@logcabnnut One, I am not from the South, I am "Rebel" to the current United States Government. Until the US. Government admits spraying agent orange in Vietnam caused cancer in thousands of Vietnam Veterans, such as my own father, who never even smoked. I am a "Rebel" against the Government till they admit and pay my fellow Desert Storm soldiers that depleted uranium caused birth defects in their kids when they returned after the war.
Now in Lee's defense, Capt Johnston scouted the Peach Orchard, Wheat field, to..LTR? But either way that was the most up-to-date, intelligence that Lee had. Thus if Longstreet had attacked when Lee wanted him to, on the morning on July 2nd. Sickles' 3rd Corps would have been still far to the rear and not in the Peach Orchard, Wheat field, etc. So it is a confusing situation. But my post before this, is the route I would have gone with.
@rebel2276 Johnston is the only man to leave an account so who knows what he really reconnoitered? He claims to have been on LRT and thereabouts but if that were the case there is no way he could not have seen union infantry..or at least flanking union cavalry. I think Johnston was trying to cover his ass for the historical record, went too far south and got up to BIG round top instead. To claim to have seen no yankees in an area where there were two corps in the vicinity seems implausible.
@Shafeone Captain Johnston, saw no cavalry, he reported on what he saw, nothing. MG. Sickles' 3rd Corps was more in the rear and had Johnston rode more on, he would have seen the 3rd Corps. I highly doubt Johnston rode on or about LRT. What it really comes down too, Lee should have sent a dozen scouts to observe and report. That is what I do out here in Afghanistan, I take a squad and I go with them, so I can see for myself "What is out there".
@rebel2276 Johnston wrote after the war: "When I got to the extreme right of our reconnaissance on the Little Round Top, General Lee turned and looking at me, said, 'Did you get there?' I assured him I had." [I can read too!] Clarke never left a record. But LRT was occupied by two regiments of Geary's XII corps division well after daylight on July 2. There is no way Johnston and Clarke could not have seen them if they did indeed go to LRT. (As far as is known, Clarke never left a record).
I agree with Battlestar9, Lee should have been satisfied with day one, victory. If Ewell and Lee were not going to attack cemetery hill in the evening of July 1st, then you know those people will be digging in. They heard it and it was simply folly to have attacked after that. Pull back, gather your wounded, collect rifles on the field from day one and fall back to Herr's Ridge and set up a good defense there. Start the wounded off back to Winchester, with Heth's division that was busted up.
one off the best ever movie about any war on cinema's totally have no real competition The Russian War and Peace is a great one but I have no problem put this as no 1 there Poltava is to much politic agenda off to day Patton is a very good one but have the normal American stab problem with the British This movie in opposite have bout side treated with respect like that thanks fare the video 5+* of course Think I watch this video until it fell a part
Lee did not know the Union Army was repositiioning in strength on Little Round Top, his attack was on his enemies flank was his best offensive option at that time. Longstreet was slow in positioning for the attack which gave the Union the time to reinforce along Little Round Top. The attack on the second day was sound militarily and nearly succeeded, if it were not due to the brilliant leadership of Col. Joshua Chamberlain, the battle would have gone to Lee and his army.
I disagree. This attack was not wise and Lee should never have fought this fight at Gettysburg once he realized that the high ground had not been taken. It is true that Longstreet took too long to position for the attack once Lee gave the order however I believe that this attack should never have taken place. Longstreet's assessment and advice to Lee was sound and should have been acted upon. To attack uphill for two days against those positions was not tactically sound.
@battlestar9 The attack was sound, based upon the intelligence Lee had at the time he issued for his orders. A main attack (Longstreet) with a demonstration on Culps Hill on the Right Flank was a good plan. You don't hesitate to attack just because of the terrain, your first consideration is the enemy disposition. Longstreet could have requested that Lee come to his position to view the strength of the Federal forces along Little Round Top but he failed to do so. Lee was bold but not stupid.
The lack of reports on the enemy's disposition from Stuart combined with the failure to seize the heights made the position untenable. Lee essentially went into this battle blind and guessing. Longstreet's overall assessment of the position and recommendation of redeployment was correct. The only way this battle makes any sense is if the heights were taken on Day 1 which they were not. There would have been no shame in pulling out and redeploying your army to a better position.
The lack of timely reports on the enemy's disposition from Stuart combined with the failure to seize the heights made the position untenable. Lee went into this battle blind and guessing. Longstreet's overall assessment of the position and his recommendation of redeployment was correct. The only way this battle makes any sense is if the heights were taken on Day 1 which they were not. There would have been no shame in pulling out and redeploying your army to a better position.
@BIRISHPM The attack was based on absolutely false intel. (Thanks to the absence of Stuart). Lee thought he was attacking a union left that was "in the air" as they had at Chancellorsville. But Sickles' rash redeployment of the III Corps instead presented McLaws and Hood with a solid front facing both south and east (although LRT was left undefended) on broken ground of Devil's Den--the worst kind of terrain in which to maneuver mass formations of infantry.
@Shafeone It was not MG. Stuart's fault, only non-reading amateur's will carry on that long myth. Eric J. Wittenberg and J.David Petruzzi, proved that myth wrong in their book, "Plenty of blame to go around". Stuart took 3 Cav brigades with him and left Lee 4 Cav brigades. Both authors are Northerners, not Southerners try to cover for Stuart.
@rebel2276 The absence of Stuart is why there was an intelligence blackout. That is a fact. Why he was absent, whose fault it was, how much was he doing Lee's bidding (after all Lee approved the ride around Hooker) is a subject of continued discussion/debate. It is not all on Stuart's shoulders that is for sure. (Although once he realized that it would be tough t break through the union army to launch his raid he should have called it off. His pride compelled him to stubbornly continue on.
@battlestar9 The attack was sound, based upon the intelligence Lee had at the time he issued for his orders. A main attack (Longstreet) with a demonstration on Culps Hill on the Right Flank was a good plan. You don't hesitate to attack just because of the terrain, your first consideration is the enemy disposition. Longstreet could have requested that Lee come to his position to view the strength of the Federal forces along Little Round Top but he failed to do so. Lee was bold but not stupid.
Lee gives up his overall strategy to lure the enemy out in the open. Instead he goes out chasing the enemy, orders his units to converge towardfs Gettysburg. That is a mistake. Now he will have to fight on ground he has not sufficient knowledge of.
On the second day of battle, he orders the attack on the federal fishhook position. That is a mistake. Never attack where the enemy is strong. Never attack uphill. The same mistake was done on the third day. Lee should have listened to Longstreet.
I agree. This attack was a tragic mistake. Lee should have listened to Longstreet and left on Day 1 when he realized the hills were not his. To attack uphill and in the open two straight days against a strongly fortified Federal position was in my opinion suicidal. It is unfortunate that Longstreet received the blame for this disaster. Robert E. Lee was a great general and a great man but he must shoulder the full responsibility for what happened at Gettysburg.
Kind of curious how the final editing of this great historical film leaves out nearly all of Gen. A.P. Hill's lines or facetime. Especially in this scene. Notice here that when Lee is setting up Longstreet's Corps for attack with Hill in reserve, the camera focuses on Generals Hood and Heth, leaving A.P. Hill just out of frame to the left. Is his character ever clearly identified throughout the film?
The "little rocky hill" was Little Round Top, defended all of day #2 against two Confederate regiments by the 20th Maine under Col Joshua L Chamberlain.
The Confederates were rebuffed for two consecutive days at Gettysburg.
The acting in the last part of this clip is A+. Theres not one sign that was even scripted. Amazing. Thats what makes this movie, though it be 4 1/2 hrs long, so re-watchable.
Since I'm a descendant of General Hood, I always get irritated when they cast people with grey hair and whom are older than Hood by several years. It annoys me to no end.
@Guderian41 Yeah they used this actor in God's and Genls. as well. did they not do any research on this most respected (at the time) of Lee's division commanders? Hood was a young man, I think just 31 but not sure, with golden blond hair and "quixotically sad" expression. This guy looks more like Jubal Early than Hood! He led their assault with: "Forward my brave Texans! Advance and take those heights!" A balls out man who led from the front. Had he not been wounded early, who knows.
Having read all these comments...it's easy to judge history of over 150 years ago with today's standards.
One must remember that it was a different time with different standards..the North went around the Constitution, the South supported slavery and had Andersonville Prison. The North had Sherman's March to the Sea, and the South started the Fires at Atlanta.
Could go on forever...but...it is always best that we learn from history, else we are doomed to repeat it.
I don't blame you, Don or anyone on any Civil War sites. There is just tons of information that has been buried since the war ended.
Your typical history book on the war, is not going to get into great detail. Nor will history books make the North look like "The Bad guy".
But this is a great time period, with more and more information coming out, our research at the Library of Congress and National Archives will be printed one day.
Because Lincoln called for 75,000 men to invade the South, for more Southern states pulled out.
All of that could have been avoided if Lincoln had just pulled the soldiers out of Fort Sumter. Put them on a boat, with the provisions and sail back to Washington City.
But Lincoln wanted to test South Carolina and he got his desired results. He wanted war, he thought it would be one battle. I don't think he ever thought it would get as bad as it did.
The United States needed men to defend the Capital from the pretended southern army.
All that could have been avoided if the rebels had not fired on Ft. Sumpter. They go the results they wanted. The war they wanted came, and Virginia joined the rebels.
How can you defend something that is not going to be attacked? Jefferson Davis made it clear with "All we want is to be left alone".
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas joined the Confederacy when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops. Three of those states would put out the most men. Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Bad move on Lincoln, because those states could have been the border states. Lincoln did not even go before congress to ask permission to go to war.
F.D.R. and all other Presidents went before Congress and ask for permission to go to war. I guess Lincoln thought he was something special that he could ignore the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court.
When Northern newspaper editors criticized Lincoln for that, what did he do? He had them arrested, so there went your first amendment right, "Free Speech and Free Press".
Should I continue on with all the other amendments he broke?
Actually a free press operated throughout the north during the War of the Rebellion. By contrast, Republicans were not permitted to advertise, nor were abolitionists permitted to publish even before the War of the Rebellion.
Really, explain to me why Francis Howard Key was arrested? He was a newspaper editor for the Baltimore Examiner. He criticized Lincoln for not going before Congress to ask permission to go to war. Guess what Lincoln did? Had him arrested and thrown into prison for two years.
But wait, it gets so much better, guess where they put him in prison? Drums....Fort McHenry!
Guess who his grandfather was? Francis Scott Key.
So your theory of "Free Speech and Press" was thrown out the window.
