Chinese or any other minority.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC AHAH! Not in comes out. You are obviously a hateful little man who assumes that every Southerner should have paid for the crimes of the rich. You still won't even admit that Slavery was a rich man's practice. It had nothing to do with poor Southerners, which is who made up the Southern Armies ranks. The British outlawed Slavery in their own country, but the horrors of British Imperialism lingered all the way up until WWl. Before then Britain had slaves in their colonies.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
In Gods and Generals, Col Chamberlain makes his case against the South when he says, " I do question a system a system that claims they are fighting for their own freedom but denies it to others." I would comeback and challenge Chamberlain by saying, I question a system that pushes for black freedom and black rights, while denying it to the Natives in the West. It's like saying, All blacks deserve their rights and liberty, but those heathens to the west deserve to be conquered and killed
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC BS. 15-20% of Southerners is a massive exaggeration. About 5% of all Southerners owned Slaves. And Slavery existed in the South not because of culture, but because of landscape. It was England, their previous colonial masters that deemed Southern North America as an agrarian based economy. Almost no middle class families owned slaves, that's a lie. Do you know how expensive it was to buy and slave, let alone afford keeping one around. Slavery was a rich man's endeavor.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC All Southerners? I think you mean rich Southerners. Slave owners were a small minority of the Southern populace.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@102LBC yeah look at the "evil" whites in europe They repelled what four civilization ending invasions
badgerattoadhall 9 months ago
Ironic that the Irish didn't care much about blacks in civil war - note the NYC draft riots where Irish would lynch blacks
arthur131313 9 months ago
Who were the Killer Angels?
jermster17 9 months ago
@jermster17 we as humans depict as kind or as holy, could become cold murderers
jermster17 9 months ago
mmm66.....you have no idea what your talkin about, dogmeat1950 is completely right....well said man
sjbaseball6 9 months ago
you no he was right what he said ,whats matters is justice,
lordcornwallis2 10 months ago
@bpkeane: Wow, you have a thick skull.
Mercman2010 10 months ago
@102LBC
Quite. It's a sad truth. But a good read on the subject is Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Mahbu 10 months ago
mmmm66 The same South Carolina abolished its Condederate Flag in 1999
but on April 1 1860 was the first state to pull out when they felt the Union was
taken everything away from them. A flag is the heritage of this country learn
to seperate the patriotism from the racism...
bpkeane1 11 months ago
Anyone who defends the actions of South Carolina in December 1860, and less specifically the actions of the Democratic party in their convention in April of 1860, should be castrated so we don't have to live with the stupidity of their future generations.
Anyone who claims the South had any basis in "right" should move out of the United States. Go live in a 3rd world racist country where you belong.
No two things are equal or have an equal chance.
mmmm66 11 months ago
@mmmm66 Well they did,
What the Federal Gov did was wrong. the same goes for the South. but it's not just the South's fault, remember the Majority of the slave owners were from the North. not the South.
IF you read history Lee was going to invade his own state, He was not going to be part of any of that.
Dogmeat1950 10 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 Lee was a slave owner, and a slave beater. He was a coward, not a hero. He knew what was right and he took the easy choice.
You want a hero? Look at a man like George Thomas, a Virginian, who realized the error of southern ways.
Secondly, the majority of slave owners from the North? You know Einstein the data is available for free on the internet. Yes, there were slaves in the north at the time of the civil war; however they were all elderly and some had in fact filed lawsuits.
mmmm66 10 months ago
@mmmm66 Grant owned Slaves, and most Union troops did not want to fight to free black people. read history bud.
Lee and Stonewall Jackson knew slavery wouldn't be around to much longer in the USA, they knew it was going to die off.
Plus the Conditions in the North for Black works was not that much better then in the South. working conditions in the North were horrible. only thing was they didn't have to worry about a whip
Dogmeat1950 10 months ago
@mmmm66 Keep in mind not everything on the Internet is true lol. so try to stick to a good book when talking about very important things hell Wiki messes up it's into on the Invasion of Poland very badly.
Dogmeat1950 10 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 ...filed lawsuits to remain slaves. Read up on that.
Morally, politically and legally the south was wrong. I hate people who defend her 150 years after she was proved wrong and 50 years after her attitudes were shown to the world how hateful and spiteful they really were.
