Compare Sherman's march with the reds liberating E Europe.Less murder and rape[bummers were still bad]but both Stalin and Hitler read cowboy novels,How Sherman treated the south,and the natives,looks alot like 1945
@mannymaan from the side who worships the father of the kkk motherfucker nathan bedford forrest and claims that slavery was never the reason and then lies about it being the cause of the way and how brutally the slaves were treated?
cry me a river hypocrite. couldn’t stop the men? bwahahaha!!! only reason he got that far was because he ran over the men who tried. don’t start a war you can’t win only to whine about losing
@mpcp13 Bedford Forrest had 50 horses and mules shot out under him,was himself many times wounded.The racist founder of the KKK was a very capable and brave man....go figure
It is interesting to remember that after the war, both Sherman and Sheridan were put in charge of Indian policy in the far west. Many of the "total war" tactics that they refined in the Civil War were then used to break the Plains Indians.
@KayBeeEee1983 It is still going on in the heart of the south. Look at the news. Overbearing federal government trampling on the rights of the states and the people. It is still continuing.
What rights is the federal government trampling on? The right for south carolina to display the "stars-and-bars" over their state house? the confederate flag is a symbol of rebellion and treason. some would say that it's also a symbol of hate and oppression. What else is going on in the south? I'm ignorant.
@KayBeeEee1983 Let's see. Every right. Slavery was not the cause of the war. Slavery was ONE part of SECESSION. The federal government could not afford to lose the south. Plain and simple. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard to claim the flag is a symbol of treason. So is the American flag under that logic. And the federal government continues to trample on the rights of EVERYONE in the US today. Pick up a history book and do some research.
@NCSUrebelCSA 1st, you didn't even answer my question. What rights is the federal government trampling on? 2nd, the americans had NO representation in the UK parliament, so it can be said that we weren't legally part of the UK union anyway and so it isn't treason. The southern states had MORE representation in Congress than they even really deserved. See: 3/5 compromise. If slaves are property under the law, how can they be counted as population? Are farm animals counted as population too?
@KayBeeEee1983 I will agree with 95% of what you said. As a matter of fact I will agree with everything you said except one sentence. The Revolutionary War was every bit as treasonous as the Civil War. What makes one right and one wrong? The Colonies won the Revolutionary War, so it became a war of Independence. The South lost the Civil War so their war of independence didn't work. Good points.
Representation. The american colonies weren't part of the UK government. The southern states had more representation in the USA government than they deserved. That's why the UK(1775) was tyrannous but the USA(1860) wasn't. Had the UK given us proper representation in Parliament, it would have been equally as treasonous as the civil war.
@KayBeeEee1983 Remember Franklin's statement to the Continental Congress? "We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately." Meaning that if the Colonies had lost, they would all have been tried and probably hanged for treason, and they knew it. That is the risk they took, and took very willingly. We were a part of the UK, there's no getting around that. Even Revere knew that. He never said, "The British are coming!" He considered himself to be British.
@Deej1125 "We were a part of the UK, there's no getting around that."
We were as much a part of the UK as the Philippines and Guam are a part of the USA today. If Guam rebels against the USA, it is still technically "treason" but not anywhere near the same level as if a STATE rebels. The Americans considered themselves British because their LINEAGE was British. Everything in your post is subjective. Of course the british considered it high treason, they HAD to call it that to justify the war.
@KayBeeEee1983 The Philipines are not part of the United States, they are an independent country. And they did committ treason and we sent troops and put it down. We were represented in Parliment, just not by someone from America. And everything I said in my post were facts. When the war started in 1775 we were only fighting for "our rights as Englishmen everywhere." The fight for indepence didn't come till 1776. Plain as I can make it. We were a part of Britian. We did commit treason.
@Deej1125 The USA in the mid-late 18th century was more independent than the Philippines is today.
"We were represented in Parliment, just not by someone from America."
Then it's not true representation. It's "virtual" representation.
As I said before, the US colonies were defending their OWN PROPERTY at the start of the war. The southern states were not defending their own property, they USURPED FEDERAL PROPERTY and the "invasion" of the south was to regain property that the south STOLE.
@KayBeeEee1983 The South was defending their own property in the same way the Colonists defended their property. However, they were both defending private property. Sorry, but I have never read a history book that said that the colonies weren't part of the UK. You're saying so doesn't make it true. There is exactly no difference between what the Colonists did and the Southerners did. Only thing that could be said that was different is that one lost and the other won. Philippines?? Proof?