@rebel2276 "No Lincoln no war?" And no country either. Lincoln was just a boy when Jefferson declared slavery "the death knell of the union." So long as the nation was half slave/half free war was inevitable.
@Shafeone LT. General Scott advised Lincoln, to pull the soldiers from Fort Sumter and to "Let the South go." How do you have a war and force Eleven states to stay in a Union that they do not want to be in? In the past Ten years, Vermont, Texas and Arizona have flirted with leaving the Union. I suppose the National Guard would just lock up any state officials and point M-16's in their faces and force them to stay in the Union.
I don't like fighting for the same land twice, the hell I am moving my men out of Afghanistan. Nor are we going to allow Japan and Germany to rise up again and have another World War.
If we pull out several of our allies would be attacked and then we would have to redeploy our forces.
We will have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 50-100 years.
Im not talking about afghanistnt- and japan and germany should build their own bases who the fuck are WE to tell every1 else they cant do this and that when were guilty of the same damn crimes? Let japan be soveriegn and build their military so china has something to fear and germany so they can be a threat to russia.
In the essence of American control- we wind up controlling nothing
We get to tell people things when we get attacked. Pearl Harbor marked the start of war with Japan, as a result of our winning we got to tell them where we would have bases. See how that works?
ya and 60 years later were still there the tax payer spends billons of dollars maintaining a fucking base for NOTHING.
you see this? NOTHING.
china is becoming a problem- i say pull OUT and let the japanese build their own damn military cause were indirectly reponsible for the atrocities committed in the past 30 years and yet no one os occupying us right?
170 countries with american bases? Save taxpayer money fix the educational system and Close down the FUCKING bases
60 years later we used the base in Korea...We now have bases in Korea, and they are darned useful in damping down problems between Communist China and the Nationalists (Taiwan). it is a lot cheaper to prevent war than to fight them. Perhaps you want to fight more?
First of all- I said 170 countries have american bases- i say close down the bases where there IS NO threat unlike the one in korea- which has 5k soldiers by the way if korea wanted to invade that base wouldnt stand a friggin chance.
Secondly dufus- you think america has the moral high ground to occupy japan because they attacked us on Pearl Harbour? So i guess we should let the Iraqis occupy us cause WERE responsible for the Kurd Chemical Attack Saddam unleashed on them- American weapons.
Actually Saddam was responsible for the attacks on the Kurds. Not US weapons, but locally manufactured (mustard is WWI technology, Sarin/Tabun is WWII technology). We have nice parting gifts.
DO some research man- Rumsfeld CO-Owned the german company that madethe supplies to make the gas [You forgot VX by the Way] and we gave them bell choppers fitted with spray b00ms and called it huminitarian aid.
Im surprised you never even heard of this since it was declassified 10 years ago?
In the small war of Desert Storm, we took on Russian T-54/55's, the T-72's (which were the best Iraq had) but they were horrible. Our shots would go clean through the tank and out the bank and kicked up a huge amount of sand. At first I thought, did we miss?? Swiss cheese.
At that time Iraq had the third most tanks in the world. My tank crew and I took out only three tanks during the war. But all three attacked us. Two T-72's and on our right flank a T-54/55 at 1,800 meters.
Thanks for your service. Iraqi soldiers learned that the safest place to be was far away from their tanks, but the buggers died with their boots on. They even tried some infantry counter attacks after our tanks passed through their defensive positions. MacGregor's covering force nearly took out a Repub Guard division, though he was outnumbered about 10 to 1, and he attacked. Our 120mm sabot rounds worked much better than advertised.
Sorry, you are wrong. the US did not provide chemical warfare weapons to Iraq. If you check, the US did away with our arsenal of chemical weapons beginning with the Nixon Administration and continuing from there.
The Marines killed in the early 1980s were in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Marines in the Iran Embassy were taken prisoner, itself an atrocity, and a war crime on the part of Iran.
YA EXACTLY IN IRAN AND JUST ONE YEAR LATER IRAQ GOES TO WAR WITH THEM AND THEN SUDDENLY AFTER A MEETING WITH RUMSFELD CHEMICAL ALI STARTS GASSING KURDS AND IRANIANS?
Sorry, you can draw any line you want through those dots. German companies provided stuff, but poison gasses like mustard agent are unclassified, and easy for a smart chemist to whip up. As for the CIA providing money, why would they need to? Iraq pumps oil and has plenty of money.
look man i got like 30 websites to back up what im saying- but you probably wont even believe them either cause your really naive- and we gave iRAQ money the same reason why we give saudi arabia money- Figure it out a college freshman can in 2 seconds
We do not want Germany and Japan to build bases, do we want them to rise up again? Germany lost WW1 and in the 1930's Hitler built up the German war machine.
We are not going to give up Germany or Japan. We have enemies in North Korea, Russia is always ify, Muslim countries as well. Mostly for training and logistics. Just in case Russia fires off their nukes we can at least shoot them down from Germany so they do not hit America. We have nukes from Alaska to Germany.
germany rose in ww2 BECAUSE WE FUCKED THEM UP IN THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES ROFL!
germany in ww1 didnt start the war- we just punished them cause they kicked every1's ass.
Secondly- we bot bases in countries that have never posed a threat to us- we just want to be assholes and spend trillions of dollars for maintaining NOTHING over there. 170 countries have an american base- your mentioning about 4?
Actually there are a lot of training based in Germany, and I have trained at Graf, Hohenfels and Wildflecken. There are many German bases too, such as Hammelburg. I have no comments on the location of US nuclear weapons.
Before we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps we could pull out of Japan, Italy, and Germany.
US has a lease with the pre-Castro Cuba Government. We still have bases in Panama. We did leave the Phillipines, at the request of the local government. We are in Greenland, Iceland, with permissio of the local government. We have no base in Israel, but did have some peacekeepers in the Sinai after the 1973 war, but with the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, those were withdrawn.
Actually, Texas doesn't. Texas did have the right per the original entry to cut itself into as many as 5 states, but that language was not repeated in its "readmission" after the Civil War, and whether the original language is superceded by the new is a matter for the SCOTUS.
@DonMeaker really? cuz what i learned was when the US was trying to get texas as a state texas agreed for only one condensation they can leave the union at anytime and they vote on it every year since and it has always come to staying in the union
That is not my understanding. The annexation document is available on line, and it doesn't mention that.
Further, if that was true, then there would have been no need for a secession convention just before the Civil War. Since they had a secession convention, that would also indicate that it is false.
Lincoln did not want to obey the law. His 1860 platform was two things.
1) Reverse what the Supreme Court had judged on.
2) Stop the expansion of slavery in the west.
How could Lincoln reverse the highest court in America? Get your buddies to vote you in as President and then put them in "high places" in the government and get it amended.
The Supreme Court made it "Crystal Clear" that Americans could take their personal property into the West, East, North and South.
The South fought for their "Constitutional Rights." In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled on the "Dred Scott decision.
1) Slaves were NOT American Citizens, thus Dred Scott could not sue his master.
2) The 1820 Missouri Compromise and all other pacts and compromises were illegal and unconstitutional.
3) Territory governors in Kansas and Nebraska had no power to stop, prevent or prohibit, American citizens from taking their private property into those lands.
Well, you need to pick up a history book and do a lot more reading. The Supreme Court did not make a bad decisions, they looked over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all legal documents at that time. Any questions on that?
Union soldiers did not leave their houses to get maimed and die to free slaves. Since I had the most family that fought in the Civil War, well over 200 Prouty's fought for the Union. Not a single letter, diary anything mentioned dying to free slaves.
Alas, the true history of that war won't reach most people. Just a sad fact of life. History is written by the victors. The US goverment doesn't want people to think about the fact that it illegally invaded and annexed a sovereign american nation and still is to this day.
They fought for the right not to be told what to do by a central goverment. It's common today for the washington to have all the power, but not back then, it was all about the states. Things are only like they are now because the union won the civil war and basically put an end to real states rights.
The war could have just as easily been about the right to bare arms. The south was defending it's constitutional rights.
Slavery could have been dealt with without 620,000 deaths.
Actually, no, they began the rebellion before Lincoln took office. They began by stealing federal property and attacking US government soldiers. The South called for 100,000 men to fight before the new president even took office, and before he called for a mere 75,000 men to defend Washington from the so called confederate army.
They tried to buy that property that was now in their county. It won't do for a foreign nation to have a military base in your country. The union tried to resuppy the fort after a promise not to. Nobody was killed. 620,000 died for that?
You think Lincoln was going to leave them alone? that Fort Sumter was a good excuse to invade the CSA?
Defend washington? That army was for the invasion of the south. They even offered Robert E Lee command of it to put down the "rebles" by force.
The state governments voted to secede and that vote was ratified by the vote of the people. This was not a band of rebles that stomed the state buildings and took them over by gun point. They thought they had a right to do this, the reasons are irrelevant as long as you follow the law.
Now, the debate can be whether the constitution allowed for sessesion or not, it of course doesn't for sure now, but it wasn't so clear then. The point being they thought they could.
Tyrants are the one's that kill people to make others behave. This is North America, not the USSR. They thought they were the one's being betrayed. Try to see the view points of all and not you're own narrow worldview. I'm glad the US is one nation, but I do sympathize with the south on all things except slavery. I see little difference between their cause and the cause of the revolutionary war.
Tyranny, from the Greek is from the list of forms of government. Good forms of government include: "Monarchy, one man rule, for the people; Aristocracy, rule by the best, Polity, rule by the people. Bad forms of government are Tyranny, rule by the opressor, with the poor reduced to the status of slaves for the benefit of the one; Oligarchy/Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy; Democracy, rule by the poor. It is the south that wanted Plutocracy, and tyranny, and conscripted men for slave partrol,
I'm not sure I understand you. The US is and always has been ruled by the wealthy. Slaves were not citizens. Not in the south and not in the north. We tend to look at things from a 21 century perspective. Abolishionists in the 1800's (north and SOUTH) were appalled by slavery, but not even most of the radicals considered blacks the equal of the white man. My point has always been that the north was not some great righteous society vs the evil mustache twirling villains of the south.
As Lincoln said, if slavery is not evil, then nothing is evil. Free blacks in the north had voted for years before Dred Scot. Descendents of persons of African ancestry were able to assimulate, sometimes with the aid of a creative geneology. Beneficiaries of the creative geneology include Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson. The north did not need to be a completely righteous for the South to be wrong, with its sadly deluded soldiers oppressed by the wealthy, fighting to maintain their oppressor
How were they betrayed? Who fired the cannon? What did Lincoln do as president? Nothing because the rebels were committing treason before Lincoln took office.