Neoconfederates=neonazis. Confederate flag is not heritage, it is hate.
Fly the national flags if you care so much about history.
mmmm66 10 months ago
@mmmm66 ya.. you have no idea what your talking about.
Nobody flies the Confederate Flag, most fly the Confederate Battle Flag, HUGE Difference!
O keep in mind the Law that started the war was not trying to end Slavery just Limit it, the Problem was the way the law was forced was against the U.S Constitution, so the South had every right to say it was wrong, plus if they could make that law happen and Force it on the South what else could they do?
Dogmeat1950 10 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 —what a bunch of crap! The Federal government had EVERY right and the power under the constitution to limit slavery in the territories. The Slave Power however would recognise NO limitations on the spread of slavery and when a popular election didn't go the way they wanted it to, that's when they decided to bust up the country. "The South had the right to say it was wrong"? Uh uh —the Supremacy Clause says otherwise and the South had no argument.
LordZontar 9 months ago
@LordZontar um no, the fault of the war falls on both sides, but what your saying is that John Brown had a right to fight the USMC at Harpers? fairy he broke laws and killed people his action help sparked the war.
Dogmeat1950 9 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 — Nice red herring about John Brown, but like all such, irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. And no, the South is solely at fault for the war. They had no right to secede from the Union and certainly no right to open fire on Ft. Sumter. They simply had no argument to justify their position at all.
LordZontar 9 months ago
@LordZontar you never heard of state rights vs federal rights? that's the main reason the war was fought. if the Government could force laws the states didn't want what else could they do?
it could have been avoided. both sides are at fault for the war.
Dogmeat1950 9 months ago
@Dogmeat1950 — States' rights exist only in context to the overall Federal union as defined in the constitution. Federal law trumps state law, as per the Supremacy Clause. Period, end of sentence. And there is no state "right" to nullify Federal laws and certainly no state "right" to secede from the Union. The South, quite simply, was wrong.
LordZontar 9 months ago
@LordZontar Yes but the constitution also gives power to the states gives powers to congress, forbids certain owners to the states forbids certain powers to congress and the 10th amendment says any not given to congress or forbidden to the states is the domain of the states.
badgerattoadhall 9 months ago
@badgerattoadhall — not quite. The Tenth Amendment does not confer phantom rights upon the states that cannot be implied by any thing in either Federal or state constitutions, such as the non-existent "right" of secession. The people have the ultimate right of revolution, if no other recourse is available to them and the central government is hopelessly oppressive. Sovereignty flows from the people, not the states, therefore the states cannot assume a right only the people hold as theirs.
LordZontar 9 months ago
6 people are piwits...
Drez26 11 months ago 10
One of my all time favorite movies.
1family4me 1 year ago
What is ironic here is that NC was the very last state to secede and they suffered more battle dead than any Southern State. The 2nd State that suffered the most was VA and they both seceded after Sumter and way after Lincoln's inauguration. The first state that Lincoln invaded was VA. And to add fuel to the fire VA was one of the Southern states where slavery was becoming progressively more scarce.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Look at it like this. My family and yours aren't getting along. Maybe an argument over who owns a vast backyard. We try talking, doesn't really go anywhere and finally, because your dog pooped in the lawn I claim as my own, I start shooting at you. Naturally, I don't hit you but are you going to continue talking or are you going to fire back in defense?
Mahbu 1 year ago
I also like how you call it " Federal Property," as far as I am concerned it is Native property. The Federal Government over stepping it's bounds and claiming property that doesn't really belong to them definitely did nothing to ameliorate the crisis, it only made it worse. The Government also assumed full ownership to Sioux and Commanche lands and after fighting them, they evicted them.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
It's federal property because, before secession, the federal government footed the bill.
As for Lincoln being hasty? I already told you, Stony, that things were spiraling out of control before he even took office. When the South, whoever you want to blame, fired on Sumter, that was the last straw. Again, I told you, when you engage in hostile activity, it shows that you have given up on diplomacy. Lincoln tried to negotiate, they fired, too bad.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Quit messaging me your mindless dribble. I am done talking to you.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Apparently not. Hi again. Couldn't resist replying?
