The American Civil War.

[The Whale]

Lets talk about it.

I'll start off by saying that the south beat its self and that Lee was the best Geniral in the war.... Had he not lost Jackson the south may vary well have won the war.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Lets talk about it.

I'll start off by saying that the south beat its self and that Lee was the best Geniral in the war.... Had he not lost Jackson the south may vary well have won the war.

OK mate, whilst that's a nice (albeit unsupported) hypothesis, can you please give us a starting point which lays out you argument and proposition, as the above is just an opinion?

We need:

1). How do you support that view - dates, battles, synopses, analyses and outcomes of events and your understanding of the key attributes/failings of the main protagonists (i.e. Lee & Jackson)? You might want to toss in an overview of the political aspirations and problems faced of the two respective presidents of the Confederacy and the Union.

2). What events support your proposition?

3). In which way did "the south beat itself" - what argument or information can you offer which supports your view?


If you can open with a supported proposition, you've every chance of others wanting to join in the debate. :D

[yesfannh]

I think the South, being that it was mostly built around agriculture,was really doomed to lose the war from the outset. The North, with it's industrial base was more able to maintain a longer more costly war. The South also was built around slavery and once Emancipation was proclaimed...all that "free" labor in the South vanished. The North's war machine never really was threatend by Southern armies where as the North destroyed much of the South's infrastructure. Good topic Whale!!

[Olorin]

The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

[yesfannh]

The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

Perhaps, in time, there may even be a thread on the Slavery topic.

Even though it may have just been a piece of paper it was the ideal of it that had many slaves fleeing the South even before it fell.

[yesanneyes]

We took my son to Gettysburg (First Civil War Memorial) over the weekend, and he was just amazed looking at the battlefields. We went to the museum first, then made our way around the monuments with all the soldiers' names. Wow. There was a feeling in the air.

[The Whale]

I think the South, being that it was mostly built around agriculture,was really doomed to lose the war from the outset. The North, with it's industrial base was more able to maintain a longer more costly war. The South also was built around slavery and once Emancipation was proclaimed...all that "free" labor in the South vanished. The North's war machine never really was threatend by Southern armies where as the North destroyed much of the South's infrastructure. Good topic Whale!!


The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

The Emancipation Proclomation was not about freeing slaves but about changing the point of the war from State Rights to Human rights which is what Abe Lincoln knew it would take to draw in International aid and help from Europe and the U.K. A brilliant move by all accounts. It was the last nail in the coffin for the south other then there own HUGE mistake of going off the deffensive and on the offensive.

OK mate, whilst that's a nice (albeit unsupported) hypothesis, can you please give us a starting point which lays out you argument and proposition, as the above is just an opinion?

We need:

1). How do you support that view - dates, battles, synopses, analyses and outcomes of events and your understanding of the key attributes/failings of the main protagonists (i.e. Lee & Jackson)? You might want to toss in an overview of the political aspirations and problems faced of the two respective presidents of the Confederacy and the Union.

2). What events support your proposition?

3). In which way did "the south beat itself" - what argument or information can you offer which supports your view?


If you can open with a supported proposition, you've every chance of others wanting to join in the debate. :D
Mate.... you walked right in to this one... this is my favorit area of History (other then the forming of union and the constitutional and fedrialist thinking are) and I would be more then happy to develope this when I'm not at work.... but for now let me say that it was Lee's misgudgment to go north in to Union tarritoury that cost the south the war. The Union would have had a hard time traveling in to the deep south and winning battles and they did have a hard time (The Union actually lost battles after Gettysburg in the south). If the Confedirate army had any chance at Gettysburg it would have needed the in battle taction mind of Jackson to pull it off. That coupled with Long Streets hesitance and lack of confidence to proceed north and engage the Union army ment certin doom for the South. Lee litarly was counting on God to see them through because even he knew that they were up agenst tall odds and should never have went North of the Virginia's.

The South had pushed the Union out of Confedirate tarritory but followed it north only after they were able to regroup at Gettysburg.... a classic blunder. Had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting there on the 2nd day things would have been diffrent... but if you ask me they should have never even ventured in to the North they should have withdrawn and regrouped....

If you think about it the south always conciderd it a war of "Northern Agression" and they thought there souvernty as States were being violated. Invadeing Northern states did not fit in to the Confedirate mold for Forgine or Domestic Policy. This had been mentioned in letters between Jefferson and Lee the problum was that Lee really did have more Power and say then did Jefferson the Confedirate Presidant....

I can go in to further detail later but I'm at work and I don't have my books and papers to check on dates and spellings and such.. but trust me I want to kick these notions around with ya'all... so give me some stuff to think about would ya?

[yesfannh]

The Emancipation Proclamation

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Mate.... you walked right in to this one... this is my favourite area of History (other then the forming of union and the constitutional and federalist thinking are) and I would be more then happy to develop this when I'm not at work....

Calm down Cochise ;) :D I merely wanted an expanded initial proposition - all debates have to start with one which supports the proponent's stance and position, so that other readers may decide to take either a counter or allied view and argue/debate accordingly.

The aim of the game in any debate is either to prove your initial proposition, to the satisfaction of your opponents, or at least convince them that, in the absence of any unavailable information, that your proposition is the most likely to be the case.

For my part, I'm here to learn about this period in History - it not being my metier or forte. :D Apologies in advance if some of the questions appear a little 'bone' - but remember, this is your specialist subject, not mine. Damned fine choice of topic though!


...but for now let me say that it was Lee's misjudgement to go north in to Union territory that cost the south the war.

And an excellent start - all we have to so now is decide whether you can develop & support that assertion as having basis in fact.

'Misjudgement' how? Did he over-extend his supply and logistics lines to the front? Did he miscalculate the number of battalions he'd need for the anticipated battles ahead? Did he not have good intelligence on Union activity/capability/numbers/defences in the AO?


...The Union would have had a hard time travelling in to the deep south and winning battles and they did have a hard time...

Why would the Union have a hard time doing so? Again - were they unprepared (politically or militarily), not have the requisite manpower, munitions? Given their then known capabilities, might they also faced being over-extended in their lines?



...(The Union actually lost battles after Gettysburg in the south). If the Confederate army had any chance at Gettysburg it would have needed the in-battle tactician mind of Jackson to pull it off.

And it is therefore your assertion that the South lost Gettysburg due to being what? - being out-manoeuvred, out-soldiered, or that Jackson used his superior tactical skills to read the lie of the land and use it to his advantage as Wellington did against Napoleon at Waterloo; or was the South merely overwhelmed by the North on all fronts?

In all battles there is a key 'difference' - sometimes almost an imperceptible one - which causes one side to win and the other to lose: so what was the difference, in your reckoning, here?


...That coupled with Long Street's hesitance and lack of confidence to proceed north and engage the Union army meant certain doom for the South.

So what was it that caused Longstreet's hesitation in heading north - leading to his confidence being eroded? And what was so pivotal in any engagement with the north at this stage which spelled doom for the South?


...Lee literally was counting on God to see them through because even he knew that they were up against tall odds and should never have went North of the Virginia's.

What was it that reduced Lee to placing his hope for any victory in God alone? What were these 'tall odds' being faced by his side which might have suggested that their move to the Virginias was not tactility a sound idea? Facing superior forces, lie of the land (and tactical layout for Lee's assembled forces), or being unprepared?


The South had pushed the Union out of Confederate territory but followed it north only after they were able to regroup at Gettysburg.... a classic blunder. Had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting there on the 2nd day things would have been different... but if you ask me they should have never even ventured in to the North they should have withdrawn and regrouped....

OK, there is a number of questions to be asked here, given your above appraisal:

1. Why was regrouping at or prior to Gettysburg a "classic blunder"? Surely dispersed/strung-out and logistically unsupported forces are diluted in their ability/capabillty to attack/defend or take the fight to the enemy?

2. What makes you think that had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting at Gettysburg then things might have been different? And why is the 2nd day of key importance?