I said THEY thought they were being betrayed, I didn't say they were right. Slavery was being threatened and it was going to be forbidden in the new territories. They thought it threatened southern expansion. Slavery was wrong, but the fact of the matter is the federal goverment was not supposed to be sticking it's nose in the SOVEREIGN states business. That isn't why it was created.
They did not commit treason against their states and to them that trumped all other oaths.
So, now your defense is that they were delusional....Lincoln said before the war he did not think the Federal Government had the right to interfere in state institutions. The only way that he was later able to was as a measure to reduce the ability of the rebels to make war. The Fed govt did have the power to ban slavery in the territories, as that was done in the northwest Ordinance. Of course the states wouldn't have any authority over the territories, except through the fed govt.
Listen, that war was built up to for years and years with many incidents. Radical northern abolishionist were making so much noise that when a moderate abolisionist like Lincoln got elected the south was convinced it was only a matter of time before he tried to prohibit slavery altogthor.
I've said it before, the most ironic thing was that without secession slavery probably would have last a lot longer. lol
And if the Union as a whole prohibited slavery by legal process (such as consitutional amendment), they should have accepted it, rather than resort to uncontitutional violence. Rather than fight it, they chose to steal US weapons, fire on US soldiers, and rebel. Shame on them.
The only thing I defend about the south is the valor and bravery of the army (both sides in fact) and a peoples right to be independent regardless of the reasons. The revolutionary war required no such evil as slavery to have the people of the states revolt and declare independence from england. Most wanted it and that was all it took. Do not forget how many so called american loyalist fought for england. If they had won, today they would be the heros.
What it really came down to was the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott verdict. They allowed American citizens to take their "Private Property" and go anywhere in America.
Now, Lincoln and his radical Republicans did not like the Supreme Court decision. So they wanted to reverse everything.
The South looked at Lincoln as a person that was not going to obey constitutional laws and the Supreme Court.
To me, Lincoln should have never run in the first place, he knew he was going to sir up shit.
I only side with the South because of the respect I have of General Lee. I am not from the South, nor born in the South and other then that I have very little to do with the South.
I had a ton of family fight in the war, almost covering every Union state and five Southern states.
My ancestor landed in 1667 in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Richard Proute would have 26 kids. 190 years later when the Civil War started, they were all over America. They had huge families back then.
Grant was nothing without a big army behind him. Belmont and Shiloh proved that. At Belmont, Grant for the first and last time found his command outnumbered. His command was routed and had to run back to the transports. Grant was quick himself to get on a transport, only problem was he left the entire 27th Illinois Infantry regiment behind.
Grant was outnumbered in the early days of Vicksburg campaign, and threw his single corps between the armies of Pemberson and Gregg. Pemberson waited until Grant got more men there.
God's law trumps all. Slavery was an immoral practice which stripped away freedom, life, property dignity and inflicted unimaginable pain and suffering and loss of hope upon its recipients so that its practicioners could have economic freedom and social standing. Disgusting.
Lincoln believed that the Civil War was God's verdict directed at the ENTIRE nation for the evil of slavery. Perhaps he may have been on to something.
Not everyone believes in god, including Abraham lincoln. "God's law" Doesn't trump anything, unless you think "God" created the idea of not killing and stealing. "God", in the bible actaully condones slavery.
I think war is worse then slavery But IF the CSA needed to be forced to give them up then so be it. We'll never know what would have happened 5, 10, 20 years down the road because LIncoln wasn't going to have his country divided in two, no matter the cost in lives.
As a famous Southerner once asked: "Is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery." Your answer to Patrick Henry I guess would be .. "Hell yeah. (So long as its YOUR slavery and not mine of course!)."
If I lived in the south 1861 I would have fought for the condederacy only to defend my home and family from INVASION. Slavery would have had nothing to do with my personal motives for fighting and I think this was true of most of the confederate army. These details are important.
True. As would I. But with the verdict of history squarely before us now, it is safe to say that I would have been an unwilling/ignorant accomplice to those who had a vested interest both economic and social for keeping slavery alive. And I would have been on the wrong side of history and the moral divide. You cannot call it noble to defend your "right" to deny the right of freedom to others. Sorry. Ignorance is bliss, but history is history.
@badism Good point badism... the huge majority (not positive, but I want to say 90%) of those southerners fighting in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Much like the North, rich plantation / slave owners could buy their way out of military service, so many of the richest slave owners in the south did not fight to keep the institution alive. Lee and others like Patrick Cleborne pushed hard to allow african americans to fight for the south with freedom as reward.. it was approved too late war
@badism the point is that you DON'T live in the 1861 south and thus CANNOT understand the motivations and position of the average southerner. If you look at the letters of the average enlisted southerner you see a view of the war based around slavery - an enlisted man's paper in Tennessee wrote that "Any man who believes this is not a war for the emancipation of the Negro is either a liar or a fool."
They may not have owned slaves, but the southern social culture was based around slaves.
@HarbingerRomanus I don't dispute anything you said, but there were over one million men in the Confederate army, do you have enough letters to say that the the average view among them was that they were fighting to keep slavery? How many letters would that take....50,000? 100,000? Slavery or no, the CSA declared itself an independent nation and they we're fighting to keep it so and defending from invasion. The two sides had come to hate eachother and just wanted to fight, that's a fact too.
@badism I agree most of the confederate army fought because they had to in order to defend their homes and stem the northern invasion. The ones who went north with Lee were those willing to try and put an end to the war because obviously they couldn't hold them off forever.
Certainly. The details are important. Like, for instance, that those in power? Plantation owners. You know, the minority who owned slaves. States rights? To do what, maintain slavery. Slavery was ingrained into souther culture to the point that some believed slaves were happy being, well, slaves. While most did not have slaves, they did fight for the institution if only because those in power, the plantation owners and their political allies, encouraged them to.
@Mahbu You're basically saying that the south only wanted independence becuase they wanted to keep slavery? So if they freed the slaves Lincoln would have called an end to the war and reconized the Confederacy? Don't be naive, man. The only reason slavery even became the issue of the war for the Union (In 1863, 2 years into the war!) is because the war was wrong and Lincoln knew it and England and France were on the verge of reconizing the Confederacy. You're reading fairy tales.
No one's being naive. You're just being an idiot. Slavery isn't the only reason, and I never said it was, but it's a huge reason. To pretend it isn't is just ignorant on your part. Saying we're all living in a fairy tale doesn't change the fact that you're deluding yourself that slavery had no part at all. Understand that things were coming to a head even before Abe took power. You need only look to Kansas and Nebraska or the D. Scott Case.
I feel like you may be confused. I think you believe that for it to have been an issuem, Lincoln had to have said something from the start. Silly, but understandable. . I guess. Sometimes its hard to see bigger pictures and most people see things with tunnel vision.
@badism "I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery a soldier fights for his country right or wrong" and I believe the South seceded to protect slavery but I fought for the south because I thought it was my patriotic duty". Both quotes made by John S. Mosby CSA officer and CW hero. The Southern aristocracy wanted independence to maintain their life style which was supported by slavery and they had the tight grip on southern politics not the common dirt farmer.
@badism The North went to war to preserve the Union not abolish slavery. How could the war be wrong in Lincoln's eyes. He believed the south was wrong because there is no provision for secession in the Constitution. Also Lincoln may have declared emancipation because he wanted to ensure Britain and France did not get involved but neither Britain or France indicated they would. What held Britain and France from getting involved was the issue of slavery they were both against.
@badism All the south had to do was abolish slavery and there was a good chance Britian and France might have come to their aid. They didn't I wonder why?
@686204 First you have too understand the relationship between the races to get a grip of how southerns felt in regards too their peculiar institution. Slavery was intertwined into their whole fabric of live,to give up slavery was to give up their ideology, for most southerns whether or not they owned slaves the most important property of all was a white skin. Freedom for the slave, meant inequality for the whites.
@noleybo56 I don't wish to be impolite but I just can't believe your explanation on the justification for slavery in the south. I never realized that southern whites were so insecure. Anyway after slavery you reestablished your superiority by implementing segregation so not all was lost until the 1960's I guess?
@686204 No I would not go as far and say that whites southerns felt insecure in regards to slavery.No, what I will say their insecurity came from The North undermining they way of life hence "Northern Aggression". As to reestablishing superiority the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments put paid too any such notion.
@noleybo56 Oh I see you support slavery and you feel that the black man is inferior to the white man and the North was interfering with this privileged way of life . However even with these amendments the south established segregation once again putting the black man in his proper place right. Once again I will state that Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery in the South only preventing its expansion. So how was he undermining the Southern way of life?
@686204 I am not a supporter of slavery but I do support the civil rights of the old south. I was just wondering how long it would take before Lincoln would become the topic well I will engaged you!!!. How could one evaluate the 4yrs of his Presidency 1861-65 the most turbulent in American history were a nation torn itself asunder. All because the election of one man who became the 16th Pres of the U.S who's name became synonymous with liberty,equality and freedom the world over..........
@noleybo56 but is this the true face of Lincoln a giant on the world stage or is it peoples perception? Was Abe Lincoln above reproach.For myself I am skeptical of this adoration. I have just one nagging question. If Lincoln is such a good human being and statesman why did millions of his own countryman think other wise and seek to go it alone without his paternity?
@noleybo56 Lincoln had his faults the same as anyone however he was a smart politician and politically out smarted his counter parts in the South. Why did millions of his own countrymen not think he was a good human being and statesman it beats me because most seceded before he came to power. I assume you are referring to the Southern states that seceded. I would say his reputation is based on saving the Union and the emancipation proclamation which lead to the end of slavery in this country
@686204 Yeah you right a nice piece of subterfuge by honest Abe. On the 22nd of july he wheeled out the EP for his cabinet cronies assessment. But what he needed was a military victory before it could reveal its auspicious content to the nation.That all slaves in rebellious states were "Forever Free" but the slaves in the 4 northern states shall remain enslaved. No emanciption for Union slaves.
@noleybo56 Again I point out Lincoln's ability to politically out smart his southern counter parts. His primary goal as I stated before was to preserve the Union. While fighting a war you don't piss off your allies you wait for the opportune moment. The final outcome was at the end of the war all slaves were free right. The EP was another political ploy to insure the Brits & French did not get involved. All the CSA had to do was abolish slavery and there was a good chance the Brits & French....
@686204 The only one's that Lincoln out smarted was the Hundreds of Thousands of soldiers who fought for the North. For if indeed these men had got a whimper that this war was being fought to free slaves then quite frankly there would not have been a war at all.Of course you right when you say Lincoln fought for Union but the South fought for the Constitution which be the way Lincoln swore to uphold.As too fooling the Southerns I don't think so!! As to the EP being a ploy it was a plot to ....