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 THANK YOU SIR LOL its true america was originally owned by the native americans lol
TsumeBeta038 11 months ago
For instance, it says "we are done talking". IE Diplomacy isn't really going to cut it any more. If the North allows it, it's a sign of weakness and acknowledgement of South secession. Internationally, the ramifications would be huge.
You also need to understand that no one expected that the war would last as long as it did or that as many people would die. This would shock both sides considerably as the war carried on.
Mahbu 1 year ago
The key decision that brought forth War was Lincoln's quick call up of volunteers and then eventually invaded VA, which is ironic. Because VA not only didn't secede until April, but was one of the Southern states that was slowly eliminating Slavery. Slavery being far more prominent in the deep South. I don't just blame Lincoln's decision making, I also blame the Deep South's initial secession. There is plenty of blame on both sides. I just feel sorry for the poor who were used as cannon fodder.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Indeed, the commoner suffered dearly for those in power and those impassioned. As I said, though, the situation is very complex and there aren't very many "easy" answers. No one should have to die but they died for a reason and we must never forget the results. Their bloodshed sealed the fate of our country, as we are all one people now. We are all Americans. Which does not mean we all have to believe or behave the same way; no, Americans are defined by diversity. Variety.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Whether you want it to be or not, Fort Sumter was an isolated incident and the rest of the South really had very little to do with SC affairs. Especially Southern States, because they were so strongly opposed to external incursion of State's rights and sovereignty . In retrospect, Fort Sumter is hardly an excuse to incite total war on the South.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
But regardless, the Confederacy did fire first (because it was formed by that point). It fired on ships trying to resupply the fort and then fired on the fort itself. Whether or not you agree with with secession, the Confederacy fired first. This means that they gave up on diplomatic solutions and were willing to engage in open conflict.
Not only did they attack Fort Sumter, they seized other federal facilities and took federal equipment which may as well have been theft.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu " The confederacy fired first.".............. There was no Confederacy in April of 1861. SC hadn't even seceded yet. The Confederacy of the Southern States didn't form until June of 1861. Secession was a 2 month long process, and the states didn't all secede at once. Many like VA, NC and TN were forced to choose sides.
300 South Carolineans fired on a Federal fort. Not the South as a whole. You are trying to put every Southern State in the same boat. What ignorance.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
It's a bit of a reach to say that South Carolina's siege of Sumter was COMPLETELY detached from the fact that six other states were already out of the Union and pulling the same sort of crap at exactly the same time.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
@UdallIn72 Which states were out of the Union by then? And what do you mean by " pulling crap?"
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Six states left to form the Confederacy before the battle of fort sumter, Stony. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
South Carolina was first, obviously, then Mississippi followed by Florida and Alabama and Georgia. Louisiana followed suit. Those five states seceded in January of 1861 with Texas leaving in February to join South Carolina. And what he means, Stony, is that these states to greater or lesser extent seized federal facilities and property and antagonized feds.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
You're clearly knowledgeable enough to know that South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana purported to secede from the Union before Lincoln's inauguration, so why are you even asking?
And by "pulling crap," I'm referring both to the purported act of secession itself and to the seizure of Federal property throughout the South.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
@UdallIn72 I agree with everything u posted. However you are confusing secession with war. Those two are not the same. Most of the Confederate manpower was from VA, NC and TN and they didn't secede until later. Did you not read when I said that I blame the deep south's original secession too? There is plenty of blame to go around. I just hate when people talk of Lincoln like he was a Saint. His call up for 75,000 Volunteers and his order to invade VA was hasty to say the least.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
It doesn't matter who seceded first or last. They all seceded and so they all paid the price. It wouldn't come to anything had they remained with the union. North Carolina had terrible luck They decided to join a conflict they probably never would've won and they were very close to the north.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Fort Sumter happened in April of 1861. By February of 1861, six states had joined South Carolina. As I mentioned. Five in January and one in February. I'm not lumping all of them together, but South Carolina did not act alone in seizing federal properties, munitions, and facilities. For all intents and purposes, it was the Confederacy or at minimum the foundation of the Confederacy.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@Mahbu No one died at Sumter. The Federal Garrison eventually surrendered and they weren't harmed. A gun explosion though, during the surrender ceremonies caused two Federal soldiers death's. Lincoln immediately calls for 75,000 Volunteers from every not secession state, including Virginia and NC, who had not yet seceded, to suppress the rebellion in the cotton states. When demands were made VA, NC, AK and TN secede from the Union, thus the Civil War starts. And the North invades.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
You're operating under the assumption that people needed to die. However, this is not the case. The act is just as important as the result. Whether you consider it the whole south, the confederacy, or merely South Carolina, they fired on Federal Forces on Federal Property. Now, you might think that's not a big deal but considering how delicate things were already and the kind of messages that would be sent, the act of firing upon Fort Sumter becomes drastically more dire.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Of the Confederacy. It was a beginning point of where the North armed itself for war and further states seceded.