@Deej1125 "The South was defending their own property in the same way the Colonists defended their property."
No, that is totally incorrect. The South CLAIMED they were defending their own property, but the South took federal property. The most obvious instance was Fort Sumter, but it was far from the only instance. All the other usurpations were non-violent. The weapons that the UK was going to seize at Concord were colonial property. I said the colonies weren't part of the UK GOVERNMENT
@Deej1125 I was wrong about the Philippines. I thought they were like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, but they're not. I was just using them as an example of a territory. How about Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is "independent" but it's still US territory.
@KayBeeEee1983 Puerto Rico is a territory, just like Guam, American Somoa, US Virgin Islands, & so on. And just like every state in the Union was before they were admitted as states. Puerto Ricans, and some Americans have been trying to get them to be the 51st state. But, they are not independent, they are American citizens, vote in American elections, and you don't need a passport to go there.
@Deej1125 "Sorry, but I have never read a history book that said that the colonies weren't part of the UK."
I never said they weren't part of the UK. I said they had no role in the UK government.
"There is exactly no difference between what the Colonists did and the Southerners did."
Well, the south seceded before Lincoln even took office, whereas the colonists didn't declare independence until a year after the fighting started. The colonies didn't want to secede, they just wanted representation
@KayBeeEee1983 Great debate KayBeeEEE1983. And here you are right. The Revolutionary War did start over the rights of Englishmen. In the Civil War the Southern states had exactly the same rights as Northern. I agree with your statement that the South was really over represented in Congress due to the 3/5 Rule. Indeed 7 states did secede before Lincoln was inaugurated. But, the last 4 seceded because they didn't believe the Feds didn't have the right to force the others to stay.
@KayBeeEee1983 Uh-no. The North and South fought over secession, not who took what. The South thought secession was legal, the North didn't. Yes, the South made the mistake of firing on Ft. Sumter. Who knows what would have happened if they didn't. But, they fired on the American flag and we have never stood for that no matter who does it.
@Deej1125 "The North and South fought over secession, not who took what."
The north didn't care if the southern states left congress. If the south hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, and hadn't taken various other federal properties, there would've been no war. But the CSA couldn't call itself truly independent WITHOUT taking those properties.
Puerto Ricans DO NOT vote in general presidential elections. they vote in primaries if they are members of the democratic or republican parties.
@KayBeeEee1983 I am sure the North didn't care if the South left Congress or not. Just like I wouldn't care if a lot of people left Congress now. But that's not what they did. They left, or rather, tried to leave the Union. Jefferson Davis of MS was still holding his seat in Congress trying to avoid secession when the state of Mississippi seceded and made him come home. Whether you believe they left, or not, there are things that can't be explained in either instance.
@Deej1125 Mississippi didn't MAKE Davis "come home". Andrew Johnson was a Senator from Tennessee and he didn't give up his seat in congress. The war had nothing to do with members leaving Congress. It was ALL about protecting federal property. Lincoln claimed he was "preserving the union" because Lincoln was a political genius and knew that "preserving the union" ennobled the war.
@KayBeeEee1983 I suggest you read, The History of the Confederate States of America by William C. Davis. Yes, Mississippi did make Jefferson Davis come home. Andrew Johnson may have kept his seat in the Senate, but he represented NOBODY. Many states, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee had two governments. They were in or out of the Union depending on which government you recognized. Nobody gave a hoot about getting Federal property back. They fought to put down the Rebellion.
@Deej1125 Of course the northern people didn't care about federal property. I said that. They cared about the south shooting at northerners. Lincoln said that if there was going to be a war, the SOUTH would have to be the belligerent, meaning that if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter then the north wouldn't have invaded Virginia and tried to take Richmond. They weren't making war again secession, per se, but on REBELLION.
@Deej1125 Lincoln understood that war needs to be supported by the population. Saying the war is to "preserve the union" will get more people to support the war than "protecting federal property".
@KayBeeEee1983 I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree. The war was fought to restore the Union, not get Federal property back. That would be gotten back anyway. So, nice talking to you. Might run across you again someday on some other subject. I have been reading about the Civil War for almost 60 years now and never ran across any ideas like yours.
@Deej1125 Obviously the north wouldn't have invaded Virginia because Virginia wouldn't have seceded. I meant that the north wouldn't have invaded the south.