@noleybo56 subvert the constitution. Lincoln could not abolish slavery constitutionally because slavery was protected by the constitution legally and politically. But he could act on the EP war power to seize enemy resources.slaves. As for the" House Divided"speech I was just pointed out what Lincoln's thoughts were on the slavery question that he stood four-square against the institution. As for your assumption of my denigration of the Blackman, again I state your a millon miles away ....
@noleybo56 blame him for the souths secession in this case. Lets get one thing clear there is no mention of slavery anywhere in the Constitution at that time. Property was the word used to get around the word slavery I guess it gave those drafting the Constitution a clear conscience. So what's wrong with someone speaking out against slavery? When he took office he stated he would not attempt to abolish slavery in the south so how does that violate the Constitution.
@noleybo56 the mark. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just one point regarding British and French entanglement into the conflict between the States. British interest was best serve by the America nation tearing itself asunder. So why get involve, of course arm both sides to the teeth and let them get on with it . As for France, their sphere of interest was Mexico a French satellite on the America continent, Again self intrest.
@noleybo56 Regarding the Brits and French, the south had a diplomatic office in Britain and tried hard to get the Brits and French to give them diplomatic recognition. Ever heard of Edwin De Leon his sole purpose was to get the this recognition for the South. Also there is a book "Union in Peril" which explains the Unions fear of Britain or France getting involved. One of the things holding them back was the issue of slavery. The Brits were semi involved when they built 2 war ships for the South
@686204 Now I have never heard or read that British vessels ran the Union blockade. But if they did I guess they would call it payback.Its a fact that during the Napoleonic wars America never recognized the British blockades and to further antagonize the British the U.S traded with both sides.
@noleybo56 The Brits were also involved in running the Union blockade of southern ports. De Leon had almost convinced the French to give them recondition by promising gradual abolishment of slavery. They changed their minds at the last moment because they wanted outright abolishment. The CSA was established for the Southern aristocracy which required slavery to maintain its life style. It was wrong and the South made the wrong decision to secede. Lincoln did not force them in any way to do so.
@noleybo56 As stated before Lincoln was not prepared to go to war over the issue of slavery but to perserve the Union. Of course he knew he could not expect men to fight a war over the issue of slavery. Again political smarts comes into play. Funny you are claiming Lincoln did not uphold the Constitution tell me where he violated it. The South violated it by seceding no where in the constitution does it state secession is an option. They seceded before Lincoln ever took power so how can you ....
@686204 Secession, a big topic on its own,never mind the other questions posed by you. I'll answer this question the way a southerner would come at it in pre 1861. The South interpretation of the Constitution argued that through their ratifying conventions created the Constitution and thus the Federal Gov. The states, the creators,were sovereign, not the Federal Gov the created.Carried to its logical conclusion this thesis maintained that as states had decided individually to come into the Union
@noleybo56 each could individually decide to leave it.To the southern populace,they were not fighting to keep slaves they fought for the preservation [ their version] of the Republic of the Founding Fathers.....a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property and their Constitutional liberties.
@noleybo56 Look all states agreed to a Federal Gov. and entered into a legal agreement with the Feds when they sighed approval of the Constitution. Under the terms of any legal agreement unless specified no one can unilaterally break a contract. Since secession is not specified in the Constitution and the Feds did not agree to it the southern states were in violation of their signed agreement with the Feds.
@noleybo56 Back then as now if there were differences of opinion between the Feds and a State it was to be submitted to the Supreme Court for Legal interpretation. The South did not do this they felt they were right and ignored the SC why have it if you don't use it. The Brits were involved in the blockade running alright check your history books. The South was fighting for the Southern Aristocracy and their right to have slaves cut out the property business.
@686204 Again, I reiterate that Lincoln's adoption of the EP subverted the Constitution, the abolishment of slavery, the right to own property granted ,a euphemism. Strange that the North's five most populous states' who voted for Lincoln in1860 return Democratic majorities in the fall elections of 62 post the EP. In fact Lincoln was rejected in his own state and only one in ten soldiers approved emancipation.Hardly a ringing endorsement.
@686204 Why did the South fear Lincoln's presidency? From 1854, when he returned to politics until nominated for President in 1860 the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery and in course for ultimate extinction.Lincoln gave 175 political speeches on the subject in those 6yrs.What did the South have to fear?
@noleybo56 Under those circumstances I have no pity on the South and they deserved everything they got even if it meant violating the Constitution. However, as we all know Lincoln stated when he took office that he had no intention of abolishing slavery in the South. What you don't seem to understand is even if legal under the Constitution slavery/property was wrong in fact it was in violation of the declaration of Independence (all men are created equal).
@686204 Two points, I'll be concise. Firstly the interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court ruling in regards to "Dred Scott" 1857: Secondly,the Declaration of Independence was referring to white men, a negro was inferior a commodity pre1863:
@noleybo56 I know the declaration of independence was referring to white men. However it does not say all white men are created equal, it says all men are created equal. If you look at it from one point of view it is a lie since slavery existed in our Country. It was the main reason slavery was referred to as property in the Constitution. When it comes right down to it our Country was formed based on a lie and the founding father knew it .........
@noleybo56 That's why appeasements were made in the Constitution using the word property to make certain states happy and to give a clean consciences to those opposed to slavery. Everyone who signed the Constitution knew that someday slavery would be an issue but they were not prepared to address the issue at that time plain and simple. I have no idea why you throw out the Dredi Scott decision. It has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
@686204 Slavery at the time was the done thing. The big nation's in the world traded in slavery so it was not an issue at that time.Of course today its repugnant too think that one human being can own another but I fear that's man inhumanity to man. As to" Dred Scott" this case had nothing to do with secession what ever. The Supreme Court ruling in 1857 related too interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the slavery question. the courts decision favoured the South....
@noleybo56 therefore there was no need to apply to the Supreme Court for a review. The Constitutional position as given by the court recognized the rights and liberties of slaveholders in all states and Terr in America.
@noleybo56 Re the Constitution on slavery.Article IV section2,stipulated that any "person held to service or labour in another state" who escaped to another "shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labour shall be due." Prigg v Pennsylvannia 1842. A federal law of 1793 authorized slaveowners to cross state lines to recapture their property and bring it before any local magistrate or federal court to prove ownership.
@noleybo56 It's my contention they did not follow this process because they were afraid of lossing. For that matter the North had the same option and did not take it for the same reason. However, having said that the Supreme Court in 1869 did rule that secession was illegal. It should also be recognized that while Lincoln was elected on the premise that his party would prevent the expansion of slavery the south seceded before he was elected and could do anything about it.
@noleybo56 Also there has been many a President/political party elected on the basis of promises that they were not able to implement. In other words the South jumped the gun. Slavery at the time was being abolished by most all big nations including most Northern states. It was recognized as evil and is one of the reasons the CSA was never recognized as an official country they refused to change with the times. The CSA lived for slavery and died by it justice was served.
@noleybo56 I see where you are coming from now and you have a point on that issue. However I was discussing the issue of secession and whether or not it was legal. My claim is because there is no mention of secession in the Constitution the South should have taken it to the Supreme Court for a legal review and if it was legal in their opinion the South would legally have the grounds to secede. If they followed that process and won Lincoln would not have had a leg to stand on they didn't.
Just by the fact your screen name includes "rebel" tells me all I need to know about your level of inbreeding...
logcabnnut 6 months ago
@logcabnnut One, I am not from the South, I am "Rebel" to the current United States Government. Until the US. Government admits spraying agent orange in Vietnam caused cancer in thousands of Vietnam Veterans, such as my own father, who never even smoked. I am a "Rebel" against the Government till they admit and pay my fellow Desert Storm soldiers that depleted uranium caused birth defects in their kids when they returned after the war.
rebel2276 5 months ago
@rebel2276 right on man. patriotism is giving support to the country, and the government when it deserves it
kmtb1991 1 month ago
@kmtb1991 It is said, that truth is the first casualty in war.
rebel2276 1 month ago
The actor who plays Hood is much too old. Hood was a young man at the time of the battle.
Shafeone 9 months ago
Now in Lee's defense, Capt Johnston scouted the Peach Orchard, Wheat field, to..LTR? But either way that was the most up-to-date, intelligence that Lee had. Thus if Longstreet had attacked when Lee wanted him to, on the morning on July 2nd. Sickles' 3rd Corps would have been still far to the rear and not in the Peach Orchard, Wheat field, etc. So it is a confusing situation. But my post before this, is the route I would have gone with.
rebel2276 11 months ago 2
@rebel2276 Johnston is the only man to leave an account so who knows what he really reconnoitered? He claims to have been on LRT and thereabouts but if that were the case there is no way he could not have seen union infantry..or at least flanking union cavalry. I think Johnston was trying to cover his ass for the historical record, went too far south and got up to BIG round top instead. To claim to have seen no yankees in an area where there were two corps in the vicinity seems implausible.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone Captain Johnston, saw no cavalry, he reported on what he saw, nothing. MG. Sickles' 3rd Corps was more in the rear and had Johnston rode more on, he would have seen the 3rd Corps. I highly doubt Johnston rode on or about LRT. What it really comes down too, Lee should have sent a dozen scouts to observe and report. That is what I do out here in Afghanistan, I take a squad and I go with them, so I can see for myself "What is out there".
rebel2276 8 months ago
@rebel2276 Johnston wrote after the war: "When I got to the extreme right of our reconnaissance on the Little Round Top, General Lee turned and looking at me, said, 'Did you get there?' I assured him I had." [I can read too!] Clarke never left a record. But LRT was occupied by two regiments of Geary's XII corps division well after daylight on July 2. There is no way Johnston and Clarke could not have seen them if they did indeed go to LRT. (As far as is known, Clarke never left a record).
Shafeone 8 months ago
I agree with Battlestar9, Lee should have been satisfied with day one, victory. If Ewell and Lee were not going to attack cemetery hill in the evening of July 1st, then you know those people will be digging in. They heard it and it was simply folly to have attacked after that. Pull back, gather your wounded, collect rifles on the field from day one and fall back to Herr's Ridge and set up a good defense there. Start the wounded off back to Winchester, with Heth's division that was busted up.
rebel2276 11 months ago
tjallew 1 year ago
Lee did not know the Union Army was repositiioning in strength on Little Round Top, his attack was on his enemies flank was his best offensive option at that time. Longstreet was slow in positioning for the attack which gave the Union the time to reinforce along Little Round Top. The attack on the second day was sound militarily and nearly succeeded, if it were not due to the brilliant leadership of Col. Joshua Chamberlain, the battle would have gone to Lee and his army.