You're also missing the point. Sumter was merely an ignition of the powder keg that had built up to that point. Of all that tension and anxiety. Really, the conflicts have been going on a lot longer. Look at Bleeding Kansas. Those were nasty border skirmishes between free and slave states. In that specific instance, the belligerents were Southern pro-slavers.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu That catalyst of the conflict was INVASION. Before the invasion the issue was only a political disagreement. War and secession are not synonymous. Ending Slavery was an end result to the conflict, it had nothing to do with it's cause. The Federal Abolishing of Slavery had more to do with crippling the agrarian South, economically, than any kind of righteous sentiment. Were there Abolitionists, like Chamberlain, in the Union Army, yes. But there was also opponents in the South.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Of course they aren't and I'm not saying they were. The invasion only happened after Fort Sumter ended any chance of a diplomatic solution. And that's what I said. Abolishing slavery was not so much the ignition but a contributing factor as it only became an issue later in the war when Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation proclamation. But, again, that is more complex than merely morality or crippling the south. Both are correct but are not the sole or only reasons.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Up to that point, people were quietly willing to live with the status quo. No slavery in the north, slavery in the south. But moods do change, mind you. The abolitionist movement was growing, political power was shifting. How slavery and the economics were viewed changed. More and more people realized that "hey, this isn't right" (though perhaps not as many felt the need to support equality, they merely felt that slavery itself was wrong).
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Wrong again Idiot. The South did not attack first. ONE state represented by 300 men fired on a Federal Garrison, which had no right to be there in the first place, and to top it off, it was bloodless. Hardly a reason to invade the South with a Federal Corps and initiate a total War against the South as a whole. Fort Sumter is one pathetic excuse.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
I'm sorry, Stony. I thought we wanted discussion. Calling me an idiot because you can't agree isn't very productive. Anyway. At best, that is debatable but it was a Federal base before and during the initial secession that took place. It was a fort built in the event that something like the War of 1812 happened again.
This, by the way, ties into the legality of secession and whether or not it was legal. One state, certainly, but one state that was the beginning --
Mahbu 1 year ago
Still. Part of the industrialization was fueled by what was produced in the south (though it continued just fine during the war). And that growing industry in part fueled the need for greater production in the south which meant a greater need for slavery. There's no doubt about that. I'm not denying that the North had a hand in it but, really, I think we should look at it as less of North/South but a country as a whole and how it evolved
Mahbu 1 year ago
As for slavery in the north, it's true that it's rarely discussed if only because it was a drop in the bucket compared to the South. The institution never caught on and what was in place was dismantled by the British during the revolutionary war as a sound tactical approach at weakening the colonies. What was left was given up for a multitude of reasons. Piety, morality, economics, ethics, climate. A little fear, too, as the black population was growing.
Mahbu 1 year ago
And remember, while the slave owners were a minority, they were a rich and powerful minority. And they were well connected to people with wealth and power who didn't necessarily own slaves but either supported slavery or supported the people who did.
Mahbu 1 year ago
And I'm not telling you the North didn't have a hand in Slavery, but we're forgetting that people change minds. A bully, for instance, might wake up some day and realize that beating weaker people up is wrong. After all, before the civil war there was a time when slavery was thought acceptable worldwide.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Serious ramifications on the world. Whether or not the rest of the world would take seriously North America/The United States. In that way, it was as much an internal thing as it was an external.
The union, international viewpoints/pressure, morality, economics, politics, technology, science, tactics, strategies, ideologies, culture. They all play a hand in why so many died and for what reasons.