@Deej1125 I didn't mean that protecting federal property was the ONLY reason it was fought. It validated the war from a LEGAL perspective. The legality of secession was debatable, but it was much harder to argue that taking federal property was legal. From my understanding, Virginia didn't secede just because the US planned to invade the south. They seceded because the government demanded that every state contribute men to the war effort, which they believed was a violation of states rights
@KayBeeEee1983 Virginia seceded because its primary export was human flesh. It was the center of the slave-breeding industry. Don't be fooled by nonsense about states' rights.
@NegiJew The first Virginia secession vote did not pass. If the state relied on slavery as much as you claim it did it would've been the first state gone. I suggest you watch a few more civil war documentaries.
@KayBeeEee1983 I don't really watch documentaries. I mostly read. If you actually read about the political situation in Virginia, while the final straw was as you say due to the call for troops, it was a foregone conclusion. Read the declaration of secession.
@NegiJew I just read the Ordinance of Secession. I see nothing relevant. In the 1860 Presidential Election, Pro-Union candidates received 55% of the vote in Virginia.
@KayBeeEee1983 The reasons for the war are complex but it really does all tie in to slavery. Many Pro Confeds will have hissy fits about how it wasn't about freeing the slaves and it was about state rights an they're partly right. They are right that it wasn't about freeing the slaves; that was only a part of the reason but not the cause. And it was about states rights, states rights to maintain and protect the institution of slavery. (Flip to next post)
But the root cause was the friction of free states vs slave states in matters of politics and economics as well as morality. You can see it building up in tensions between border states such as the Bleeding Kansas affair. The abolitionist movement was coming into full swing, scaring to death the Southern powers and politicians. Industry threatened them. In the end, the South was just scared that they'd lose all power in the Government especially if no new slave states were alowed
@KayBeeEee1983 I'd argue, but there's no point. To you, the South are noble warriors and the North villainous scum. And I'm tired to see that, even 150 years later, people still see the South as being right.
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
In those almost 60 years, you never read Lincoln's inaugural address?
What part of the South are you from? Just curious.
@KayBeeEee1983 Secession therefore led to the war. "We simply want to be left alone." Lincoln raised an army and invaded the south. The north was the aggressive force.
@NCSUrebelCSA My friend, before ANY northern aggressive action was taken, southern militias forcefully took over FEDERAL property, and it was more than just fort sumter. The battle of lexington was provoked by british attempts to confiscate COLONIAL military supplies, which the colonists felt they COULDN'T AFFORD TO LOSE because of britain's policy of NOT helping the colonists defend against the natives (unless another european power was also involved. See: French and Indian War).
I can't help but point out that you essentially ignored my question to you (Your insightful answer was "let's see. every right" without a single example), and instead talked about the causes of the civil war, which had nothing to do with either of my posts. The issue is how TODAY'S federal government is oppressing the people, not the federal government of the 1860's.
@NCSUrebelCSA One book of fiction did you get that out of? The South fired on the American flag. As many nations have learned, that is something you really shouldn't do. Kind of ticks us off.
... they where taken off coffin ships and shoved onto the front line with little or not Idea of what they are fighting for or who. Listen to Sinéad O'Connor - Paddys Lament. all War is terrible you are one people act like it this infighting you americans seem to crave will be the death of your nation. An for gods sake if you run for american government where full body armor as senetors, Presidents seem rather easy to kill. My advice get Canadian citizenship so you get free health care
"But meanwhile the blacks were treated no different than a farm animal.So you didn't think that the blacks were humiliated by being treated like farm animals?
98bigbutt 1 week age"
The Irish were treated no better, In the south a black slave was paid 15 cents per man per day to their slave owners, the irish where paid 4 cents and where known as the Green Niger's and I mean no offense by dropping that word other as a historical analogy. An in the norther they were taken off the emigration..
Uh Gentlemen, arguing about how cruel war is kinda redundant in any war there are war crimes. Coming from Canada both sides fought well but to keep beating the 150 year old wounds is just ridicules learn from the info and MOVE ON.
"i wonder if sherman has any descendants he can send back to burn down the south ,their still a real drag on this country"
An the bubble that most northern folk live in kind a make the Stats look like Canada's Retarded half brother that has to were a helmet
@Nmccarville That being said there are plenty good americans that don't believe the bull shit the government feeds them. An they are both south of the mason dickson line, and I love both kinds of Americans southerner and Northerners. An there are rednecks every were, in canada the term is North of 7. Redneck does not mean dumb in most cases they are basing their info from propaganda that the American government feeds them, the USA has their own Iron Curtain between them and every were else.