3. You say that they (the South) should not have ventured North and should have regrouped, and yet you maintain that earlier (see question 1.) that regrouping under different(?) circumstances was a "classic blunder"? What differentiates the two - why was one regrouping a sound decision and the other a blunder?


If you think about it the south always considered it a war of "Northern Aggression" and they thought their sovereignty as States were being violated.

And how do you see the above assertion as providing a warning for modern-day USA?

Allow me to elucidate.

Would it be fair to say that there was no feeling of national cohesion or any sense of national identity (i.e. that the US - as it then stood - was just a loose collation of non-allied 'statelettes') at the time of the War? Did the South see itself as 'another country'? Why was this?


Invading Northern states did not fit in to the Confederate mould for Foreign or Domestic Policy.

That statement allows me to think that the South did indeed see itself as 'another country', with its own operating procedures - can this be said to be true 10 years before the War started and why? Other than the stock simplistic answer of 'differences over slavery' - what caused the South to split and engage in this war?


...This had been mentioned in letters between Jefferson and Lee the problem was that Lee really did have more Power and say than did Jefferson the Confederate President....

And what conclusion do you draw from the fact that a mere field general (Lee) had more decision making power than that of the nominal (in your summary) president of the Confederacy?

Might the fact that a military man be given more power than (I'm assuming) an elected man have doomed the South? Had the civilian (Jefferson) been supreme in his position, authority and power-base, might the war have taken a different plan, route and course? Might the battles chosen to be fought been different?


I can go in to further detail later but I'm at work and I don't have my books and papers to check on dates and spellings and such.. but trust me I want to kick these notions around with ya'all... so give me some stuff to think about would ya?

I trust I might have and look forward to your responses :D

[The Whale]

I so wish I wasnt at work right now.....!

[BillGuitar]

We took my son to Gettysburg (First Civil War Memorial) over the weekend, and he was just amazed looking at the battlefields. We went to the museum first, then made our way around the monuments with all the soldiers' names. Wow. There was a feeling in the air.

Supposedly one of the most haunted places in the U.S.
You felt something alright. *shudder*

There's some lighthouse right next to a Civil War battlefield that had the frickin' CREEPIEST thing I've ever heard. The answering machine takes a call at like 3:00 in the morning - but no one answers or says anything - just static and weird electronic noises that went on for about a minute...

Who calls a lighthouse (abandoned) in the middle of the night?

I still wish I hadn't seen that on the History Channel. Freaks me out just typing this!

Bad war. Stupid people. *sigh*

[tardistraveler]

I can't discuss this from the viewpoint of a historian or a military tactician. I can only offer these observations.

Over 600,000 people lost their lives in this war. It's mind-boggling to even THINK about it . . . a very stupid war, with heinous consequences.

On some level, the struggle isn't even completely over with today. The feeling of southerners towards northerners goes beyond anything racial in nature. There is certainly some hostility there still today.

I was raised in a south who espoused the slogan "The South Shall Rise Again". I think it really has, although not quite in the way that the folks who coined that phrase envisioned.

I've been to a number of Civil War battlefields. This was once my parents' idea of a "fun" vacation, so we'd go here and there, tramping across the battlefields, reading all the markers that told what happened where. It's amazing the vibe you get in these places . . . sometimes it's an intense energy, and other times it's that of total despair. I've spent a lot of time in the Chattanooga/Chicamauga area, and you can feel the passion of what happened there. The worst was at Shiloh . . . the vibe there was sickening . . . you could feel the horror of what the men there endured, and it persists today.

It IS a fascinating period in our history, but one I'm not especially proud of.

And I've always wondered what might have occurred if the South had won the war, or if the decision had been made to simply let them secede, and not fight? Perhaps some of you historians out here can address that one . . . ;)

[BillGuitar]

I remember visiting the Gettysburg museum and the battlefields, with my family. I was very young too, pre-teens, definitely. And that place just weirded me out. Diane is right - you can feel negative karma, or something, in the air. Just not a fun place to be. I couldn't wait to get away...

I really have no desire to go back.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I so wish I wasn't at work right now.....!

So do I mate - please hurry home and complete my education :D

[Hill St.]

I so wish I wasnt at work right now.....!

Free the Whale!

[orpheus]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

[Olorin]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

Truly.

And what is surprising is that less than a hundred years before, the colonists had used more modern tactics, more guerilla-like tactics, with great success against the redcoats—lying in hiding and blasting them as they marched by.

Whenever the paradigm of war changes, the side that doesn't make the switch generally loses.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

Aye, but you're speaking with the benefit on hindsight - that which makes us all geniuses.

The US Civil War was fought on the same lines as the Peninsular War & Waterloo (Wellington vs Napoleon) where columns and 'lines' stood to against each other; infantry cannonade and fusillade and cavalry charges were 'set-piece' manoeuvres. Only latterly, indeed after only the early stages of WW I were these mistakes corrected - alas, not in time for the poor souls who went to their deaths here.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Truly.

And what is surprising is that less than a hundred years before, the colonists had used more modern tactics, more guerilla-like tactics, with great success against the redcoats—lying in hiding and blasting them as they marched by.

Whenever the paradigm of war changes, the side that doesn't make the switch generally loses.

What you describe being, in effect and result, the actions of a modern day special forces unit - small, agile and mobile teams impacting disproportionate to their size damages on a lot larger force, on their own terms and ignoring the "usual" 'rules of war'.

[Yes.2]

It was a war worth fightin'

Slavery is a blackmark worth removing. Lincoln, was quite an individual. I don't like how he's the one on the penny. He should be the one on the 50 dollar bill at least.

[orpheus]

Aye, but you're speaking with the benefit on hindsight - that which makes us all geniuses.

The US Civil War was fought on the same lines as the Peninsular War & Waterloo (Wellington vs Napoleon) where columns and 'lines' stood to against each other; infantry cannonade and fusillade and cavalry charges were 'set-piece' manoeuvres. Only latterly, indeed after only the early stages of WW I were these mistakes corrected - alas, not in time for the poor souls who went to their deaths here.

So true. I can't even imagine the kind of bravery it would take to march into a place like the Devil's Den knowing your chances of survival are minimal at best.

Awe inspiring, really - in a tragic way.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

So true. I can't even imagine the kind of bravery it would take to march into a place like the Devil's Den knowing your chances of survival are minimal at best.

Awe inspiring, really - in a tragic way.

You're right mate. Big Boys' Rules.

One of the few [factual] things Mel Gibson ever got right in his protrayals of History, was the line alignment of the British and the Colonialists standing yards apart and firing at each other in battle.

Why?

Because, at the time, that's all they were taught, in a war of attrition, it took to beat an enemy.

Happily nowadays we know different.

[yesfannh]

You're right mate. Big Boys' Rules.

One of the few [factual] things Mel Gibson ever got right in his protrayals of History, was the line alignment of the British and the Colonialists standing yards apart and firing at each other in battle.

Why?

Because, at the time, that's all they were taught, in a war of attrition, it took to beat an enemy.

Happily nowadays we know different.

Okay then, I'm seeing a Revolutionary War thread starting.........

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Okay then, I'm seeing a Revolutionary War thread starting.........

And I'm happy to see it so start :D

[Olorin]

Now come on guys, don't start a Revolutionary War thread. You'll get the Americans and the Brits on our forum arguing with each other and getting upset. Isn't enough that the liberals and conservatives are already going at it? ;)

[yesfannh]

Now come on guys, don't start a Revolutionary War thread. You'll get the Americans and the Brits on our forum arguing with each other and getting upset. Isn't enough that the liberals and conservatives are already going at it? ;)

Sounds like fun to me.........http://www.yesfans.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[True Believer]

I've always been interested in the Civil War since ... way back. First started when I used to read JT Edson's western books (did you know he was a postman from England, or something like that?). I loved them totally. The main characters fought for the South in the war, and as I was madly in love with Dusty Fog (hey, I was about 11, remember) the interest started then.