Every one of them had a reason and while similar, I doubt any two were exactly alike,
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu The difference here is, is that the South wasn't a belligerent usurper. They were not invading sovereign countries and they were not endangering the world. They didn't even believe in expansionism. Comparing the Confederacy to the Nazi Empire or the Imperial Empire of Japan is just lunacy. The institutions that were controversial in the South were only practiced by a small minority. And to top it off the North played a key role in the creation and survival of the Slave and cotton trade.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
It doesn't matter. Wars aren't always started because of belligerent usurpers or obvious evil. The Civil War itself is interesting because it was the "Defender" who attacked first.
And I'm not comparing the Confederacy to either one, only the idea that bitter enemies can get over differences. And before you tell me that I'm thinking in a contemporary mindset, you must realize that even in antiquity it happened.
Mahbu 1 year ago
But if nothing else, let me say this: United we stand, divided we fall. The war was to preserve the union and maintain a country. We are all one people now, that was paid for in blood.
There's no way to know for sure but I'm willing to bet that the Americas would not have played a significant role in the world had the North and South been divided. Who knows how long slavery would've continued.
But they understand, at least, that the fate of the civil war would have. .
Mahbu 1 year ago
Another thing is attitude. Going into the war, both sides believed it'd be a quick affair. That it'd be over quick and everyone would get back to their lives. They were unprepared for the gruesome realities of war and that it would not be as easy or as quick as everyone hoped/expected. Neither side really comprehended the ramifications of what a conflict at that point in time would mean.
Mahbu 1 year ago
After all, the only reason they used Napoleonic tactics was because muskets were inaccurate. They massed up like that to make up for it but now? Now weapons were super accurate and more bullets were hitting. More bullets were inflicting more grievous injuries and more people were dying because medical science hadn't yet caught up. Amputations for just about everything? Not cleaning medical instruments? Primative medicine? Yeah. So, yeah, a lot of people died unnecessarily.
Mahbu 1 year ago
You say I haven't considered the attitudes of the day. Hardly. I've considered them fully and they play a very significant part. Militarily speaking.
Another thing to understand is that technology had soared at that point. Better bullets, rifled guns, improved ignition. Improved artillery, etcetera. All these things made for better killing instruments.
The problem? Technology might've changed but attitudes on use, on tactics and strategy, did not.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Fear. Fear played an important role, too. Fear that the Republicans and Abraham would end slavery all together or prevent future states from being slave which they felt would reduce their power (even though the "island" that is the south is actually quite large). Fear that the North would ruin their culture, their way of life. Pride, I suppose, ties into it as well.
But there's something else that we aren't considering.
Mahbu 1 year ago
That's politics and power. The abolitionists make up morality. Then there's economy.
Between the agrarian south and the industrial north, Tariffs and taxes existed. The South did indeed feel threatened as the north increasingly industrialized and put pressure on the south which had little inclination to change. Slavery and agriculture was working swell, why change that? But it also was having difficulty keeping up with industry so it created a great deal of conflict.
Mahbu 1 year ago
That minority was rich and powerful. That minority was tied in with other rich and powerful groups. Politicians, various people in industry, notable and important figures, etc. So together that had considerable power and they didn't want to lose that power. So that's one probable cause. These people who didn't want to lose power if slavery ended or was limited. It ties into states rights. The state rights, mind you, to maintain that institution.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Now when I say slavery, as I said, I don't mean freeing the slaves. That was only a part of it. Granted, the abolitionists were pushing for it and they did have influence, but the government didn't really take any great steps until the middle of the war.
What I mean is the institution. Top to bottom. The Slaves, the plantations, the products of slavery, the lifestyle and culture, the politics tied to slavery. Even though slavers were owned by a minority. . .
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Some people will tell you that it was about freeing the slaves, but that isn't it at all. Some will say states rights but they are only half right and it's only a part of the equation.
The very basic reasons are who had power and how that power would be managed but also, and despite what any southerner will tell you, Slavery was a significant part of it. Just probably not in the way you assume.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Furthermore, I was also making a point that body count was not a measure of significance. Did you forget that part? You probably did because your'e talking out of your ass. Or trolling. Either way.
And like I said. If it's a waste of time, don't come. You keep coming back. So, again, either you're an idiot or a troll. Which is it? Prove me wrong. Or just go away if you have anything better to do (clearly you don't).