But meanwhile the blacks were treated no different than a farm animal.So you didn't think that the blacks were humiliated by being treated like farm animals?
i think sherman wasnt a mere brute like many dixies think he just destroyed simbols and stratigic targets mainly ofcourse i disapprove loting to civilian houses
Sherman was the greatest general of the Civil War. The style of fighting in the northern battles caused the greatest tragedies ever on American soil. I live in Georgia near Milledgeville and he hardly touched anything and didn't kill anybody. Georgia detsroyed Georgia by relying on slavery.
@Singledad03 I agree that Sherman was the greatest General of the Civil War. He was ahead of his time and knew the South well, as opposed to Lee, behind his time, both tactically and strategically, who did not understand the Northern mind, in general, nor the mind of Lincoln, in particular.
I disagree that early battles were the greatest tragedies in America because the victims were soldiers. The 10,000 or so 9/11 victims were almost all civilians and rescue workers. IMO, much more tragic.
@KayBeeEee1983 ummm moron.. Do you know what the word ancestors means? "a person from whom one is DESCENDED." Ancestors and DESCENDANTS. Mean the same damn thing.
@thomasuras funny, trying to say something about the South...Fact there are more people in the U.S Military from the South and Midwest then any other area.. I'll let you think about that.
Exactly what we did to Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. We bombed German cities, dropped napalm on Tokyo, and finally, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By dropping the atomic bombs, we finally woke the Japanese to the real cost of their war. And that was how WWII was won.
"We bombed German cities." It was first the Germans who used Blast bombs (to blast apart the Masonry) and Incendiary Bombs (to set the who lot on fire). The British and Canadians (used Phosphorous in there fire bombs) both to level entire European cities. Americans would apply the same tactic on the Japanese.
"By dropping the atomic bombs, we finally woke the Japanese to the real cost of their war. And that was how WWII was won."
Reason being is that if America invaded Japan they would have been butchered for every inch they took . According to Japanese yes there navy and air force was decimated but they still had a 4 million man armory just in japan main Isle and another 2 or 3 mill in Manchuria. Which was being taken over by the Russian army that was just sent from the European ...
... front to the eastern front, the red army decimated the Japanese army in Manchuria and was making motions towards invading Japen through the Kurl an island to the north of japan. It just happened that the U.S.A had just finished making the Atom bomb and needed a way to make Japan Surrender before the Russians landed on the Island. The U.S.A did not want to share Japan with Russian. The A bomb was a desperate move that paid off.
@Nmccarville The USA nuked Hiroshima on August 6, before the USSR even declared war on Japan on August 8. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki occured the same day as the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9. Hirohito announced the Japanese surrender to its people by radio address on August 15. The USSR invaded the Kuril islands on August 18.
My point is that the USA was not worried about the USSR invading Japan. The USSR was months away from being able to successfully invade the mainland.
Compare Sherman's march with the reds liberating E Europe.Less murder and rape[bummers were still bad]but both Stalin and Hitler read cowboy novels,How Sherman treated the south,and the natives,looks alot like 1945
bv141a 1 month ago
@mannymaan Sherman defeated Johnston, Johnson, Bragg and Hood. He defeated "the southern man" over and over and over.....
cailleanmc 1 month ago 2
@mannymaan from the side who worships the father of the kkk motherfucker nathan bedford forrest and claims that slavery was never the reason and then lies about it being the cause of the way and how brutally the slaves were treated?
cry me a river hypocrite. couldn’t stop the men? bwahahaha!!! only reason he got that far was because he ran over the men who tried. don’t start a war you can’t win only to whine about losing
mpcp13 3 months ago
@mpcp13 Bedford Forrest had 50 horses and mules shot out under him,was himself many times wounded.The racist founder of the KKK was a very capable and brave man....go figure
bv141a 1 month ago
It is interesting to remember that after the war, both Sherman and Sheridan were put in charge of Indian policy in the far west. Many of the "total war" tactics that they refined in the Civil War were then used to break the Plains Indians.
zooeyhall 7 months ago
The Chrysler built tank...50,000 built at Warren Tank during WW2. The Sherman.