Subsequently, I bought the Ken Burns vids and have also read all of Shelby Foote's The Civil War - A Narrative. That was no mean feat let me tell you! 3 huge books ... took me almost a year to get through them. But I recommend them.

It's a fascinating period of history - there are so many Civil War buffs out there - where you least expect them too.

[pedro skychaser]

I've always been interested in the Civil War since ... way back. First started when I used to read JT Edson's western books (did you know he was a postman from England, or something like that?). I loved them totally. The main characters fought for the South in the war, and as I was madly in love with Dusty Fog (hey, I was about 11, remember) the interest started then.

Subsequently, I bought the Ken Burns vids and have also read all of Shelby Foote's The Civil War - A Narrative. That was no mean feat let me tell you! 3 huge books ... took me almost a year to get through them. But I recommend them.

It's a fascinating period of history - there are so many Civil War buffs out there - where you least expect them too.


YEAH -YOU +bob carr+ kim beazley......:Wow:

[True Believer]

YEAH -YOU +bob carr+ kim beazley......:Wow:
Please don't associate me with them!

[orpheus]

Subsequently, I bought the Ken Burns vids and have also read all of Shelby Foote's The Civil War - A Narrative. That was no mean feat let me tell you! 3 huge books ... took me almost a year to get through them. But I recommend them.

I loved Shelby Foote's take on the war in Ken Burns. Truly a gracious southern gentleman with great insight on causes and consequences. If I can find his narrative, I'll give it a read

[Ron Drummond]

We took my son to Gettysburg (First Civil War Memorial) over the weekend, and he was just amazed looking at the battlefields. We went to the museum first, then made our way around the monuments with all the soldiers' names. Wow. There was a feeling in the air.I've been living on the east coast for three years now, but have so far made little effort to visit historic sites. Just recently I've been thinking I should visit Gettysburg. I can well believe there's a "feeling" in the air, as you and several other Yesfans have said.

Unlike a lot of folks, I've mostly had very little interest in the Civil War -- not entirely sure why, though its sheer awfullness has been off-putting for sure. What in recent months has started to change that, what's provided an opening for me into that bottomless, unfathomable period in history is the doorway called Abraham Lincoln. I'm presently reading three biographies of Lincoln, and one in particular is seriously blowing my mind -- a book published early this year: President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, by William Lee Miller. Miller it turns out is one of the foremost Lincoln scholars in the world, having devoted his entire professional career to Civil War studies and Lincoln studies. His approach is to explore Lincoln's moral and ethical character, and the more I read the more I am convinced that Lincoln was not only our greatest president, by a wide margin, but that he was also the finest human being ever to occupy the office, the rarest of souls. I can't recommend the book more highly.

A fourth book I picked up recently and have only just started is called The Gettysburg Gospel: The Lincoln Speech That Nobody Knows, by Gabor Boritt, a book-length study of Lincoln's most famous utterance. Looks promising.

I think it would do all of us good to measure the current presidential candidates against the standards embodied in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address, which is surely the finest speech any President has ever given. What a strange thing to contemplate what might have happened if Lincoln had lived and served out his second term -- on the one hand Lincoln himself would probably not be as revered today as he is, but on the other hand I suspect the country would be better off than it is, and the world overall a quite different place. Oh, for the means to travel to parallel universes and see for oneself!

[YesCarolinita]

I can't discuss this from the viewpoint of a historian or a military tactician. I can only offer these observations.

Over 600,000 people lost their lives in this war. It's mind-boggling to even THINK about it . . . a very stupid war, with heinous consequences.

On some level, the struggle isn't even completely over with today. The feeling of southerners towards northerners goes beyond anything racial in nature. There is certainly some hostility there still today.

I was raised in a south who espoused the slogan "The South Shall Rise Again". I think it really has, although not quite in the way that the folks who coined that phrase envisioned.

And I've always wondered what might have occurred if the South had won the war, or if the decision had been made to simply let them secede, and not fight? Perhaps some of you historians out here can address that one . . . ;)

To this day, I often wonder why some Southern born/raised people are fighting the Civil War still today and hold such hate for people in the North. I have a close friend who was raised in Piedmont Alabama. She moved her 15 years ago-her brothers still refuse to cross the Mason-Dixie line-which is crazy if you ask me. Her Mom comes to visit all the time but the men in her family refuse to leave the south. I just don't understand that mentality. Not very patriotic either, but i guess this is a rebel thing.
I think it all boils down to the way one was raised and the education one was given during our formative years.

Obviously, one could believe if the South had won the Civil War, the USA would not see Obama running for President nor would Palin on the VP ticket in 2008. I think the fact many southerners have the same mentality about the "South Rising Again" is scary to many because the south will vote in the 2008 election, and who's to poll who they will vote for since there is a black and a woman running on different tickets. This is going to be interesting to see the southern state voting totals...

[YesCarolinita]

I've been living on the east coast for three years now, but have so far made little effort to visit historic sites. Just recently I've been thinking I should visit Gettysburg. I can well believe there's a "feeling" in the air, as you and several other Yesfans have said.

Unlike a lot of folks, I've mostly had very little interest in the Civil War -- not entirely sure why, though its sheer awfullness has been off-putting for sure. What in recent months has started to change that, what's provided an opening for me into that bottomless, unfathomable period in history is the doorway called Abraham Lincoln. I'm presently reading three biographies of Lincoln, and one in particular is seriously blowing my mind -- a book published early this year: President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, by William Lee Miller. Miller it turns out is one of the foremost Lincoln scholars in the world, having devoted his entire professional career to Civil War studies and Lincoln studies. His approach is to explore Lincoln's moral and ethical character, and the more I read the more I am convinced that Lincoln was not only our greatest president, by a wide margin, but that he was also the finest human being ever to occupy the office, the rarest of souls. I can't recommend the book more highly.

A fourth book I picked up recently and have only just started is called The Gettysburg Gospel: The Lincoln Speech That Nobody Knows, by Gabor Boritt, a book-length study of Lincoln's most famous utterance. Looks promising.

I think it would do all of us good to measure the current presidential candidates against the standards embodied in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address, which is surely the finest speech any President has ever given. What a strange thing to contemplate what might have happened if Lincoln had lived and served out his second term -- on the one hand Lincoln himself would probably not be as revered today as he is, but on the other hand I suspect the country would be better off than it is, and the world overall a quite different place. Oh, for the means to travel to parallel universes and see for oneself!

Thanks Ron for the info. I have always wished many current politicans modeled themselves after Lincoln-he was a great statesman. I believe if he lived longer-he may have done many more great things for our country too. Honest Abe, he was the best President-I still think this today from what I read in the history books. I loved how Abe stood tall against the Copperheads push to stop him from abolishing slavery and the radical republicans who critized Abe when he didn't move fast enough to abolish slavery. Abe's main issue during his reign as our president was to end slavery-and he accomplished this goal. I never knew until recently that Andrew Johnson, (from Tennessee) a war Democrat was placed on Abe's running ticket by the Republican party in order to get unity across the board. The party's new name was the 'Union Party,' thus united both parties (or so they say).

[Lulu Mortice]

To this day, I often wonder why some Southern born/raised people are fighting the Civil War still today and hold such hate for people in the North. I have a close friend who was raised in Piedmont Alabama. She moved her 15 years ago-her brothers still refuse to cross the Mason-Dixie line-which is crazy if you ask me. Her Mom comes to visit all the time but the men in her family refuse to leave the south. I just don't understand that mentality. Not very patriotic either, but i guess this is a rebel thing.
I think it all boils down to the way one was raised and the education one was given during our formative years.

Obviously, one could believe if the South had won the Civil War, the USA would not see Obama running for President nor would Palin on the VP ticket in 2008. I think the fact many southerners have the same mentality about the "South Rising Again" is scary to many because the south will vote in the 2008 election, and who's to poll who they will vote for since there is a black and a woman running on different tickets. This is going to be interesting to see the southern state voting totals...