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu No there isn't a point in talking to you. Your understanding of history is elementary. You are trying to compare the 1860's with the standards of that today. You are an idiot because you can't decipher between time periods and your position on the Civil War has been fabricated by Hollywood propaganda and Socialist rhetoric in schools. Why don;t you read a book about the conflict, maybe by a qualified historian because you are brainwashed.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Oh, so you do care? You keep responding. Do you want the last word? Tell me right now. Do. You. Want. To. Have. The. Last. Word. Easy enough question to answer for someone clearly "educated".
And I'm sure your list of authors is of all qualified historians in the eyes of people who worship the south and refuse to call it a "Civil War". I mean, you could try and prove me wrong but you apparently don't care.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Fuck the last word. All I am trying to conjure up is a logical reason why you think it was necessary to off 652,000 Americans?
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
But you weren't doing a very good job. You went off on all these weird little tangents that I addressed. If that's what you want, all you had to do was say it instead of saying I'm not worth your time and declaring how much you don't care.
The first thing you must understand is that the answer isn't simple or easy. War is never simple or easy. Life, as it turns out, is not simple or easy.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Don't get so angry. I respect both sides. I am just giving you another point of view about the conflict. One that isn't and never will be taught in school. I am not being malicious or hateful about it. I respect and mourn EVERY soldier, North and South, that had to experience those horrible and destructible 4 years. I used to be a die hard Union supporter. But then I started reading, and it became clear that the conflict was so much more than meets the eye.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
No you don't. Don't even try to pretend to take some high road now. You accused us of being BRAINWASHED earlier. You don't respect any view but your own. That's abundantly clear now. This has nothing to do with soldiers, either. I'm sure you were some big "union" man until you read some biased book written by some southern "the south shall rise again" type idiot who still thinks the South should be separate even though he'd never be where he is if it did.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Slavery existed in the South NOT for cultural reasons. But for Topographic reasons. In the South you had more fertile land that was more appropriate for farming and agriculture. Many Slaveholders where even former Northerners, who moved South to seek an agrarian life. I can't stand when people say that Slavery in the South was a " Cultural" aspect, that couldn't be further from the truth.
If it was cultural, explain why 95% of Southerners had never owned a Slave?
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Slavery didn't exist because of cultural reasons and I didn't say it did. I said it was ingrained INTO their culture. People say it because it's true. Because the South believed that slavery was a part of its culture, the patriarchal society, plantation life. Who were the people to emulate? Rich white plantation owners. How did they get there? On the backs of slavery. And it's reflected in how they viewed slaves. Many thought that slaves were happy being, well, slaves.
Mahbu 1 year ago
What always strikes me as hypocritical is that the North facilitated Slavery for over 80 years. New England textile mills generated a lot of revenue based on their ability to buy cotton at a cheap price. Many Boston Abolitionist's who funded the War in the South had wealth that was directly generated from cheap cotton. All Slave ports were located in the North and slaves were auctioned in Northern cities. Than the entrepreneur would move South, in search of farm-able land.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Idea in the making? Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president. There were 15 before him. The idea of "strong central government" was already there. And no one had a serious problem with it up until that point. You want to know why? Because until that point, the south was a spoiled child that always got its way. But lo and behold, suddenly it might not get its way on a couple of issues and suddenly we should all secede? Get the fuck out of here.
Mahbu 1 year ago
You know America was a Federation of colonies before a strong central government was created. Your problem is that you are not distinguishing between time periods. Quit trying to compare the Civil War with that of today's standards. Back then men were loyal to their sovereign state and a strong centralized government was merely an idea in the making. In this day in age it is hard to consider an individual being loyal to a state. that is because it is 2011, not 1861.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Stony, you keep asking why I call your person into question and why i call you names. It's because you say shit like "you're brainwashed" like it's some proven fact when really all you're going on is your own bias/opinion which hardly carries that much weight. Especially after some of the moronic stuff you say.
Like for instance. You say I'm a waste of time but you KEEP. COMING. BACK. Now, either you're a bigger idiot than I thought or you're a better than average troll.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Once you started comparing the Civil War to WWll, I really stopped listening to what you had to say. That alone right there, shows how ignorant you are. This conversation is a waste of time.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Why? What's so wrong about comparing them for that specific instance. We weren't talking about causes, we weren't talking about the way the war was waged. We were discussing how enemies regarded each other after a serious and bitter conflict. In that way, the comparison is legitimate. You just didn't want to address it because you didn't have an adequate response.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Listen. The more I read your stuff, the more I think you're a sick fuck. No, it's not just that you believe most Germans were innocent and wanting to be "liberated" or that you completely ignored the point on Japanese who most certainly did not.