Visinicus 7 months ago
A Great watch of one of the most brilliant military minds this country has ever known!
detsportsfan18 11 months ago
"If you're talking about winning the hearts and minds, he sure as heck didn't win." --Walter Edgar
By that logic, the Civil War went on for another 100+ years.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 It is still going on in the heart of the south. Look at the news. Overbearing federal government trampling on the rights of the states and the people. It is still continuing.
NCSUrebelCSA 1 year ago
@NCSUrebelCSA
What rights is the federal government trampling on? The right for south carolina to display the "stars-and-bars" over their state house? the confederate flag is a symbol of rebellion and treason. some would say that it's also a symbol of hate and oppression. What else is going on in the south? I'm ignorant.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Let's see. Every right. Slavery was not the cause of the war. Slavery was ONE part of SECESSION. The federal government could not afford to lose the south. Plain and simple. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard to claim the flag is a symbol of treason. So is the American flag under that logic. And the federal government continues to trample on the rights of EVERYONE in the US today. Pick up a history book and do some research.
NCSUrebelCSA 1 year ago
@NCSUrebelCSA 1st, you didn't even answer my question. What rights is the federal government trampling on? 2nd, the americans had NO representation in the UK parliament, so it can be said that we weren't legally part of the UK union anyway and so it isn't treason. The southern states had MORE representation in Congress than they even really deserved. See: 3/5 compromise. If slaves are property under the law, how can they be counted as population? Are farm animals counted as population too?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I will agree with 95% of what you said. As a matter of fact I will agree with everything you said except one sentence. The Revolutionary War was every bit as treasonous as the Civil War. What makes one right and one wrong? The Colonies won the Revolutionary War, so it became a war of Independence. The South lost the Civil War so their war of independence didn't work. Good points.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 "What makes one right and one wrong?"
Representation. The american colonies weren't part of the UK government. The southern states had more representation in the USA government than they deserved. That's why the UK(1775) was tyrannous but the USA(1860) wasn't. Had the UK given us proper representation in Parliament, it would have been equally as treasonous as the civil war.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Remember Franklin's statement to the Continental Congress? "We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately." Meaning that if the Colonies had lost, they would all have been tried and probably hanged for treason, and they knew it. That is the risk they took, and took very willingly. We were a part of the UK, there's no getting around that. Even Revere knew that. He never said, "The British are coming!" He considered himself to be British.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 "We were a part of the UK, there's no getting around that."
We were as much a part of the UK as the Philippines and Guam are a part of the USA today. If Guam rebels against the USA, it is still technically "treason" but not anywhere near the same level as if a STATE rebels. The Americans considered themselves British because their LINEAGE was British. Everything in your post is subjective. Of course the british considered it high treason, they HAD to call it that to justify the war.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The Philipines are not part of the United States, they are an independent country. And they did committ treason and we sent troops and put it down. We were represented in Parliment, just not by someone from America. And everything I said in my post were facts. When the war started in 1775 we were only fighting for "our rights as Englishmen everywhere." The fight for indepence didn't come till 1776. Plain as I can make it. We were a part of Britian. We did commit treason.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 The USA in the mid-late 18th century was more independent than the Philippines is today.
"We were represented in Parliment, just not by someone from America."
Then it's not true representation. It's "virtual" representation.
As I said before, the US colonies were defending their OWN PROPERTY at the start of the war. The southern states were not defending their own property, they USURPED FEDERAL PROPERTY and the "invasion" of the south was to regain property that the south STOLE.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The South was defending their own property in the same way the Colonists defended their property. However, they were both defending private property. Sorry, but I have never read a history book that said that the colonies weren't part of the UK. You're saying so doesn't make it true. There is exactly no difference between what the Colonists did and the Southerners did. Only thing that could be said that was different is that one lost and the other won. Philippines?? Proof?
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 "The South was defending their own property in the same way the Colonists defended their property."
No, that is totally incorrect. The South CLAIMED they were defending their own property, but the South took federal property. The most obvious instance was Fort Sumter, but it was far from the only instance. All the other usurpations were non-violent. The weapons that the UK was going to seize at Concord were colonial property. I said the colonies weren't part of the UK GOVERNMENT
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@Deej1125 I was wrong about the Philippines. I thought they were like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, but they're not. I was just using them as an example of a territory. How about Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is "independent" but it's still US territory.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Puerto Rico is a territory, just like Guam, American Somoa, US Virgin Islands, & so on. And just like every state in the Union was before they were admitted as states. Puerto Ricans, and some Americans have been trying to get them to be the 51st state. But, they are not independent, they are American citizens, vote in American elections, and you don't need a passport to go there.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 "Sorry, but I have never read a history book that said that the colonies weren't part of the UK."