BIRISHPM 1 year ago
@BIRISHPM
I disagree. This attack was not wise and Lee should never have fought this fight at Gettysburg once he realized that the high ground had not been taken. It is true that Longstreet took too long to position for the attack once Lee gave the order however I believe that this attack should never have taken place. Longstreet's assessment and advice to Lee was sound and should have been acted upon. To attack uphill for two days against those positions was not tactically sound.
battlestar9 11 months ago
@battlestar9 The attack was sound, based upon the intelligence Lee had at the time he issued for his orders. A main attack (Longstreet) with a demonstration on Culps Hill on the Right Flank was a good plan. You don't hesitate to attack just because of the terrain, your first consideration is the enemy disposition. Longstreet could have requested that Lee come to his position to view the strength of the Federal forces along Little Round Top but he failed to do so. Lee was bold but not stupid.
BIRISHPM 10 months ago
@BIRISHPM
The lack of reports on the enemy's disposition from Stuart combined with the failure to seize the heights made the position untenable. Lee essentially went into this battle blind and guessing. Longstreet's overall assessment of the position and recommendation of redeployment was correct. The only way this battle makes any sense is if the heights were taken on Day 1 which they were not. There would have been no shame in pulling out and redeploying your army to a better position.
battlestar9 10 months ago
@BIRISHPM
The lack of timely reports on the enemy's disposition from Stuart combined with the failure to seize the heights made the position untenable. Lee went into this battle blind and guessing. Longstreet's overall assessment of the position and his recommendation of redeployment was correct. The only way this battle makes any sense is if the heights were taken on Day 1 which they were not. There would have been no shame in pulling out and redeploying your army to a better position.
battlestar9 10 months ago
@BIRISHPM The attack was based on absolutely false intel. (Thanks to the absence of Stuart). Lee thought he was attacking a union left that was "in the air" as they had at Chancellorsville. But Sickles' rash redeployment of the III Corps instead presented McLaws and Hood with a solid front facing both south and east (although LRT was left undefended) on broken ground of Devil's Den--the worst kind of terrain in which to maneuver mass formations of infantry.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone It was not MG. Stuart's fault, only non-reading amateur's will carry on that long myth. Eric J. Wittenberg and J.David Petruzzi, proved that myth wrong in their book, "Plenty of blame to go around". Stuart took 3 Cav brigades with him and left Lee 4 Cav brigades. Both authors are Northerners, not Southerners try to cover for Stuart.
rebel2276 8 months ago
@rebel2276 The absence of Stuart is why there was an intelligence blackout. That is a fact. Why he was absent, whose fault it was, how much was he doing Lee's bidding (after all Lee approved the ride around Hooker) is a subject of continued discussion/debate. It is not all on Stuart's shoulders that is for sure. (Although once he realized that it would be tough t break through the union army to launch his raid he should have called it off. His pride compelled him to stubbornly continue on.
Shafeone 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@battlestar9 The attack was sound, based upon the intelligence Lee had at the time he issued for his orders. A main attack (Longstreet) with a demonstration on Culps Hill on the Right Flank was a good plan. You don't hesitate to attack just because of the terrain, your first consideration is the enemy disposition. Longstreet could have requested that Lee come to his position to view the strength of the Federal forces along Little Round Top but he failed to do so. Lee was bold but not stupid.
BIRISHPM 10 months ago
Lee gives up his overall strategy to lure the enemy out in the open. Instead he goes out chasing the enemy, orders his units to converge towardfs Gettysburg. That is a mistake. Now he will have to fight on ground he has not sufficient knowledge of.
On the second day of battle, he orders the attack on the federal fishhook position. That is a mistake. Never attack where the enemy is strong. Never attack uphill. The same mistake was done on the third day. Lee should have listened to Longstreet.
johan12564 1 year ago 3
@johan12564
I agree. This attack was a tragic mistake. Lee should have listened to Longstreet and left on Day 1 when he realized the hills were not his. To attack uphill and in the open two straight days against a strongly fortified Federal position was in my opinion suicidal. It is unfortunate that Longstreet received the blame for this disaster. Robert E. Lee was a great general and a great man but he must shoulder the full responsibility for what happened at Gettysburg.
Gettysburg.
battlestar9 11 months ago
Comment removed
johan12564 1 year ago
Kind of curious how the final editing of this great historical film leaves out nearly all of Gen. A.P. Hill's lines or facetime. Especially in this scene. Notice here that when Lee is setting up Longstreet's Corps for attack with Hill in reserve, the camera focuses on Generals Hood and Heth, leaving A.P. Hill just out of frame to the left. Is his character ever clearly identified throughout the film?
hivicar 1 year ago
The "little rocky hill" was Little Round Top, defended all of day #2 against two Confederate regiments by the 20th Maine under Col Joshua L Chamberlain.
The Confederates were rebuffed for two consecutive days at Gettysburg.
bookkeeper57 1 year ago
@fmj29 see my other video "We are adrift in a sea of blood", it contains that scene
Zappiss 1 year ago
Don't do it Lee. Go around them! LOL.
Shafeone 1 year ago
The acting in the last part of this clip is A+. Theres not one sign that was even scripted. Amazing. Thats what makes this movie, though it be 4 1/2 hrs long, so re-watchable.
snappy452 1 year ago 2
@snappy452 Totally agree.
Zappiss 1 year ago
Since I'm a descendant of General Hood, I always get irritated when they cast people with grey hair and whom are older than Hood by several years. It annoys me to no end.
Guderian41 1 year ago
@Guderian41 My family did a genealogy research through my grandfather because last name is Lee, so I found I am related to Robert E. Lee.
4SCARECROWS 1 year ago
@Guderian41 Yeah they used this actor in God's and Genls. as well. did they not do any research on this most respected (at the time) of Lee's division commanders? Hood was a young man, I think just 31 but not sure, with golden blond hair and "quixotically sad" expression. This guy looks more like Jubal Early than Hood! He led their assault with: "Forward my brave Texans! Advance and take those heights!" A balls out man who led from the front. Had he not been wounded early, who knows.
Shafeone 1 year ago
Having read all these comments...it's easy to judge history of over 150 years ago with today's standards.
One must remember that it was a different time with different standards..the North went around the Constitution, the South supported slavery and had Andersonville Prison. The North had Sherman's March to the Sea, and the South started the Fires at Atlanta.
Could go on forever...but...it is always best that we learn from history, else we are doomed to repeat it.
WallingfordMagic 1 year ago
I don't blame you, Don or anyone on any Civil War sites. There is just tons of information that has been buried since the war ended.
Your typical history book on the war, is not going to get into great detail. Nor will history books make the North look like "The Bad guy".
But this is a great time period, with more and more information coming out, our research at the Library of Congress and National Archives will be printed one day.
But the stigma on the South will never go away.
rebel2276 2 years ago
the stigma on the south should never go away.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I agree with you 110%. I could come out with a thousands books and it would not matter.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Because Lincoln called for 75,000 men to invade the South, for more Southern states pulled out.
All of that could have been avoided if Lincoln had just pulled the soldiers out of Fort Sumter. Put them on a boat, with the provisions and sail back to Washington City.
But Lincoln wanted to test South Carolina and he got his desired results. He wanted war, he thought it would be one battle. I don't think he ever thought it would get as bad as it did.
No Lincoln, no war.
rebel2276 2 years ago
The United States needed men to defend the Capital from the pretended southern army.
All that could have been avoided if the rebels had not fired on Ft. Sumpter. They go the results they wanted. The war they wanted came, and Virginia joined the rebels.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
How can you defend something that is not going to be attacked? Jefferson Davis made it clear with "All we want is to be left alone".
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas joined the Confederacy when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops. Three of those states would put out the most men. Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Bad move on Lincoln, because those states could have been the border states. Lincoln did not even go before congress to ask permission to go to war.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Sure. Just like he didn't attack Ft Sumpter...
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Fort Sumter, not Sumpter.
rebel2276 2 years ago
F.D.R. and all other Presidents went before Congress and ask for permission to go to war. I guess Lincoln thought he was something special that he could ignore the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court.
When Northern newspaper editors criticized Lincoln for that, what did he do? He had them arrested, so there went your first amendment right, "Free Speech and Free Press".
Should I continue on with all the other amendments he broke?
rebel2276 2 years ago
Actually a free press operated throughout the north during the War of the Rebellion. By contrast, Republicans were not permitted to advertise, nor were abolitionists permitted to publish even before the War of the Rebellion.
DonMeaker 2 years ago 2
Really, explain to me why Francis Howard Key was arrested? He was a newspaper editor for the Baltimore Examiner. He criticized Lincoln for not going before Congress to ask permission to go to war. Guess what Lincoln did? Had him arrested and thrown into prison for two years.
But wait, it gets so much better, guess where they put him in prison? Drums....Fort McHenry!
Guess who his grandfather was? Francis Scott Key.
So your theory of "Free Speech and Press" was thrown out the window.
rebel2276 2 years ago
@rebel2276 "No Lincoln no war?" And no country either. Lincoln was just a boy when Jefferson declared slavery "the death knell of the union." So long as the nation was half slave/half free war was inevitable.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone LT. General Scott advised Lincoln, to pull the soldiers from Fort Sumter and to "Let the South go." How do you have a war and force Eleven states to stay in a Union that they do not want to be in? In the past Ten years, Vermont, Texas and Arizona have flirted with leaving the Union. I suppose the National Guard would just lock up any state officials and point M-16's in their faces and force them to stay in the Union.
rebel2276 8 months ago
@rebel2276 Would those states leave their 4 million slaves behind when they go?
Shafeone 7 months ago
@rebel2276 Would those states leave their 4 million slaves behind when they go?
Shafeone 7 months ago
Comment removed
stringerboi 2 years ago
seriously America has 170 bases on 184 countries of the world...lets PULL OUT ALREADY?
stringerboi 2 years ago
I don't like fighting for the same land twice, the hell I am moving my men out of Afghanistan. Nor are we going to allow Japan and Germany to rise up again and have another World War.
If we pull out several of our allies would be attacked and then we would have to redeploy our forces.
We will have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 50-100 years.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Im not talking about afghanistnt- and japan and germany should build their own bases who the fuck are WE to tell every1 else they cant do this and that when were guilty of the same damn crimes? Let japan be soveriegn and build their military so china has something to fear and germany so they can be a threat to russia.
In the essence of American control- we wind up controlling nothing
stringerboi 2 years ago
We get to tell people things when we get attacked. Pearl Harbor marked the start of war with Japan, as a result of our winning we got to tell them where we would have bases. See how that works?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
ya and 60 years later were still there the tax payer spends billons of dollars maintaining a fucking base for NOTHING.
you see this? NOTHING.
china is becoming a problem- i say pull OUT and let the japanese build their own damn military cause were indirectly reponsible for the atrocities committed in the past 30 years and yet no one os occupying us right?