Before the Civil War, the South was extremely wealthy, much wealthier than the north, because it produced 2/3 of the entire world supply of cotton. It could not do that without slaves. When slavery was abolished, not only was cotton production reduced, it was discovered that years of cultivating cotton without crop rotation had wrecked the soil, reducing production further.

In the meantime, the North became increasingly wealthy because of industrialisation - initially through milling the cotton produced by the South.

So the balance of power between North and South changed post Civil War. The people most concerned with the South rising again ironically are the people who had gained nothing from Southern wealth pre Civil War - the poor whites working on marginal land or in terrible conditions in the mines, as documented by FDR's New Deal photographic project in the 30s. It's a dream they cling to as a kind of panacea against reality.

Good explanation here:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm

[YesCarolinita]

Before the Civil War, the South was extremely wealthy, much wealthier than the north, because it produced 2/3 of the entire world supply of cotton. It could not do that without slaves. When slavery was abolished, not only was cotton production reduced, it was discovered that years of cultivating cotton without crop rotation had wrecked the soil, reducing production further.

In the meantime, the North became increasingly wealthy because of industrialisation - initially through milling the cotton produced by the South.

So the balance of power between North and South changed post Civil War. The people most concerned with the South rising again ironically are the people who had gained nothing from Southern wealth pre Civil War - the poor whites working on marginal land or in terrible conditions in the mines, as documented by FDR's New Deal photographic project in the 30s. It's a dream they cling to as a kind of panacea against reality.

Good explanation here:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm

Thanks Lu. I went to University of Phoenix and took a US History class. Here is a paper I wrote on examining the Civil War:



Examining the Civil War

The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle. There are still different opinions on the real cause of the war. Many people believed the war was criminal and nothing but blood shed because the politicians could not resolve their differences. In the days of the American Revolution and of the adoption of the Constitution, both the North and the South agreed that they were trying to form one nation. However, sectionalism steadily grew stronger. During the nineteenth century, the South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy solely founded on slavery and the plantation system. They produced the staples, especially cotton, from which the South kept its economy going. The North had its own agricultural resources, was always more advanced commercially, and expanding industrially.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>[/font]
The industrial age came about in the North while the South refused to embrace the evolution. The North did not need the earn revenues through cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. The South’s agriculture was their mainstay. The most significant advances in technology put the North at an advantage: Textile (cotton gin) the steam engine (steam boat), locomotive engine/travel, the assembly line, and electricity. The North chose to rapidly industrialize where the South did not. Development meant exasperated cost to the South; Slave labor was cheaper than paid labor. By the 18th and 19th centuries, slaveholders were breeding their own slaves, investing in generations of free labor.
Socially, through the work of the abolitionist and many of the great thinkers (of this time) the North was completely put off by the notion of slavery. Freed slaves lived in the North and were full participants in or at all levels of society. Many of blacks were domestics, but they were able to earn a living and provide for their families. Many black men were able to work in the industrialized areas and paid salaries far less than their white counterparts, because they were not seen as equals, and in the minds of many of free Blacks, it was far better than slavery. The Federal government applied a lot of pressure to abolish Slavery; due to societal views. In the south slaves would never participate in their society in other capacity. In the minds of many Southerners, slavery was no more and in many cases less than livestock--sub-human at best. Although, the South tried to have them counted as equals when it came to representation in Congress and the Senate; this was as far as this thinking went.
The economical and social differences lead to differences in politics too. The line became so far divided that this eventually lead to the Civil War. The South soon became depress from their economic woes. The North was economically stable. The modernization and urbanization of the North provided an infrastructure for the North to produce goods that had a better impact on the world as far as exporting goods were concerned. The South felt like the North was putting a chokehold on the economical because of their politic view on slavery and threaten to leave the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Union</st1:place>. Once President Lincoln decided that he would use his executive powers to free the slaves, the act became the catalyst to the impending Civil War. (McGraw—Hill, 2002)<o:p></o:p>
As with all wars, the American Civil War was mainly based on the ideas of different opinions. During the events leading up to the Civil War, the country had been trying to establish one unified government for some time. This democratic nation was struggling since the balance of powers had not been directly established, and leaders from both the north and south had their strong opinions about how things should be run. Whine the northern leaders strongly believed in secession, the southern leaders wanted concession. With both sides strongly opinionated about their beliefs, there is almost no ways that the situations could have been resolved peacefully. <o:p></o:p>
Since the colonies were literally separated by vast areas of land, they were trying to combine two separate nations. These two different nations were built on two types of income. The north focused on industry by focusing on ship building and mills. The South focused on large cash crops, which used slave labor to cut cost. The North had no need for slave labor and felt that the south should not use it as well. The southern plantation owners felt that they needed the slave labor in order to survive. Neither of the sides was willing to budge and felt that war was the only solution. Therefore, the democratic nation failed to resolve the issue peacefully. <o:p></o:p>
As the Civil War began the economy of the South and North differed immensely. The North developed a commercial market economy aided by free-laborers while the South prominently had slave-based labor systems working on large Cotton and tobacco plantations. During the War, the economic systems of the South seemed to suffer the most. As the war progressed, the South had severe shortages of metals and other materials because of the railroads that were cut off or destroyed by the North. The blockades by the North had collapsed transportation and eventually ruined the South’s economy. The North on the other hand had a more industrialized economy which could supply Union troops with arms and supplies quicker then the South. The North also had control of most of the eastern coast and excellent links between Union cities. Therefore, the North economic system continued to strive and grow. <o:p></o:p>
The political impacts during the war seemed to effect the North more significantly because of its more established political system. For the first time in history, Congress passed federal conscription law to make up for fewer volunteers. Before the draft, the North as well as the South relied on volunteers to fill its ranks. However, the South did have sort of a draft, by forcing military aged men into the ranks of the confederacy. The first income tax in the nation was established due to rising war costs. This raised millions and paid about two thirds of the cost. During the War President Lincoln established that certain civil liberties could be suspended because the nation was at war, thus bending the Constitution for the first time. All though it was not supported by all of Congress, it was still accepted into law.<o:p></o:p>
The War also had a gigantic social impact on African-American lives, primarily after the South fell and North prevailed. With the victory came the freedom to all slaves; however, the racial prejudice was still strongly evident. Blacks had to deal with the racial prejudices of not only the South, but of the North as well while also establishing themselves as equals. Black-Americans continued to live with limited economic opportunity and legal discrimination long after the war had ended.

References<o:p></o:p>

McGraw—Hill, (2002), The <st1:place w:st="on">Union</st1:place> Broken, The Republic Transformed and
Tested, p405
<o:p></o:p>
Wikipedia. (2006). The American Civil War. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc.
Retrieved March 07, 2006 from the World Wide Web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
U.S.-Civil war. (1993). Causes of the Civil War. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Columbia</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Univ.</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Press.
Retrieved March 08, 2006 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.us-civilwar.com/ <o:p></o:p>

[Olorin]

Yes, it is amazing that over 140 years after the Civil War, some people are still fighting it. Yet they don't call it the Civil War in the South. It's generally referred to as the War Between the States, which attempts to perpetuate the notion that the US was a loose collection of states that could pull out and go their own way on their own whim. To whatever extent that was true, the Civil War brought a decisive end to it, Sarah Palin and her Alaska Independence Party notwithstanding. It's said that prior to the War, people said "the United States are," while after the War, people say "the United States is."

People in the South also refer to "The War of Northern Agression," which is an absurdity. The War turned from a war of words into a shooting war because a Federal base, Fort Sumter, was seized, and states began seceding. Some feel this was intentional Southern provocation to start a war that they thought they would win. Whether that's true or not, it remains that southern states attempted to secede, and the War was a response to that.