It's that you're completely engrossed in this. You refuse to let go. I think you'd rather live in the past than the present and so you cling to this issue desperately, dreaming of a nostalgic but exaggerated image of the South.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu You are a zombie, you can't get past race. You have run out of material and now you have to revert to revising my character. You are a waste of time.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
See? That's part of the problem! You think the issue is race! It has nothing to do with race. All you saw was "German" and "Japanese" and assumed the conversation had somehow shifted to race.
I call your character into question because you're saying nonsensical things! Hypocritical nonsense and ass backwards comments. Like, for example, you just called me a "waste of time". If you think you're wasting time, just GO. GO. Like I asked before, do you want the last word?
Mahbu 1 year ago
I under no circumstance blame Northern fighting men,( I am half Northern myself) what I am just trying to shed light on here is that you need to focus more on the catalyst of the War, rather than some philosophical sentiments of New Englanders and Minnesotans. The catalyst was for this war, as it was for so many others, was INVASION. After Bull Run, the conflict it self spiraled out of control and it grew to a TOTAL WAR, where war is not only waged on Armies, but the civilian populace.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
You can't argue that your opponent is using speculation and then go on to speculate yourself. That's just poor etiquette. It's called hypocrisy but you are familiar with that aren't you?
I've focused on the catalyst but you keep brushing it off because you refuse to accept any perceived "evil" on behalf of the South. I'm starting to think you'd believe slaves were happier in bondage.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
But you really are a lunatic. I mean "I'm half northern myself"? What does that even mean. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. That's like saying "I'm Half New Yorker" or "I'm Half Dallas". Worse, it's the kind of bullshit that keeps our country so divided in the sense of "us vs them". Seriously. "New Englanders and Minnesotans"?
Either you're an obnoxious troll or you honestly believe this. I don't know what to do with you. You don't care about the catalysts.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Well it is hard for you to comprehend my analysis because you are brainwashed. You believe everything you have been told in 11th Grade history class. And I doubt you have read one book by a qualified historian. You haven't given me one interesting or engaging fact. Just a mountain of commentary and pointless comparisons.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
The only hypocrite here is you, Stony. You keep saying I haven't given you anything interesting or engaging and then you go off on weird little tangents, ignoring entirely the point behind those comparisons that prove that your idiotic ideas are just that, idiotic.
Like, for instance, I pointed out many examples of bitter enemies getting over their differences but you shrug it off entirely and fail to provide any good reason why the south is still butthurt.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Germans were grateful to surrender to us, rather than fighting and possibly being captured and tortured by the Soviets. Most Germans knew nothing really about the Holocaust and most were jaded from War. That is why there is little resentment. Now on the other hand the South wasn't at war. They didn't invade anyone. All that happened was one State(SC) seceded, help was asked of the other Southern States to quash the rebellion. When they refused the Governments order, a line was drawn in the sand.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
And here you are yelling "get your facts straight" as an easy but overused tactic of trying to undermine another person's point.
You're also delusional. Many of the Germans wanted us? No, you're an idiot. I want to be nice but you're a complete idiot for suggesting that. At the height of the Third Reich most people were behind it. Not all were a 100% but then when are all people a 100% behind a leader?
Mahbu 1 year ago
Stop spamming the channel with commentary.Find a fucking chatroom if you are going to do that. Your posts are way too full of opinion and not enough fact. Stop comparing this War to WWll, because they are not even close to synonymous. We liberated most Germans in WWll, many of them wanted our presence and had had it with their government which murdered 4 million Germans and countless Jews, Poles, Slavs, Gay and others.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
See? This is why I can't take you seriously. If you think we need a "chat room", stop replying. You wanted to have a discussion? We're having one. You don't want it? Go away. No one's keeping you here. No one's forcing you to sit here and listen to me. You had the option of backing off a long time ago.