170 countries with american bases? Save taxpayer money fix the educational system and Close down the FUCKING bases
stringerboi 2 years ago
60 years later we used the base in Korea...We now have bases in Korea, and they are darned useful in damping down problems between Communist China and the Nationalists (Taiwan). it is a lot cheaper to prevent war than to fight them. Perhaps you want to fight more?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
First of all- I said 170 countries have american bases- i say close down the bases where there IS NO threat unlike the one in korea- which has 5k soldiers by the way if korea wanted to invade that base wouldnt stand a friggin chance.
Secondly dufus- you think america has the moral high ground to occupy japan because they attacked us on Pearl Harbour? So i guess we should let the Iraqis occupy us cause WERE responsible for the Kurd Chemical Attack Saddam unleashed on them- American weapons.
stringerboi 2 years ago
Actually Saddam was responsible for the attacks on the Kurds. Not US weapons, but locally manufactured (mustard is WWI technology, Sarin/Tabun is WWII technology). We have nice parting gifts.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Chemical ali Gassed them with American bombs- let me educate you.
1.Ayatollah Khomeni establishes power in Iran over 240 marines killed and our embassy closes down
2.America seeks revenge against Iran, and the CIA sends Saddam Insane weapons, money, basically to finance a war with iran.
1981-1989- Iran-Iraq War
3.Saddam Hussein Uses weapons/gear given to him by the US to kill millions of iranians.
FLashfoward to 1991- 5000 kurds die with the same US stockpiled weapons we gave Him
stringerboi 2 years ago
forgive me it wasnt 1991 it was 1988
stringerboi 2 years ago
Iraq military was mostly Soviet Tanks, Artillery, and communications, French Mirage F-1 Aircraft. US help was largely limited to medical supplies.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
DO some research man- Rumsfeld CO-Owned the german company that madethe supplies to make the gas [You forgot VX by the Way] and we gave them bell choppers fitted with spray b00ms and called it huminitarian aid.
Im surprised you never even heard of this since it was declassified 10 years ago?
If you dont believe me- i got more for you
stringerboi 2 years ago
In the small war of Desert Storm, we took on Russian T-54/55's, the T-72's (which were the best Iraq had) but they were horrible. Our shots would go clean through the tank and out the bank and kicked up a huge amount of sand. At first I thought, did we miss?? Swiss cheese.
At that time Iraq had the third most tanks in the world. My tank crew and I took out only three tanks during the war. But all three attacked us. Two T-72's and on our right flank a T-54/55 at 1,800 meters.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Thanks for your service. Iraqi soldiers learned that the safest place to be was far away from their tanks, but the buggers died with their boots on. They even tried some infantry counter attacks after our tanks passed through their defensive positions. MacGregor's covering force nearly took out a Repub Guard division, though he was outnumbered about 10 to 1, and he attacked. Our 120mm sabot rounds worked much better than advertised.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Sorry, you are wrong. the US did not provide chemical warfare weapons to Iraq. If you check, the US did away with our arsenal of chemical weapons beginning with the Nixon Administration and continuing from there.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The Marines killed in the early 1980s were in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Marines in the Iran Embassy were taken prisoner, itself an atrocity, and a war crime on the part of Iran.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
YA EXACTLY IN IRAN AND JUST ONE YEAR LATER IRAQ GOES TO WAR WITH THEM AND THEN SUDDENLY AFTER A MEETING WITH RUMSFELD CHEMICAL ALI STARTS GASSING KURDS AND IRANIANS?
connect the dots
stringerboi 2 years ago
Sorry, you can draw any line you want through those dots. German companies provided stuff, but poison gasses like mustard agent are unclassified, and easy for a smart chemist to whip up. As for the CIA providing money, why would they need to? Iraq pumps oil and has plenty of money.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
want me to give you URLS to prove my point LOL!
stringerboi 2 years ago
As for the CIA providing money, why would they need to? Iraq pumps oil and has plenty of money. - are oyu kidding me?
stringerboi 2 years ago
Of course countries that pump oil have lots of money. Why would that cause you heartburn?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
look man i got like 30 websites to back up what im saying- but you probably wont even believe them either cause your really naive- and we gave iRAQ money the same reason why we give saudi arabia money- Figure it out a college freshman can in 2 seconds
stringerboi 2 years ago
We do not want Germany and Japan to build bases, do we want them to rise up again? Germany lost WW1 and in the 1930's Hitler built up the German war machine.
We are not going to give up Germany or Japan. We have enemies in North Korea, Russia is always ify, Muslim countries as well. Mostly for training and logistics. Just in case Russia fires off their nukes we can at least shoot them down from Germany so they do not hit America. We have nukes from Alaska to Germany.
rebel2276 2 years ago
germany rose in ww2 BECAUSE WE FUCKED THEM UP IN THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES ROFL!
germany in ww1 didnt start the war- we just punished them cause they kicked every1's ass.
Secondly- we bot bases in countries that have never posed a threat to us- we just want to be assholes and spend trillions of dollars for maintaining NOTHING over there. 170 countries have an american base- your mentioning about 4?
stringerboi 2 years ago
Actually there are a lot of training based in Germany, and I have trained at Graf, Hohenfels and Wildflecken. There are many German bases too, such as Hammelburg. I have no comments on the location of US nuclear weapons.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Before we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps we could pull out of Japan, Italy, and Germany.
US has a lease with the pre-Castro Cuba Government. We still have bases in Panama. We did leave the Phillipines, at the request of the local government. We are in Greenland, Iceland, with permissio of the local government. We have no base in Israel, but did have some peacekeepers in the Sinai after the 1973 war, but with the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, those were withdrawn.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
to bad texas still has the right to leave the union...lucky texas
lestat1591 2 years ago
Actually, Texas doesn't. Texas did have the right per the original entry to cut itself into as many as 5 states, but that language was not repeated in its "readmission" after the Civil War, and whether the original language is superceded by the new is a matter for the SCOTUS.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
@DonMeaker really? cuz what i learned was when the US was trying to get texas as a state texas agreed for only one condensation they can leave the union at anytime and they vote on it every year since and it has always come to staying in the union
lestat1591 2 years ago
That is not my understanding. The annexation document is available on line, and it doesn't mention that.
Further, if that was true, then there would have been no need for a secession convention just before the Civil War. Since they had a secession convention, that would also indicate that it is false.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Lincoln did not want to obey the law. His 1860 platform was two things.
1) Reverse what the Supreme Court had judged on.
2) Stop the expansion of slavery in the west.
How could Lincoln reverse the highest court in America? Get your buddies to vote you in as President and then put them in "high places" in the government and get it amended.
The Supreme Court made it "Crystal Clear" that Americans could take their personal property into the West, East, North and South.
How the war started.
rebel2276 2 years ago
No man has the right to own another man.
SolaChristo 2 years ago
Tell that to our Founding Fathers when you die one day. NONE of us made those rules or wrote the Constitution.
rebel2276 2 years ago
All men were endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rigts.
Gee who said that
SolaChristo 2 years ago
As wrong as slavery is The american constitution did indeed give men the rights to own other men. Even the bible says men have that right.
Both documents are dead wrong, but the law is the law.
badism 2 years ago
The constitution did not give that right, nor, did it until the 13th Amendment, ban it. Like many things, the Constitution was silent.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The South fought for their "Constitutional Rights." In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled on the "Dred Scott decision.
1) Slaves were NOT American Citizens, thus Dred Scott could not sue his master.
2) The 1820 Missouri Compromise and all other pacts and compromises were illegal and unconstitutional.
3) Territory governors in Kansas and Nebraska had no power to stop, prevent or prohibit, American citizens from taking their private property into those lands.
rebel2276 2 years ago
The South fought for the right to own another human being. The Supreme Court has made many bad decisions this is just one.
Slavery was an unconsciable evil that required the blood of many a brave man to rectify.
SolaChristo 2 years ago
Well, you need to pick up a history book and do a lot more reading. The Supreme Court did not make a bad decisions, they looked over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all legal documents at that time. Any questions on that?
Union soldiers did not leave their houses to get maimed and die to free slaves. Since I had the most family that fought in the Civil War, well over 200 Prouty's fought for the Union. Not a single letter, diary anything mentioned dying to free slaves.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Alas, the true history of that war won't reach most people. Just a sad fact of life. History is written by the victors. The US goverment doesn't want people to think about the fact that it illegally invaded and annexed a sovereign american nation and still is to this day.
badism 2 years ago
I agree 110%, but people on here and other sites and people I have talked to in the last 25 years do not want to hear that.
They believe what they were taught in school. Only way to correct that, is to change the history books. But that will never happen.
rebel2276 2 years ago
They fought for the right not to be told what to do by a central goverment. It's common today for the washington to have all the power, but not back then, it was all about the states. Things are only like they are now because the union won the civil war and basically put an end to real states rights.
The war could have just as easily been about the right to bare arms. The south was defending it's constitutional rights.
Slavery could have been dealt with without 620,000 deaths.
badism 2 years ago
Actually, no, they began the rebellion before Lincoln took office. They began by stealing federal property and attacking US government soldiers. The South called for 100,000 men to fight before the new president even took office, and before he called for a mere 75,000 men to defend Washington from the so called confederate army.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
They tried to buy that property that was now in their county. It won't do for a foreign nation to have a military base in your country. The union tried to resuppy the fort after a promise not to. Nobody was killed. 620,000 died for that?
You think Lincoln was going to leave them alone? that Fort Sumter was a good excuse to invade the CSA?
Defend washington? That army was for the invasion of the south. They even offered Robert E Lee command of it to put down the "rebles" by force.
badism 2 years ago
It won't do for a group of tyrants to claim to set up a foreign country within the boundaries of your country.
The so called CSA was a non-entity, a nullity, a fiction. The traitors should have been hung to the last man, to encourage proper behavior in others.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The state governments voted to secede and that vote was ratified by the vote of the people. This was not a band of rebles that stomed the state buildings and took them over by gun point. They thought they had a right to do this, the reasons are irrelevant as long as you follow the law.