Here I have to take issue with the notion that Lincoln's main cause was to abolish slavery. That's not correct. He fought to preserve the Union. Here's the direct quote:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
In any case, people in the South need to get over the Civil War. It's over. Nobody alive today personally lost anybody in the war. To refuse to cross the Mason Dixon line is pretty silly. But this all reminds me of Rhett Butler's comment in Gone With the Wind, when he questions the South's chances, should war break out. He says that all the South has is arrogance and cotton. On a more serious note, there's a book about this topic that's supposed to be very good, though I've never read it. In any case, it's called Confederates in the Attic.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Just as I need to be a re-entrant into Lou's Ozzie piece, has 'The Whale' come back to answer the questions here?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Before the Civil War, the South was extremely wealthy, much wealthier than the north, because it produced 2/3 of the entire world supply of cotton. It could not do that without slaves. When slavery was abolished, not only was cotton production reduced, it was discovered that years of cultivating cotton without crop rotation had wrecked the soil, reducing production further.

In the meantime, the North became increasingly wealthy because of industrialisation - initially through milling the cotton produced by the South.

So the balance of power between North and South changed post Civil War. The people most concerned with the South rising again ironically are the people who had gained nothing from Southern wealth pre Civil War - the poor whites working on marginal land or in terrible conditions in the mines, as documented by FDR's New Deal photographic project in the 30s. It's a dream they cling to as a kind of panacea against reality.

Good explanation here:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm

Exactly - as signified by the complete absence of any cotton fields worth a damn in the six New England (i.e. Union) states. The Confederacy (i.e. Southern) states' climate was/is more akin to the Bahamas and the rest of the West Indies (what the US refer to as 'The Caribbean') where cotton was king - soil: cotton, slaves and molasses - the Confederacy ideal...whilst never thinking about what it took to produce all them.

[Internaut]

Yes, it is amazing that over 140 years after the Civil War, some people are still fighting it. Yet they don't call it the Civil War in the South. It's generally referred to as the War Between the States,

People in the South also refer to "The War of Northern Agression,"

. Some feel this was intentional Southern provocation to start a war that they thought they would win. Whether that's true or not, it remains that southern states attempted to secede, and the War was a response to that.

Here I have to take issue with the notion that Lincoln's main cause was to abolish slavery. That's not correct. He fought to preserve the Union. Here's the direct quote:
[

I thought it was common knowledge that Lincoln's main purpose was to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery.

I have books printed at the end of the Civil War, and the words Civil War aren't used.. it's the "Great Rebellion" or "The War of the Rebellion" things like that...

I've always thought that Fort Sumpter was an intentional attempt to provoke a reaction

I'm also puzzled why people, 143 years after the end of the war, still cling to the "stars and bars".. I thought the Dukes of Hazzard were just spoofing that mindset...

[tardistraveler]

It was a war worth fightin'

Slavery is a blackmark worth removing. Lincoln, was quite an individual. I don't like how he's the one on the penny. He should be the one on the 50 dollar bill at least.


I think he's on the penny because EVERYONE sees the penny. Less important presidents are on those higher denominations that less people see . . . ;)

[tardistraveler]

I've always been interested in the Civil War since ... way back. First started when I used to read JT Edson's western books (did you know he was a postman from England, or something like that?). I loved them totally. The main characters fought for the South in the war, and as I was madly in love with Dusty Fog (hey, I was about 11, remember) the interest started then.

Subsequently, I bought the Ken Burns vids and have also read all of Shelby Foote's The Civil War - A Narrative. That was no mean feat let me tell you! 3 huge books ... took me almost a year to get through them. But I recommend them.

It's a fascinating period of history - there are so many Civil War buffs out there - where you least expect them too.

I'm fascinated that there's such international interest in a civil war that took place here . . . boggles the mind . . .

[tardistraveler]

To this day, I often wonder why some Southern born/raised people are fighting the Civil War still today and hold such hate for people in the North. I have a close friend who was raised in Piedmont Alabama. She moved her 15 years ago-her brothers still refuse to cross the Mason-Dixie line-which is crazy if you ask me. Her Mom comes to visit all the time but the men in her family refuse to leave the south. I just don't understand that mentality. Not very patriotic either, but i guess this is a rebel thing.
I think it all boils down to the way one was raised and the education one was given during our formative years.

Obviously, one could believe if the South had won the Civil War, the USA would not see Obama running for President nor would Palin on the VP ticket in 2008. I think the fact many southerners have the same mentality about the "South Rising Again" is scary to many because the south will vote in the 2008 election, and who's to poll who they will vote for since there is a black and a woman running on different tickets. This is going to be interesting to see the southern state voting totals...


Growing up here, I can address this to a point. I think much of the hostility dates back not just to the war, but the Reconstruction period, when "Yankees" ventured south and took over land, started businesses, and didn't always treat the native southerners very well. Those attitudes have persisted through time, unfortunately.

The perception among many here is that northerners are rude and impolite, and not very hospitable . . . fortunately I've met enough of them to realize that they are no more rude than anyone else, and we certainly have our share of rudeness here in the south as well. And the pegging of southerners as "hick" "backwoods" "yokels", etc. doesn't help the situation.

I've seen a lot of change in my 54 years, and it strikes me funny that the south now is host to LOTS of those northerners who CHOOSE to live here . . . guess they've discovered that we do wear shoes after all . . . ;)

I never understood those people who were SO entrenched in their dislike of the north that they wouldn't venture out of the south, and I think that's changing over time as well. But I do think there's a rebellious spirit here that persists . . . the issue isn't slavery any longer per se, but that sense that people don't want the government telling them what to do, which is why more conservative tickets tend to do better here overall.

Regarding the upcoming election . . . Obama will carry the more urban/black areas, and McCain will carry the rest . . .

[tardistraveler]

Yes, it is amazing that over 140 years after the Civil War, some people are still fighting it. Yet they don't call it the Civil War in the South. It's generally referred to as the War Between the States, which attempts to perpetuate the notion that the US was a loose collection of states that could pull out and go their own way on their own whim.

I've heard all the euphemisms you mention, but I've more commonly heard it referred to as just the Civil War, and I grew up here . . . ;)



But this all reminds me of Rhett Butler's comment in Gone With the Wind, when he questions the South's chances, should war break out. He says that all the South has is arrogance and cotton.

He also enlisted in the end, because he was a sucker for "lost causes" . . . I think that's why, on some level, the war still persists . . . it's that longing for a way of life that's been really romanticized over the years . . . a "lost cause" that will never be again.

[Olorin]

I'm also puzzled why people, 143 years after the end of the war, still cling to the "stars and bars".. I thought the Dukes of Hazzard were just spoofing that mindset...

That's a good question. For some, it's clinging to a relic of a romanticized, idealized, glorious past that never truly was. For others, it's simply a symbol of racism and oppression. There's a lot of hard feelings in southern states that still have part of the Confederate flag as part of the state flag, as it is viewed as insulting (or worse) to blacks. There may be only one state now that still has it.


I think he's on the penny because EVERYONE sees the penny. Less important presidents are on those higher denominations that less people see . . . ;)

Precisely. And that's also why Salmon P. Chase, who noone has ever heard of, was on the $100,000 bill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase


I'm fascinated that there's such international interest in a civil war that took place here . . . boggles the mind . . .

It was an epic struggle that almost destroyed a nation, a nation that survived and went on to become one of history's great powers. The "what if" factor is incredible. What if the South had won? How would subsequent history then have unfolded? Harry Turtledove, the sci fi author, has written umpteen novels following the exploits of the USA and independent CSA through the years, thru 2 world wars (on which they took opposite sides). I haven't actually read any of them. I don't know enough about the particulars of the real history to appreciate how he alters and probably turns it on its head, and I don't want to get a fictionalized version of things embedded in my brain.


Growing up here, I can address this to a point. I think much of the hostility dates back not just to the war, but the Reconstruction period, when "Yankees" ventured south and took over land, started businesses, and didn't always treat the native southerners very well. Those attitudes have persisted through time, unfortunately.

I'm too tired now to look it up, but as I recall, Southern spite at losing the war was the South's undoing when Reconstruction happened. Lincoln did not want to punish the South. However, southern sympathizers murdered Lincoln, with the result that other folks got to call the shots. And punished the South was.