I never said they weren't part of the UK. I said they had no role in the UK government.
"There is exactly no difference between what the Colonists did and the Southerners did."
Well, the south seceded before Lincoln even took office, whereas the colonists didn't declare independence until a year after the fighting started. The colonies didn't want to secede, they just wanted representation
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Great debate KayBeeEEE1983. And here you are right. The Revolutionary War did start over the rights of Englishmen. In the Civil War the Southern states had exactly the same rights as Northern. I agree with your statement that the South was really over represented in Congress due to the 3/5 Rule. Indeed 7 states did secede before Lincoln was inaugurated. But, the last 4 seceded because they didn't believe the Feds didn't have the right to force the others to stay.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Uh-no. The North and South fought over secession, not who took what. The South thought secession was legal, the North didn't. Yes, the South made the mistake of firing on Ft. Sumter. Who knows what would have happened if they didn't. But, they fired on the American flag and we have never stood for that no matter who does it.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 "The North and South fought over secession, not who took what."
The north didn't care if the southern states left congress. If the south hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, and hadn't taken various other federal properties, there would've been no war. But the CSA couldn't call itself truly independent WITHOUT taking those properties.
Puerto Ricans DO NOT vote in general presidential elections. they vote in primaries if they are members of the democratic or republican parties.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I am sure the North didn't care if the South left Congress or not. Just like I wouldn't care if a lot of people left Congress now. But that's not what they did. They left, or rather, tried to leave the Union. Jefferson Davis of MS was still holding his seat in Congress trying to avoid secession when the state of Mississippi seceded and made him come home. Whether you believe they left, or not, there are things that can't be explained in either instance.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 Mississippi didn't MAKE Davis "come home". Andrew Johnson was a Senator from Tennessee and he didn't give up his seat in congress. The war had nothing to do with members leaving Congress. It was ALL about protecting federal property. Lincoln claimed he was "preserving the union" because Lincoln was a political genius and knew that "preserving the union" ennobled the war.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I suggest you read, The History of the Confederate States of America by William C. Davis. Yes, Mississippi did make Jefferson Davis come home. Andrew Johnson may have kept his seat in the Senate, but he represented NOBODY. Many states, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee had two governments. They were in or out of the Union depending on which government you recognized. Nobody gave a hoot about getting Federal property back. They fought to put down the Rebellion.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 Of course the northern people didn't care about federal property. I said that. They cared about the south shooting at northerners. Lincoln said that if there was going to be a war, the SOUTH would have to be the belligerent, meaning that if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter then the north wouldn't have invaded Virginia and tried to take Richmond. They weren't making war again secession, per se, but on REBELLION.
"Federal property would be gotten back anyway"
What does that mean?
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Federal property would be gotten back anyway"
What does that mean?
When the Union had been restored all Federal property would be, in fact was again under control of the Federal government.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 Lincoln understood that war needs to be supported by the population. Saying the war is to "preserve the union" will get more people to support the war than "protecting federal property".
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree. The war was fought to restore the Union, not get Federal property back. That would be gotten back anyway. So, nice talking to you. Might run across you again someday on some other subject. I have been reading about the Civil War for almost 60 years now and never ran across any ideas like yours.
Deej1125 10 months ago
@Deej1125 Obviously the north wouldn't have invaded Virginia because Virginia wouldn't have seceded. I meant that the north wouldn't have invaded the south.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@Deej1125 I didn't mean that protecting federal property was the ONLY reason it was fought. It validated the war from a LEGAL perspective. The legality of secession was debatable, but it was much harder to argue that taking federal property was legal. From my understanding, Virginia didn't secede just because the US planned to invade the south. They seceded because the government demanded that every state contribute men to the war effort, which they believed was a violation of states rights
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Virginia seceded because its primary export was human flesh. It was the center of the slave-breeding industry. Don't be fooled by nonsense about states' rights.
NegiJew 10 months ago
@NegiJew The first Virginia secession vote did not pass. If the state relied on slavery as much as you claim it did it would've been the first state gone. I suggest you watch a few more civil war documentaries.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I don't really watch documentaries. I mostly read. If you actually read about the political situation in Virginia, while the final straw was as you say due to the call for troops, it was a foregone conclusion. Read the declaration of secession.