Now, the debate can be whether the constitution allowed for sessesion or not, it of course doesn't for sure now, but it wasn't so clear then. The point being they thought they could.
badism 2 years ago
Tyrants are the one's that kill people to make others behave. This is North America, not the USSR. They thought they were the one's being betrayed. Try to see the view points of all and not you're own narrow worldview. I'm glad the US is one nation, but I do sympathize with the south on all things except slavery. I see little difference between their cause and the cause of the revolutionary war.
badism 2 years ago
Tyranny, from the Greek is from the list of forms of government. Good forms of government include: "Monarchy, one man rule, for the people; Aristocracy, rule by the best, Polity, rule by the people. Bad forms of government are Tyranny, rule by the opressor, with the poor reduced to the status of slaves for the benefit of the one; Oligarchy/Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy; Democracy, rule by the poor. It is the south that wanted Plutocracy, and tyranny, and conscripted men for slave partrol,
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand you. The US is and always has been ruled by the wealthy. Slaves were not citizens. Not in the south and not in the north. We tend to look at things from a 21 century perspective. Abolishionists in the 1800's (north and SOUTH) were appalled by slavery, but not even most of the radicals considered blacks the equal of the white man. My point has always been that the north was not some great righteous society vs the evil mustache twirling villains of the south.
badism 2 years ago
As Lincoln said, if slavery is not evil, then nothing is evil. Free blacks in the north had voted for years before Dred Scot. Descendents of persons of African ancestry were able to assimulate, sometimes with the aid of a creative geneology. Beneficiaries of the creative geneology include Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson. The north did not need to be a completely righteous for the South to be wrong, with its sadly deluded soldiers oppressed by the wealthy, fighting to maintain their oppressor
DonMeaker 2 years ago
How were they betrayed? Who fired the cannon? What did Lincoln do as president? Nothing because the rebels were committing treason before Lincoln took office.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I said THEY thought they were being betrayed, I didn't say they were right. Slavery was being threatened and it was going to be forbidden in the new territories. They thought it threatened southern expansion. Slavery was wrong, but the fact of the matter is the federal goverment was not supposed to be sticking it's nose in the SOVEREIGN states business. That isn't why it was created.
They did not commit treason against their states and to them that trumped all other oaths.
badism 2 years ago
So, now your defense is that they were delusional....Lincoln said before the war he did not think the Federal Government had the right to interfere in state institutions. The only way that he was later able to was as a measure to reduce the ability of the rebels to make war. The Fed govt did have the power to ban slavery in the territories, as that was done in the northwest Ordinance. Of course the states wouldn't have any authority over the territories, except through the fed govt.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
They must have been delusional, because they did indeed sesede from the union for the very reasons I mentioned. They must have believed it.
The right to take personal property to the new territories included slaves, because they were indeed property (as digusting an idea as that was)
badism 2 years ago
They pretended to believe it. Traitors!
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Listen, that war was built up to for years and years with many incidents. Radical northern abolishionist were making so much noise that when a moderate abolisionist like Lincoln got elected the south was convinced it was only a matter of time before he tried to prohibit slavery altogthor.
I've said it before, the most ironic thing was that without secession slavery probably would have last a lot longer. lol
badism 2 years ago
And if the Union as a whole prohibited slavery by legal process (such as consitutional amendment), they should have accepted it, rather than resort to uncontitutional violence. Rather than fight it, they chose to steal US weapons, fire on US soldiers, and rebel. Shame on them.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The only thing I defend about the south is the valor and bravery of the army (both sides in fact) and a peoples right to be independent regardless of the reasons. The revolutionary war required no such evil as slavery to have the people of the states revolt and declare independence from england. Most wanted it and that was all it took. Do not forget how many so called american loyalist fought for england. If they had won, today they would be the heros.
I'm happy with the result of both wars.
badism 2 years ago
What it really came down to was the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott verdict. They allowed American citizens to take their "Private Property" and go anywhere in America.
Now, Lincoln and his radical Republicans did not like the Supreme Court decision. So they wanted to reverse everything.
The South looked at Lincoln as a person that was not going to obey constitutional laws and the Supreme Court.
To me, Lincoln should have never run in the first place, he knew he was going to sir up shit.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Do you fail to realize that this "personal property" you speak of was human beings? Slaves. No sir, I would not have stood for that either.
Kravis63 2 years ago
I am not in the Supreme Court now, nor 150 years ago. The Supreme Court wrote that in 1857.
That was the law then. Go over the "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision.
Have a good morning, Kravis.
rebel2276 2 years ago
No problem Johnny Reb. :-)
Hey, it's just divisions that still underlay us all.
Have a good morning, Rebel
Kravis, a true and blue Billy Yank.
Kravis63 2 years ago
I only side with the South because of the respect I have of General Lee. I am not from the South, nor born in the South and other then that I have very little to do with the South.
I had a ton of family fight in the war, almost covering every Union state and five Southern states.
My ancestor landed in 1667 in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Richard Proute would have 26 kids. 190 years later when the Civil War started, they were all over America. They had huge families back then.
rebel2276 2 years ago
General Lee had the greatest respect for General Grant.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Grant was nothing without a big army behind him. Belmont and Shiloh proved that. At Belmont, Grant for the first and last time found his command outnumbered. His command was routed and had to run back to the transports. Grant was quick himself to get on a transport, only problem was he left the entire 27th Illinois Infantry regiment behind.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Grant was outnumbered in the early days of Vicksburg campaign, and threw his single corps between the armies of Pemberson and Gregg. Pemberson waited until Grant got more men there.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I do recall at the battle of Port Gibson, Grant had 24,000 men against Bowen's 8,000 man division. 3-1 odds.
Battle of Raymond, McPherson had 12,000 men to Gregg's 4,000 men. Again 3-1.
Champion's Hill, Grant had 32,000 men, Pemberton 22,000 men, 10,000 difference.
I am still curious where he was outnumbered.
rebel2276 2 years ago
"Do you fail to realize that this "personal property" you speak of was human beings? Slaves. No sir, I would not have stood for that either"
You might have in 1861. Very different world back then. Besides, the law is the law.
Most of the billy yanks in the army of 1861 wern't fighting to free slaves. They were fighting to preserve the union.
badism 1 year ago
@badism
God's law trumps all. Slavery was an immoral practice which stripped away freedom, life, property dignity and inflicted unimaginable pain and suffering and loss of hope upon its recipients so that its practicioners could have economic freedom and social standing. Disgusting.
Lincoln believed that the Civil War was God's verdict directed at the ENTIRE nation for the evil of slavery. Perhaps he may have been on to something.
Shafeone 1 year ago
Not everyone believes in god, including Abraham lincoln. "God's law" Doesn't trump anything, unless you think "God" created the idea of not killing and stealing. "God", in the bible actaully condones slavery.
badism 1 year ago
@badism
What do YOU think?
Shafeone 1 year ago
I think war is worse then slavery But IF the CSA needed to be forced to give them up then so be it. We'll never know what would have happened 5, 10, 20 years down the road because LIncoln wasn't going to have his country divided in two, no matter the cost in lives.
badism 1 year ago
Spoken like a man who has always been free.
As a famous Southerner once asked: "Is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery." Your answer to Patrick Henry I guess would be .. "Hell yeah. (So long as its YOUR slavery and not mine of course!)."
Shafeone 1 year ago
If I lived in the south 1861 I would have fought for the condederacy only to defend my home and family from INVASION. Slavery would have had nothing to do with my personal motives for fighting and I think this was true of most of the confederate army. These details are important.
badism 1 year ago 15
@badism
True. As would I. But with the verdict of history squarely before us now, it is safe to say that I would have been an unwilling/ignorant accomplice to those who had a vested interest both economic and social for keeping slavery alive. And I would have been on the wrong side of history and the moral divide. You cannot call it noble to defend your "right" to deny the right of freedom to others. Sorry. Ignorance is bliss, but history is history.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@badism Good point badism... the huge majority (not positive, but I want to say 90%) of those southerners fighting in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Much like the North, rich plantation / slave owners could buy their way out of military service, so many of the richest slave owners in the south did not fight to keep the institution alive. Lee and others like Patrick Cleborne pushed hard to allow african americans to fight for the south with freedom as reward.. it was approved too late war
DKetch1966 1 year ago
@badism the point is that you DON'T live in the 1861 south and thus CANNOT understand the motivations and position of the average southerner. If you look at the letters of the average enlisted southerner you see a view of the war based around slavery - an enlisted man's paper in Tennessee wrote that "Any man who believes this is not a war for the emancipation of the Negro is either a liar or a fool."
They may not have owned slaves, but the southern social culture was based around slaves.
HarbingerRomanus 1 year ago
@HarbingerRomanus I don't dispute anything you said, but there were over one million men in the Confederate army, do you have enough letters to say that the the average view among them was that they were fighting to keep slavery? How many letters would that take....50,000? 100,000? Slavery or no, the CSA declared itself an independent nation and they we're fighting to keep it so and defending from invasion. The two sides had come to hate eachother and just wanted to fight, that's a fact too.
badism 1 year ago
@badism I agree most of the confederate army fought because they had to in order to defend their homes and stem the northern invasion. The ones who went north with Lee were those willing to try and put an end to the war because obviously they couldn't hold them off forever.
TOCR815 1 year ago
@badism
Certainly. The details are important. Like, for instance, that those in power? Plantation owners. You know, the minority who owned slaves. States rights? To do what, maintain slavery. Slavery was ingrained into souther culture to the point that some believed slaves were happy being, well, slaves. While most did not have slaves, they did fight for the institution if only because those in power, the plantation owners and their political allies, encouraged them to.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu You're basically saying that the south only wanted independence becuase they wanted to keep slavery? So if they freed the slaves Lincoln would have called an end to the war and reconized the Confederacy? Don't be naive, man. The only reason slavery even became the issue of the war for the Union (In 1863, 2 years into the war!) is because the war was wrong and Lincoln knew it and England and France were on the verge of reconizing the Confederacy. You're reading fairy tales.
badism 1 year ago
@badism
No one's being naive. You're just being an idiot. Slavery isn't the only reason, and I never said it was, but it's a huge reason. To pretend it isn't is just ignorant on your part. Saying we're all living in a fairy tale doesn't change the fact that you're deluding yourself that slavery had no part at all. Understand that things were coming to a head even before Abe took power. You need only look to Kansas and Nebraska or the D. Scott Case.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@badism
I feel like you may be confused. I think you believe that for it to have been an issuem, Lincoln had to have said something from the start. Silly, but understandable. . I guess. Sometimes its hard to see bigger pictures and most people see things with tunnel vision.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@badism "I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery a soldier fights for his country right or wrong" and I believe the South seceded to protect slavery but I fought for the south because I thought it was my patriotic duty". Both quotes made by John S. Mosby CSA officer and CW hero. The Southern aristocracy wanted independence to maintain their life style which was supported by slavery and they had the tight grip on southern politics not the common dirt farmer.