[The Whale]

I am convinced that Lincoln was not only our greatest president, by a wide margin, but that he was also the finest human being ever to occupy the office, the rarest of souls.
Bravo so nice to hear this from some one who found it on there own and wasnt pushed tourds the notion. :appl[1]:

Lincoln is absolutly an amazing charicter. Cant wait for the movie comming out on his life. Liam Neeson has been cast for the part and its do out in 2010.

[The Whale]

That's a good question. For some, it's clinging to a relic of a romanticized, idealized, glorious past that never truly was. For others, it's simply a symbol of racism and oppression. There's a lot of hard feelings in southern states that still have part of the Confederate flag as part of the state flag, as it is viewed as insulting (or worse) to blacks. There may be only one state now that still has it.

We must remember that the "stars and bars" were around before the civil war... that and over many years manny men who were fathers, brothers, husbands, and Sons diead under that flag for a cause they believed in... They didn't give up those beliefs on there own but by force... this cast the idea that those deaths were in vain. That can be a hard pill to swollow.


I'm too tired now to look it up, but as I recall, Southern spite at losing the war was the South's undoing when Reconstruction happened. Lincoln did not want to punish the South. However, southern sympathizers murdered Lincoln, with the result that other folks got to call the shots. And punished the South was.

The biggest culprit in the reconstruction period was Presidant Grants administration. It was rampid with coruption and trully pushed away the south and any intelectual reconstruction between the north and south.

In the south some people I know still call the Civil War the "war of northern agression".

[Lulu Mortice]

Bravo so nice to hear this from some one who found it on there own and wasnt pushed tourds the notion. :appl[1]:

Lincoln is absolutly an amazing charicter. Cant wait for the movie comming out on his life. Liam Neeson has been cast for the part and its do out in 2010.

Liam Neeson...mmmmmm....er, I mean, a fine actor and excellent choice

[tardistraveler]

Regarding the "stars and bars" . . . I think many southerners see it as a symbol of our rebellious spirit, and not necessarily as a rascist thing, although certainly there are those who DO perceive it that way.

[YesCarolinita]

Growing up here, I can address this to a point. I think much of the hostility dates back not just to the war, but the Reconstruction period, when "Yankees" ventured south and took over land, started businesses, and didn't always treat the native southerners very well. Those attitudes have persisted through time, unfortunately.

The perception among many here is that northerners are rude and impolite, and not very hospitable . . . fortunately I've met enough of them to realize that they are no more rude than anyone else, and we certainly have our share of rudeness here in the south as well. And the pegging of southerners as "hick" "backwoods" "yokels", etc. doesn't help the situation.

I've seen a lot of change in my 54 years, and it strikes me funny that the south now is host to LOTS of those northerners who CHOOSE to live here . . . guess they've discovered that we do wear shoes after all . . . ;)

I never understood those people who were SO entrenched in their dislike of the north that they wouldn't venture out of the south, and I think that's changing over time as well. But I do think there's a rebellious spirit here that persists . . . the issue isn't slavery any longer per se, but that sense that people don't want the government telling them what to do, which is why more conservative tickets tend to do better here overall.

Regarding the upcoming election . . . Obama will carry the more urban/black areas, and McCain will carry the rest . . .

I was not raised ever to believe anyone was inferior to me because of a geographic area in which they were raised. Nor have I heard these names for southerners you mention above. More like "redneck, rebels (one southerners call themselves still). I love my redneck husband and he ws not raised in the south, although his grandparents were.

My friend Lisa from Alabama told me she was raised to believe the same about New Englanders being rude and impolite. But after living here, she came to the realization for herself people in NE were honest - and once they became your friend, you could trust them with your life. Unlike the southerners she was raised around, people in NE don't play mindgames and we speak our minds, whereas, the people of her community would be polite to your face and then when you turned your back, the same people would stab you in the back. I can see where northerners come across as cold because of this, but if you come to my house, I guarantee you the hospitality will be of the utmost-and we love to eat up here-just a little different types food due to all the meditterrean heritage were packing around the RI-CT boarder (Italians)!

For a quick chuckle, i have to share one of my experiences with Lisa. I took her ice skating the first winter she was here. When we returned home for some hot chocolate to warm our toes-she called her Mama back in Piedmont. She was adamant she had to call her Mama first thing. When she got on the phone, I heard the normal hellos how are ya, then Lisa says to her Mom, "Mama, I walked on water today!" Ahhhhh! I laughed so hard and had to tell her she is not Jesus Christ and she was on ICE!!!! I am very proud of Lisa-coming here at age 18, newly divvorced (I think 17 out of 20 students in her graduating class were married by the age of 16), took a good job, went to college - which was something she never thought she was able to do, graduated with her Masters Degree from Columbia University in 1999. You have to realize, when she was accepted to an Ivy League School for her Masters, it blew her away. Never did she expect to graduate from college in 3 years, never mind be accepted to such a prestigious Ivy League school. She is now a practicing pyschologist in Milford, CT - I miss her deeply.

Ya, I have many retired relatives who move to Florida and North Carolina during our cold months. I personally am not a fan of Florida-too many people for me, except for the Keys-I do love the Keys. I love NC and would consider moving there in a heartbeat.

I dream of making it to Memphis -Beale Street especially. I love the blues and the BBQ! I almost made it their when I worked at Pfizer-NASS, our accounting department is headquarted in Bartlett. Amazes me how much bad weather happens in that area. In 2006-I think this site was closed for 1 full week due to ice, snow and high winds tearing the town apart.

[tardistraveler]

I dream of making it to Memphis -Beale Street especially. I love the blues and the BBQ! I almost made it their when I worked at Pfizer-NASS, our accounting department is headquarted in Bartlett. Amazes me how much bad weather happens in that area. In 2006-I think this site was closed for 1 full week due to ice, snow and high winds tearing the town apart.

Memphis is a fun place to visit - we had a SE Yesfans gathering there back in April and went to Beale St.

One of the problems with bad weather here, particularly winter weather, is that we just don't have enough of it to have equipment in place to deal with it, so the town just shuts down . . . ;)


Sorry for the off-topic . . . carry on!

[jfuruno]

Aye, but you're speaking with the benefit on hindsight - that which makes us all geniuses.

The US Civil War was fought on the same lines as the Peninsular War & Waterloo (Wellington vs Napoleon) where columns and 'lines' stood to against each other; infantry cannonade and fusillade and cavalry charges were 'set-piece' manoeuvres. Only latterly, indeed after only the early stages of WW I were these mistakes corrected - alas, not in time for the poor souls who went to their deaths here.

The reason these formations were used was that it was the only way to command and communicate. The advent of better weapons with more accuracy at greater ranges, combined with longer training periods produced higher casualty rates. The advent of the machine gun, combined with lack of portable radios is what really led to WW1 being so bloody. As radios allowed a given number of troops to control a larger front, as in WW2, casualties declined per square mile.

[cinderella]

I live in a very historic area involving the Civil War.
Many famous battles fought in little towns all around here.

Bull Run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run)


Fredericksburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg)


Chancellorsville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chancellorsville)


Appomattox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Appomattox_Court_House)




This memorial statue is at the Fredericksburg Battlefield Park. It honors Richard Kirkland, a Confederate soldier, who brought water to the wounded of both sides during the battle of Fredericksburg, at great risk to his own life.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Cinderella528/fburgbattlefield.jpg

[orpheus]

So much nobility in what was a tragic waste of life. From what I've read and seen the South was doomed, economically and numerically from the beginning but through some inherent character they possess, fought on with valour and honour to the bitter end.

I'm not sure if the South had superior strategy and discipline or if the North was so poorly led in the beginning that they squandered thier opportunity to win in the first couple of years.

I've always wondered at the legality for forcing the South to stay in the Union. Up here it is widely felt that with a vote of 50% + 1 vote Quebec would have the right to leave our country. Certainly no legal precedent exists for forcing Quebec to stay - of course there are sticky issues like a land bridge to the maritimes and existing asset rights that could lead to conflict - still, I could see endless outraged arguments, posturing and committees but never something on the scale of the civil war.