Or is this about having the last word? I assume you just want to come out sounding "right". If that's all you want, I'll let you have it. I don't care.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
It's funny you mention slavery ending "peacefully" in other places. It didn't actually aways end easily or peacefully but an important observation here is. A law was passed in england and slavery ended without any kind of civil war.
The mere notion or fear of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans barring future states from having slavery? SECESSION AND WAR. The south didn't even wait for them to say it. They gave no chance, they wanted no part. Funny how that works.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Booth killed one person. Lincoln ordered an invasion of Northern Virginia which spark military campaigns, that were conducted around American homesteads and ended with 652,000 Americans dead. The point that I am making is that secession is ONE thing. War is something totally different. Ending Slavery wasn't a causes, it was a result of the War. Ending Slavery was the quintessential way of crippling Southern economy, and that it why it was done.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
You're partly right though I know your intentions aren't about getting facts straight; all you are concerned about is ignoring any possible faults with the south while heaping all blame on the North. As how the Lost Cause dictates.
Ending slavery was not the cause. The ISSUE of slavery, however, was a major cause of the war. Complete abolition was a result. Crippling the southern economy was one of several good reasons to push for it but by no means the only.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Anyway, going back to grudges. France and England have foguht many wars with many deaths on both sides. While people jest, they were still close allies.
No, the South is unique in its extraordinary bitterness over the loss of the civil war. In part it has to do with the Lost Cause Phenomena which is a really sad case of extreme denial.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
The only one who is brainwashed is you. Or, at the very least, you're so dumb you have your head stuck in the past (and in your ass) and refuse to look forward. You act like the Union kicked in your door and kicked your dog. News flash. The Union? The Confederacy? Gone. In their place? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. United we stand. But no. All you care about is defending a defunct paradoxical ideology because your life is mediocre at best.
Mahbu 1 year ago
The North doesn't hold as strong of a grudge because they won. They didn't have their cities demolished and their civilians weren't murdered in the street by a murdering psychopath like Sherman. The Civil War never touched many Northern cities and most of the wealthy Northerners who funded the invasion of the South stayed in the giant brick houses in perfect safety, while the poor fought and died. Think outside the box here men. You and many other people on this channel are brainwashed.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
Let's take this one step further, you bitter halfwit. We NUKED Japan. Not burned a couple of cities to the ground. We killed entire cities worth of people. Twice. Japan and the US, today, are in good relations with each other.
I was waiting for you to mention Sherman. Oh yes I was. Sherman? Didn't murder anyone. In fact, the civilian death toll was extremely low.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
And I won't claim to understand why the South is so bitter about losing. England and America fought each other TWICE and now we're best buddies. Essentially. Lord knows we went to their aid in TWO wars.
I'm sure it has to do with "pride", but for what? What is there to be proud of? For starters, none of these people were there for it. Don't even know what it's like to live back then. Yes, family must've fought at some point and, yeah, be proud of that. Don't be obnoxious.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu England and America. The Revolution was a small conflict compared to the Civil War you moron. More Americans died in the Civil War than in every American War put together. You are not thinking, you are an idiot. Every other country in the world got rid of Slavery without murdering each other Wholesale. Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves and most of that 5% had one slave and most treated them like they were part of the family. A minority amount of slaves were ever beaten.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
You'll have to forgive me but I laugh at you if only because you seem to think that significance is measured in bodies. Because the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 didn't have as many people dead as in the civil war, they mean less? They aren't as significant? Like I said, you haven't any room to insult anyone.
Fine then. Germany. World War II. Nazis. Godwin forgive me. Germany and the US are now best friends. Japan, us. AMAZING RELATIONS.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26
That resentment you speak of? Only in the south, pal. It's only because bitter kids like you refuse to let it go. I hold no grudge against the south. I like the South. I have friends from Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Texas. Whites, Blacks, Republicans, and Democrats. I hold no grudge. None. Why? Because that war happened long before I was born.
I don't hate the Japanese because they bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't hate the Spanish for the Inquisition.
Mahbu 1 year ago
At the outset of the Civil War, fewer than one in four men owned a slave in the South. Of them, the majority had only one,and he/she was treated as a member of the family. Not to forgive the practise of owning another person ever, but just to set straight that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. Most Yankees didn't care either way. The South seceded because the Federal Government was exceeding it's bounds and they were unable to stop it any other way.
taurip90 1 year ago