686204 1 year ago
@badism The North went to war to preserve the Union not abolish slavery. How could the war be wrong in Lincoln's eyes. He believed the south was wrong because there is no provision for secession in the Constitution. Also Lincoln may have declared emancipation because he wanted to ensure Britain and France did not get involved but neither Britain or France indicated they would. What held Britain and France from getting involved was the issue of slavery they were both against.
686204 1 year ago
@badism All the south had to do was abolish slavery and there was a good chance Britian and France might have come to their aid. They didn't I wonder why?
686204 1 year ago
@686204 First you have too understand the relationship between the races to get a grip of how southerns felt in regards too their peculiar institution. Slavery was intertwined into their whole fabric of live,to give up slavery was to give up their ideology, for most southerns whether or not they owned slaves the most important property of all was a white skin. Freedom for the slave, meant inequality for the whites.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 I don't wish to be impolite but I just can't believe your explanation on the justification for slavery in the south. I never realized that southern whites were so insecure. Anyway after slavery you reestablished your superiority by implementing segregation so not all was lost until the 1960's I guess?
686204 1 year ago
@686204 No I would not go as far and say that whites southerns felt insecure in regards to slavery.No, what I will say their insecurity came from The North undermining they way of life hence "Northern Aggression". As to reestablishing superiority the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments put paid too any such notion.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Oh I see you support slavery and you feel that the black man is inferior to the white man and the North was interfering with this privileged way of life . However even with these amendments the south established segregation once again putting the black man in his proper place right. Once again I will state that Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery in the South only preventing its expansion. So how was he undermining the Southern way of life?
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I am not a supporter of slavery but I do support the civil rights of the old south. I was just wondering how long it would take before Lincoln would become the topic well I will engaged you!!!. How could one evaluate the 4yrs of his Presidency 1861-65 the most turbulent in American history were a nation torn itself asunder. All because the election of one man who became the 16th Pres of the U.S who's name became synonymous with liberty,equality and freedom the world over..........
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 but is this the true face of Lincoln a giant on the world stage or is it peoples perception? Was Abe Lincoln above reproach.For myself I am skeptical of this adoration. I have just one nagging question. If Lincoln is such a good human being and statesman why did millions of his own countryman think other wise and seek to go it alone without his paternity?
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Lincoln had his faults the same as anyone however he was a smart politician and politically out smarted his counter parts in the South. Why did millions of his own countrymen not think he was a good human being and statesman it beats me because most seceded before he came to power. I assume you are referring to the Southern states that seceded. I would say his reputation is based on saving the Union and the emancipation proclamation which lead to the end of slavery in this country
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Yeah you right a nice piece of subterfuge by honest Abe. On the 22nd of july he wheeled out the EP for his cabinet cronies assessment. But what he needed was a military victory before it could reveal its auspicious content to the nation.That all slaves in rebellious states were "Forever Free" but the slaves in the 4 northern states shall remain enslaved. No emanciption for Union slaves.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Again I point out Lincoln's ability to politically out smart his southern counter parts. His primary goal as I stated before was to preserve the Union. While fighting a war you don't piss off your allies you wait for the opportune moment. The final outcome was at the end of the war all slaves were free right. The EP was another political ploy to insure the Brits & French did not get involved. All the CSA had to do was abolish slavery and there was a good chance the Brits & French....
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The only one's that Lincoln out smarted was the Hundreds of Thousands of soldiers who fought for the North. For if indeed these men had got a whimper that this war was being fought to free slaves then quite frankly there would not have been a war at all.Of course you right when you say Lincoln fought for Union but the South fought for the Constitution which be the way Lincoln swore to uphold.As too fooling the Southerns I don't think so!! As to the EP being a ploy it was a plot to ....
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 subvert the constitution. Lincoln could not abolish slavery constitutionally because slavery was protected by the constitution legally and politically. But he could act on the EP war power to seize enemy resources.slaves. As for the" House Divided"speech I was just pointed out what Lincoln's thoughts were on the slavery question that he stood four-square against the institution. As for your assumption of my denigration of the Blackman, again I state your a millon miles away ....
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 blame him for the souths secession in this case. Lets get one thing clear there is no mention of slavery anywhere in the Constitution at that time. Property was the word used to get around the word slavery I guess it gave those drafting the Constitution a clear conscience. So what's wrong with someone speaking out against slavery? When he took office he stated he would not attempt to abolish slavery in the south so how does that violate the Constitution.
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 the mark. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just one point regarding British and French entanglement into the conflict between the States. British interest was best serve by the America nation tearing itself asunder. So why get involve, of course arm both sides to the teeth and let them get on with it . As for France, their sphere of interest was Mexico a French satellite on the America continent, Again self intrest.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Regarding the Brits and French, the south had a diplomatic office in Britain and tried hard to get the Brits and French to give them diplomatic recognition. Ever heard of Edwin De Leon his sole purpose was to get the this recognition for the South. Also there is a book "Union in Peril" which explains the Unions fear of Britain or France getting involved. One of the things holding them back was the issue of slavery. The Brits were semi involved when they built 2 war ships for the South
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Now I have never heard or read that British vessels ran the Union blockade. But if they did I guess they would call it payback.Its a fact that during the Napoleonic wars America never recognized the British blockades and to further antagonize the British the U.S traded with both sides.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 The Brits were also involved in running the Union blockade of southern ports. De Leon had almost convinced the French to give them recondition by promising gradual abolishment of slavery. They changed their minds at the last moment because they wanted outright abolishment. The CSA was established for the Southern aristocracy which required slavery to maintain its life style. It was wrong and the South made the wrong decision to secede. Lincoln did not force them in any way to do so.
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 As stated before Lincoln was not prepared to go to war over the issue of slavery but to perserve the Union. Of course he knew he could not expect men to fight a war over the issue of slavery. Again political smarts comes into play. Funny you are claiming Lincoln did not uphold the Constitution tell me where he violated it. The South violated it by seceding no where in the constitution does it state secession is an option. They seceded before Lincoln ever took power so how can you ....
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Secession, a big topic on its own,never mind the other questions posed by you. I'll answer this question the way a southerner would come at it in pre 1861. The South interpretation of the Constitution argued that through their ratifying conventions created the Constitution and thus the Federal Gov. The states, the creators,were sovereign, not the Federal Gov the created.Carried to its logical conclusion this thesis maintained that as states had decided individually to come into the Union
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 each could individually decide to leave it.To the southern populace,they were not fighting to keep slaves they fought for the preservation [ their version] of the Republic of the Founding Fathers.....a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property and their Constitutional liberties.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Look all states agreed to a Federal Gov. and entered into a legal agreement with the Feds when they sighed approval of the Constitution. Under the terms of any legal agreement unless specified no one can unilaterally break a contract. Since secession is not specified in the Constitution and the Feds did not agree to it the southern states were in violation of their signed agreement with the Feds.
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Back then as now if there were differences of opinion between the Feds and a State it was to be submitted to the Supreme Court for Legal interpretation. The South did not do this they felt they were right and ignored the SC why have it if you don't use it. The Brits were involved in the blockade running alright check your history books. The South was fighting for the Southern Aristocracy and their right to have slaves cut out the property business.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Again, I reiterate that Lincoln's adoption of the EP subverted the Constitution, the abolishment of slavery, the right to own property granted ,a euphemism. Strange that the North's five most populous states' who voted for Lincoln in1860 return Democratic majorities in the fall elections of 62 post the EP. In fact Lincoln was rejected in his own state and only one in ten soldiers approved emancipation.Hardly a ringing endorsement.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@686204 Why did the South fear Lincoln's presidency? From 1854, when he returned to politics until nominated for President in 1860 the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery and in course for ultimate extinction.Lincoln gave 175 political speeches on the subject in those 6yrs.What did the South have to fear?
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Under those circumstances I have no pity on the South and they deserved everything they got even if it meant violating the Constitution. However, as we all know Lincoln stated when he took office that he had no intention of abolishing slavery in the South. What you don't seem to understand is even if legal under the Constitution slavery/property was wrong in fact it was in violation of the declaration of Independence (all men are created equal).
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Two points, I'll be concise. Firstly the interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court ruling in regards to "Dred Scott" 1857: Secondly,the Declaration of Independence was referring to white men, a negro was inferior a commodity pre1863:
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 I know the declaration of independence was referring to white men. However it does not say all white men are created equal, it says all men are created equal. If you look at it from one point of view it is a lie since slavery existed in our Country. It was the main reason slavery was referred to as property in the Constitution. When it comes right down to it our Country was formed based on a lie and the founding father knew it .........
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 That's why appeasements were made in the Constitution using the word property to make certain states happy and to give a clean consciences to those opposed to slavery. Everyone who signed the Constitution knew that someday slavery would be an issue but they were not prepared to address the issue at that time plain and simple. I have no idea why you throw out the Dredi Scott decision. It has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Slavery at the time was the done thing. The big nation's in the world traded in slavery so it was not an issue at that time.Of course today its repugnant too think that one human being can own another but I fear that's man inhumanity to man. As to" Dred Scott" this case had nothing to do with secession what ever. The Supreme Court ruling in 1857 related too interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the slavery question. the courts decision favoured the South....
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 therefore there was no need to apply to the Supreme Court for a review. The Constitutional position as given by the court recognized the rights and liberties of slaveholders in all states and Terr in America.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Re the Constitution on slavery.Article IV section2,stipulated that any "person held to service or labour in another state" who escaped to another "shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labour shall be due." Prigg v Pennsylvannia 1842. A federal law of 1793 authorized slaveowners to cross state lines to recapture their property and bring it before any local magistrate or federal court to prove ownership.
noleybo56 1 year ago
@noleybo56 It's my contention they did not follow this process because they were afraid of lossing. For that matter the North had the same option and did not take it for the same reason. However, having said that the Supreme Court in 1869 did rule that secession was illegal. It should also be recognized that while Lincoln was elected on the premise that his party would prevent the expansion of slavery the south seceded before he was elected and could do anything about it.
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 Also there has been many a President/political party elected on the basis of promises that they were not able to implement. In other words the South jumped the gun. Slavery at the time was being abolished by most all big nations including most Northern states. It was recognized as evil and is one of the reasons the CSA was never recognized as an official country they refused to change with the times. The CSA lived for slavery and died by it justice was served.
686204 1 year ago
@noleybo56 I see where you are coming from now and you have a point on that issue. However I was discussing the issue of secession and whether or not it was legal. My claim is because there is no mention of secession in the Constitution the South should have taken it to the Supreme Court for a legal review and if it was legal in their opinion the South would legally have the grounds to secede. If they followed that process and won Lincoln would not have had a leg to stand on they didn't.
686204 1 year ago