[Lulu Mortice]

Don't be so sure, Orpheus. As the Canadians are peace loving, they would probably prefer a diplomatic approach. But remember , there has already been a war on Canadian soil. The French and English had a war in Canada in 1759 to decide who got control - this was before the US War of Independence from Britain.

If Quebec seceded now, Canada has an army it could send in to stop them. And the Quebecois would not have the financial ability to build an army, they would have to rely on guerilla warfare and possibly terrorism, like the Basques or Northern Irish.

[Internaut]

I'm not sure if the South had superior strategy and discipline or if the North was so poorly led in the beginning that they squandered thier opportunity to win in the first couple of years.


what if..... what if the North didn't blow the chance to trap Lee in his retreat from Gettysburg?? would the Great Rebellion have been over in July 1863?

[Gemini]

The South, with it's paucity of industry and lack of big warships, never really had a chance to win. At best, they could have taken enough ground to press the Feds into sitting down and negotiating a limited autonomy and a retention of slavery in the Southern States. But no honest historian could deny that there was enormous valor and heroism (as well as inhuman cruelty) on both sides of that awful conflict. Is it, I wonder, uniquely American that our bloodiest war was a war among ourselves?

By the way, wanna know the difference between a Yankee and a quickie?
Not much, except with a Yankee you're alone.

[True Believer]

I live in a very historic area involving the Civil War.
Many famous battles fought in little towns all around here.

Bull Run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run)


Fredericksburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg)


Chancellorsville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chancellorsville)


Appomattox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Appomattox_Court_House)




This memorial statue is at the Fredericksburg Battlefield Park. It honors Richard Kirkland, a Confederate soldier, who brought water to the wounded of both sides during the battle of Fredericksburg, at great risk to his own life.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Cinderella528/fburgbattlefield.jpg
How wonderful to have so much history on your doorstep, Cindy. And not only the Civil War, wouldn't you have even earlier historical sites around where you are? From the Revolution?

[tardistraveler]

I'm thinking more of the Revolutionary sites are along the coast . . . we visited some when we made a trip to the Williamsburg area once.

Hopefully Cindy can enlighten us.

[cinderella]

How wonderful to have so much history on your doorstep, Cindy. And not only the Civil War, wouldn't you have even earlier historical sites around where you are? From the Revolution?

Yes definitely. This is also the area where George Washington was born and grew up. Ferry Farm, Virginia was his boyhood home.

Mount Vernon isn't far away which was his retirement home.


I'm thinking more of the Revolutionary sites are along the coast . . . we visited some when we made a trip to the Williamsburg area once.

Hopefully Cindy can enlighten us.

If you went to Williamsburg, Diane, you're probably talking about Yorktown.

I live on what's called the Washington Rochambeau Route. It marks the path General George Washington, and French General Rochambeau, took on their way to Yorktown and the battle that lead to the surrender of the British.

[orpheus]

Don't be so sure, Orpheus. As the Canadians are peace loving, they would probably prefer a diplomatic approach. But remember , there has already been a war on Canadian soil. The French and English had a war in Canada in 1759 to decide who got control - this was before the US War of Independence from Britain.

If Quebec seceded now, Canada has an army it could send in to stop them. And the Quebecois would not have the financial ability to build an army, they would have to rely on guerilla warfare and possibly terrorism, like the Basques or Northern Irish.

For sure Lu, I don't think that we are any wiser or nobler than the Americans were in the 1860's. It's just that I don 't see any legal precedent for forcing Quebec to stay if they voted democratically to leave. That being said, if they blockaded the St. Lawrence or started unfairly taxing railway throughfare, who knows what could happen. If history is any precendent we would have endless parlaimentary enquiries and Royal commisions before it ever came to blows but I don't for a minute think it couldn't get ugly.

I guess my question was, what legal precedent did Lincoln have for forcing the South to stay in the Union? Is it a consititution thing?

I hope it never comes to that.

[orpheus]

what if..... what if the North didn't blow the chance to trap Lee in his retreat from Gettysburg?? would the Great Rebellion have been over in July 1863?

I can't see how they could have continued the war if their army was captured or destroyed. There were a few times that Maclellan could have routed the southern armies but refused to fight, weren't there?

I'm going by that excellent Burns documentary.

[Rabbit]

Well look it, the Republican Party was initially formed as a human rights organization devoted to the abolition of slavery. While Lee might have won had it not been for certain events, perhaps those events were part of the inevitable Consciousness of history.

Wassup Whale? :lol:

[True Believer]

I guess my question was, what legal precedent did Lincoln have for forcing the South to stay in the Union? Is it a consititution thing?

I hope it never comes to that.
I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that at the time, it was a sovereign state's right to withdraw from the Union if it felt that the Union was impeding it's rights/way of life etc.

[The Whale]

I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that at the time, it was a sovereign state's right to withdraw from the Union if it felt that the Union was impeding it's rights/way of life etc.
You are correct. However it was the fact that many states did not just "withdraw" but actually banded togeather and formed a new nation. The confedirate states of America threatend Americas expansion and trade with other nations. I don't know if you can really say that the Union had a right to force them back into the union but I can say that it was the Unions only choice because the two could have never coexisted.

Wassup Whale? :lol:
Not much whats up with you!?

[jfuruno]

I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that at the time, it was a sovereign state's right to withdraw from the Union if it felt that the Union was impeding it's rights/way of life etc.

Actually, whether that was true or not was the primary spark that started the war. Did the states have sovreignty? The North said no, and the South said yes.

[HaroldLand]

I guess my question was, what legal precedent did Lincoln have for forcing the South to stay in the Union? Is it a consititution thing?

Yes and no. First the Yes. Lincoln's correct interpretation of the Constitution didn't allow for a state to secede or withdraw from the union under any circumstances. Now for the NO. Lincoln drew inspiration and legal precedent from Andrew Jackson's handling of the Nullification Crisis of 1832. It was in this situation that the South Carolina elite made their first attempt to insulate their "peculiar institution" from interference and consequently were faced down by the federal government along with the other states of the US at the time.

[HaroldLand]

what if..... what if the North didn't blow the chance to trap Lee in his retreat from Gettysburg?? would the Great Rebellion have been over in July 1863?

The bigger 'what if' is if General Jackson and General Hill had'nt been shot during the Battle of Chancellorsville. Jackson and Hill were returning from a forward recon of the roads Hill's division, which had been in reserve during Jackson's brilliant flank attack, would use to march to the Rappahannock River fords being used by General Hooker's army, and sieze the fords by night attack. Had that march and night attack taken place with a healthy and unwounded General Hill leading, along with a healthy and unwounded General Jackson overseeing, those fords would've been captured (given their unpreparedeness and vulnerability to such a heavy night attack). The capture of the fords would've left Hooker's command encircled and precipitated its collapse and annihilation by Lee and Jackson. The annihilation of Hooker's army would've opened the door for Lee and Jackson to march on Washington DC and capture it. Thus leading to an end to the war in favor of the Confederacy and negating a march into Pennsylvania that could've lead to a clash of arms at Gettysburg.

[The Whale]

Looks like were on the same page then! lol the vary first post in this thread is this one......

Lets talk about it.

I'll start off by saying that the south beat its self and that Lee was the best Geniral in the war.... Had he not lost Jackson the south may vary well have won the war.
then you said....

The bigger 'what if' is if General Jackson and General Hill had'nt been shot during the Battle of Chancellorsville.

So it would seem that this is one thing about the civil war we can all agre on.. What else?

I say suplly lines. The north had railroads while the south did not.