NegiJew 10 months ago
@NegiJew I just read the Ordinance of Secession. I see nothing relevant. In the 1860 Presidential Election, Pro-Union candidates received 55% of the vote in Virginia.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The reasons for the war are complex but it really does all tie in to slavery. Many Pro Confeds will have hissy fits about how it wasn't about freeing the slaves and it was about state rights an they're partly right. They are right that it wasn't about freeing the slaves; that was only a part of the reason but not the cause. And it was about states rights, states rights to maintain and protect the institution of slavery. (Flip to next post)
Mahbu 9 months ago 2
@KayBeeEee1983
But the root cause was the friction of free states vs slave states in matters of politics and economics as well as morality. You can see it building up in tensions between border states such as the Bleeding Kansas affair. The abolitionist movement was coming into full swing, scaring to death the Southern powers and politicians. Industry threatened them. In the end, the South was just scared that they'd lose all power in the Government especially if no new slave states were alowed
Mahbu 9 months ago
Comment removed
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'd argue, but there's no point. To you, the South are noble warriors and the North villainous scum. And I'm tired to see that, even 150 years later, people still see the South as being right.
Ares99999 3 months ago
Comment removed
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Deej1125 From Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
In those almost 60 years, you never read Lincoln's inaugural address?
What part of the South are you from? Just curious.
KayBeeEee1983 10 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Secession therefore led to the war. "We simply want to be left alone." Lincoln raised an army and invaded the south. The north was the aggressive force.
NCSUrebelCSA 1 year ago
@NCSUrebelCSA My friend, before ANY northern aggressive action was taken, southern militias forcefully took over FEDERAL property, and it was more than just fort sumter. The battle of lexington was provoked by british attempts to confiscate COLONIAL military supplies, which the colonists felt they COULDN'T AFFORD TO LOSE because of britain's policy of NOT helping the colonists defend against the natives (unless another european power was also involved. See: French and Indian War).
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@NCSUrebelCSA
I can't help but point out that you essentially ignored my question to you (Your insightful answer was "let's see. every right" without a single example), and instead talked about the causes of the civil war, which had nothing to do with either of my posts. The issue is how TODAY'S federal government is oppressing the people, not the federal government of the 1860's.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@NCSUrebelCSA One book of fiction did you get that out of? The South fired on the American flag. As many nations have learned, that is something you really shouldn't do. Kind of ticks us off.
Deej1125 10 months ago
... they where taken off coffin ships and shoved onto the front line with little or not Idea of what they are fighting for or who. Listen to Sinéad O'Connor - Paddys Lament. all War is terrible you are one people act like it this infighting you americans seem to crave will be the death of your nation. An for gods sake if you run for american government where full body armor as senetors, Presidents seem rather easy to kill. My advice get Canadian citizenship so you get free health care
Nmccarville 1 year ago
"But meanwhile the blacks were treated no different than a farm animal.So you didn't think that the blacks were humiliated by being treated like farm animals?
98bigbutt 1 week age"
The Irish were treated no better, In the south a black slave was paid 15 cents per man per day to their slave owners, the irish where paid 4 cents and where known as the Green Niger's and I mean no offense by dropping that word other as a historical analogy. An in the norther they were taken off the emigration..
Nmccarville 1 year ago
Uh Gentlemen, arguing about how cruel war is kinda redundant in any war there are war crimes. Coming from Canada both sides fought well but to keep beating the 150 year old wounds is just ridicules learn from the info and MOVE ON.
"i wonder if sherman has any descendants he can send back to burn down the south ,their still a real drag on this country"
An the bubble that most northern folk live in kind a make the Stats look like Canada's Retarded half brother that has to were a helmet
Nmccarville 1 year ago
@Nmccarville That being said there are plenty good americans that don't believe the bull shit the government feeds them. An they are both south of the mason dickson line, and I love both kinds of Americans southerner and Northerners. An there are rednecks every were, in canada the term is North of 7. Redneck does not mean dumb in most cases they are basing their info from propaganda that the American government feeds them, the USA has their own Iron Curtain between them and every were else.
Nmccarville 1 year ago
But meanwhile the blacks were treated no different than a farm animal.So you didn't think that the blacks were humiliated by being treated like farm animals?