[Machine Messiah]

As a Brit, you may find my interest in this period of history somewhat unusual, but I came to it due to research I'd made into my family tree. I discovered an ancestor who was born in South Carolina, but moved to England and had a daughter, who married in 1858. The daughter stayed in England (Hence my being a Brit) but her parents went back to South Carolina in 1860. I didn't know bout the dates of the civil war until I resrearched what must have happened in 1860 to make them want to return, and it was the time when South Carolina seceeded from the Union and the civil war began. My ancestor would have been 60 at that time, so I doubt whether he went back to fight- maybe he went back to take care of other family due to the outbreak of the war? I still have a load to find out, but it was a fascinating thing to discover!

[Earl Grey]

...I don't know if you can really say that the Union had a right to force them back into the union but I can say that it was the Unions only choice because the two could have never coexisted.


That was damned astute Jeremy. I missed this thread till now. Pretty interesting, and very thought provoking.

Earl

[Original_Shifty]

they would have to rely on guerilla warfare and possibly terrorism, like the Basques or Northern Irish.

Which they tried to do in the a few decades back. Then PM Pierre Trudeau squashed it by calling in the Army. Sadly, a member of Parliament was killed by the french terrorists. They found him in the trunk of a car.

[rmig68]

Just to get back to fighting tactics; I thought the south did implement a lot of guerilla tactics, especially when the fight was on their soil. Even the "rebel yell" aspect (which was highly documented) was not a conventional tactic at all.

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

[The Whale]

Just to get back to fighting tactics; I thought the south did implement a lot of guerilla tactics, especially when the fight was on their soil. Even the "rebel yell" aspect (which was highly documented) was not a conventional tactic at all.

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

Both the Northern and Southern generals used garila tactics as many of the generals learned of the tecnich from studying the American Revolution at westpoint and in universitys. Also many generals used the technich in the spanish american war just prior to the civil war.

There are many accounts of how solders were trained to "fight"(unconvensional techniqes ulike normal formal combat) the "red man" during Jackson's trail of tears... I think Native American's may have been America's first so called "terrorists". At least the propaganda from back then would suggest so.

[Gemini]

Just to get back to fighting tactics; I thought the south did implement a lot of guerilla tactics, especially when the fight was on their soil. Even the "rebel yell" aspect (which was highly documented) was not a conventional tactic at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell
http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc357/cnmtwebber/index_bottle.jpg
Makes sense too. Clever. Get your enemy blind drunk and they'll fold like a cheap suit.

[The Whale]

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc357/cnmtwebber/index_bottle.jpg
Makes sense too. Clever. Get your enemy blind drunk and they'll fold like a cheap suit.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/77/2077-004-79BF2B7D.jpg

Did some one say drunk and fold like a chair?

[HaroldLand]

What else?

I say suplly lines. The north had railroads while the south did not.

Things the North had and the South didn't have: industry, large population, and a large navy.

[Olorin]

My great-great-grandfather was in the Civil War; I've known that for some time. I recently learned, while doing genealogical research, that two of his brothers were in the same company. One of them died at Young's Point, LA, across the river from Vicksburg. Since he died months before the Battle of Vicksburg, and the place at Young's Point where he was stationed was a mosquito-ridden hell-hole of river bottoms, I assume he died of some sort of illness, not combat.

Anyway, I have found it very interesting and a bit moving to know that people that were related to me, one of whom I descend from, were in the Civil War. The Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois has photos of many Illinois soldiers but I checked their database and alas, my GG grandfather and his brothers were not among them.

[The Whale]

Things the North had and the South didn't have: industry, large population, and a large navy.

Many would have said that this was off set by the fact that west point and most of its best students were wearing grey and not blue...

I would agree and if it were not for Lee's huge mistake at Gettysburg it all might have ended so different.

[Gemini]

Particularly Pickett's Charge, from what I understand.

[The Whale]

In my opinion and in some "experts" opinions the South should have never taken on the agressor role as it did not suit them. Yet Lee went up into northern land and then was cought off guard ( not knowing what he was up agenst) and then after being bested did not regroup but instead chose to "charge" over a mile while being under fire from higher ground over looking the battlefield. I just don't understand how such a increadible mind could make such a mistake? Longstreet wrote about it on the nights leading up to the charge even he knew it wouldnt work.

[True Believer]

Here's an interesting Civil War titbit ... in today's Sydney Morning Herald ...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-day-45-australians-rowed-off-to-fight-those-yankees-20100124-msm8.html

The day 45 Australians rowed off to fight those Yankees </HEADLINE><!-- Class 'push-0' just right-aligns the element so that the main content comes first. -->
<!-- cT-storyDetails --><CITE>January 25, 2010 </CITE>
<BOD><!-- cT-imageLandscape -->http://images.smh.com.au/2010/01/24/1063570/Shenandoan-420x0.jpg Rebel yell ... the Shenandoah being repaired in Melbourne in 1865. Photo: US Navy


When a Confederate warship limped into Port Melbourne it set off a chain of events that cost Britain a small fortune, writes Lorna Edwards.

THE American Civil War sailed to Australia in 1865 when the notorious Confederate raider Shenandoah limped in for repairs, eluding Union ships that had been pursuing it much further north.
There was no colonial navy to challenge it, and the ship's dubious visit to the colony would later cost the British dearly and hasten the push for a naval force at Port Melbourne.

Many Melburnians were sympathetic to the rebels' cause, and their captain and crew quickly became the toast of the town as they waited for repairs to the ship's propeller shaft.

Balls and dinners were held in their honour and huge crowds flocked to see the ship.

The US consul, William Blanchard, was less impressed and tried desperately to rally the authorities to intervene when he got word the ship was stalling repairs to illegally recruit locals to its crew.
His efforts were in vain. The repaired and resupplied Shenandoah left Melbourne with 45 enthusiastic new recruits who had rowed out to the ship from Port Melbourne beach before it departed on February 19.

After leaving Australia, the Shenandoah immediately embarked on a marauding spree, burning or plundering about 29 ships of the American whaling fleet in the northern hemisphere.

But unknown to the Shenandoah's captain, Lieutenant James Waddell, the Civil War had ended early in his rampage, and 25 of his attacks on American ships were technically acts of piracy rather than of war.

Some of the captains on the captured ships had tried to tell him the grim news of the South's defeat but he refused to believe them, suspecting it was a ploy to save their ships from going up in smoke.
When the truth sunk in, Lieutenant Waddell briefly toyed with the idea of heading for Sydney but instead surrendered the ship to the British government. Many of the crew lied about their nationality, none admitting they were British subjects, and they were all released.

The recruitment of sailors in Melbourne was to later become an international scandal as a violation of Britain's neutrality in the war. Britain was eventually forced to pay $US15.5 million in damages to the US for helping the Shenandoah and other Southern raiders that terrorised and destroyed Union shipping interests during the conflict.
The Melbourne incident also had some local impact.

At the time there was some mistrust of the French and long-held fears about Russian ships snooping along the southern coastline searching for any weak defences in the colony.

So the Shenandoah's visit helped lead to the formation of a colonial navy at Port Melbourne.

That colonial navy later evolved into the Commonwealth Naval Forces after Federation and became the Royal Australian Navy in 1911.

Despite its earlier strategic importance, Port Melbourne's last navy connection was lost when the historic Navy Drill Hall was handed to Circus Oz in 1993.

Among the towering apartment buildings and cafes that now dominate Port Melbourne, all signs of its rich naval history have been expunged, much to the dismay of navy veterans and history buffs.

The Naval Heritage Foundation run by a retired RAN lieutenant-commander, Mac Gregory, hopes to rectify this and raise $200,000 to install a bronze sculpture of a navy servicemen, titled Answering the Call, near the site of the former Town Pier at the end of Dow Street.
He has enlisted the support of the navy's top brass, the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, being the patron of the foundation.
Mr Gregory said: ''There isn't a single marker in the area to show the naval history of the area or the 15,000 servicemen and women who passed through there and if you walked around Port Melbourne you'd never know the navy was ever there.''


I never heard this before - anyone else know of it?
<!-- articleBody --></BOD>

[Internaut]

Very interesting .... I don't recall reading about this before....