98bigbutt 1 year ago
i think sherman wasnt a mere brute like many dixies think he just destroyed simbols and stratigic targets mainly ofcourse i disapprove loting to civilian houses
GenGeogeSPatton 1 year ago
Sherman was the greatest general of the Civil War. The style of fighting in the northern battles caused the greatest tragedies ever on American soil. I live in Georgia near Milledgeville and he hardly touched anything and didn't kill anybody. Georgia detsroyed Georgia by relying on slavery.
Singledad03 1 year ago
@Singledad03 thats how all southeners should talk my respects to you my friend sherman was the caesar of the united state in that period
GenGeogeSPatton 1 year ago
@Singledad03 I say to you go fuck yourself. Gen. Sherman was a war criminal and you fucking know it!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@Singledad03 You piece of shit Yankee think you're some tough shit. Just remember what we did to your pathetic assess at Andersonville!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@Singledad03 I agree that Sherman was the greatest General of the Civil War. He was ahead of his time and knew the South well, as opposed to Lee, behind his time, both tactically and strategically, who did not understand the Northern mind, in general, nor the mind of Lincoln, in particular.
I disagree that early battles were the greatest tragedies in America because the victims were soldiers. The 10,000 or so 9/11 victims were almost all civilians and rescue workers. IMO, much more tragic.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
i wonder if sherman has any descendants he can send back to burn down the south ,their still a real drag on this country
thomasuras 1 year ago
@thomasuras Caused mostly by the ancestors of slaves the north freed. Pretty Ironic.
huckster699 1 year ago
@huckster699 Uh, you mean DESCENDANTS of slaves the north freed? You might want to cut back on the moonshine, bubba.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 ummm moron.. Do you know what the word ancestors means? "a person from whom one is DESCENDED." Ancestors and DESCENDANTS. Mean the same damn thing.
huckster699 1 year ago
@huckster699 No they don't. It's funny how racists like you call blacks stupid but you can't comprehend the simplest of concepts and definitions.
demon515 1 year ago
@thomasuras Amen to that. Fucking rednecks are killing us.
sharvey62 1 year ago
@thomasuras funny, trying to say something about the South...Fact there are more people in the U.S Military from the South and Midwest then any other area.. I'll let you think about that.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
"Make your enemy feel the real cost of war"
Exactly what we did to Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. We bombed German cities, dropped napalm on Tokyo, and finally, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By dropping the atomic bombs, we finally woke the Japanese to the real cost of their war. And that was how WWII was won.
Point50Cal 1 year ago 2
@Point50Cal
"We bombed German cities." It was first the Germans who used Blast bombs (to blast apart the Masonry) and Incendiary Bombs (to set the who lot on fire). The British and Canadians (used Phosphorous in there fire bombs) both to level entire European cities. Americans would apply the same tactic on the Japanese.
Nmccarville 1 year ago
@Point50Cal
"By dropping the atomic bombs, we finally woke the Japanese to the real cost of their war. And that was how WWII was won."
Reason being is that if America invaded Japan they would have been butchered for every inch they took . According to Japanese yes there navy and air force was decimated but they still had a 4 million man armory just in japan main Isle and another 2 or 3 mill in Manchuria. Which was being taken over by the Russian army that was just sent from the European ...
Nmccarville 1 year ago
@Point50Cal
... front to the eastern front, the red army decimated the Japanese army in Manchuria and was making motions towards invading Japen through the Kurl an island to the north of japan. It just happened that the U.S.A had just finished making the Atom bomb and needed a way to make Japan Surrender before the Russians landed on the Island. The U.S.A did not want to share Japan with Russian. The A bomb was a desperate move that paid off.
Nmccarville 1 year ago
@Nmccarville The USA nuked Hiroshima on August 6, before the USSR even declared war on Japan on August 8. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki occured the same day as the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9. Hirohito announced the Japanese surrender to its people by radio address on August 15. The USSR invaded the Kuril islands on August 18.
My point is that the USA was not worried about the USSR invading Japan. The USSR was months away from being able to successfully invade the mainland.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
"Make your enemy feel the real cost of war"
USA in Iraq
USA in Afghanistan
USA Vietnam
Americans are Feeling the Cost of war
Americans are Feeling an Empire that is finally on the decline as all empires do.
Nmccarville 1 year ago
great videos! this helped in my essay!
HOCKEYcdn 1 year ago