Civil War

[Rick Potter]

For us trivia buffs.

Today is the sesquicentennial of the firing on Fort Sumter, which started the Civil War.

RP

[Jerome Hanby]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the election of Abraham Lincoln was the start of the War of the Rebellion.

[Scott Shepherd]

I'm not a history buff, and I don't want to get into the who/what/where/why of the Civil War, but one thing that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is that about 630,000 people lost their lives in that war. Thinking back to those times and how small the population was and how spread out people were, it really paints a picture to me just how huge this was. Something I think is lost in all the stories and history we see today. 630,000 people in that day and time. That's tremendous. I can't image how huge the conflict had to be to take that many lives. I'm glad I wasn't alive to see it, and I'd hate to see our country go through something so painful.

Put things into perspective, Vietnam shows a loss of 58,000 U.S. WWI shows 116,000, WWII shows 416,000. So we lost more lives fighting each other than WWI,WWII, and Vietnam all combined. Let's hope we never return to those numbers.

[ray hampton]

we need to compare the loss of life to the population census

[Scott Shepherd]

Looks like it was about 30,000,000 people on the census in those years. So 30,000,000 people and we lost 630,000. To me, that's huge, numbers and percentages.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Scott,

I agree it was a huge number by raw numbers and percentages of population. I pray we never see anything like that again within this country.

[Charlie Reals]

Without googling it I would say we lost as many at Gettysburg as we did in Vietnam per capita . We lost thousands a day wounded or dead to artillery fire at many battles.

[Pat Germain]

I heard a series of stories on the radio last weekend in recognition of the sequicentennial. I found most interesting the story of a photographer who set out to capture images of the war. He and his assistants had expected to see situations as portrayed in famous paintings; Napolean leading a charge or George Washington crossing the Delaware river. Of course, what they actually saw was grim, grisly combat. They were all horrified.

Photography was still new at the time and there was no way to easily copy photos. Few people saw the pictures until this war photographer presented a formal display of his horrifyingly realistic images. The response was overwhelmingly negative. He had hoped to sell these historically significant pictures. But people didn't want to see his pictures, let alone buy them.

Another photographer became famous for his Civil War pictures. These are the pictures we saw growing up when learning about the war. Many featured dead soldiers grasping their rifles. This is a big clue these photographs were staged. Rifles were far too precious to leave behind on the battlefield. Apparently, all of this guy's photos were fakes. And people liked those pictures.

[Belinda Barfield]

I believe Matthew Brady was the best known photographer of Civil War images.

Loss of life would be significantly less if a similar war happened tomorrow. If wounded, many times death was the best you could hope for, not the worst. Amputations without anesthesia or pain meds, rotting infections with no antibiotics, dying on the battlefield as someone was going through your pockets and stripping you of your boots. Miles and miles from home with no e-mail, no phone, barely functioning snail mail - far different from today. There are hardly words to describe how horrible it must have been to be fighting on either side. The Yankees did have it a little better than the Rebels though. And then the South had to suffer through Reconstruction.

[Belinda Barfield]

If anyone is interested, Ancestry.com is offering free access to their Civil War records, only two days left.

[ray hampton]

Looks like it was about 30,000,000 people on the census in those years. So 30,000,000 people and we lost 630,000. To me, that's huge, numbers and percentages.

mine calculator shows 1 death to every 47 people or more than two percent of the population

[Belinda Barfield]

Census info for 1860 broken down by state. http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

Free population in that census 27,489,561. Initially it was mostly the free population that were combatants so that changes the ratio some.

[Belinda Barfield]

Congressional Research Service statistics for casualties of all U.S. wars. Interesting reading for trivia buffs.:)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

[Dave Anderson NH]

As Belinda noted, the quality and level of medical science was low at that time and as many died of wounds and sickness and disease as were outright killed in combat. In much of the 19th century a hospital was a place you went to die. An equally important factor was the use of Napoleonic era tactics which were suitable for relatively low powered and inaccurate muskets and artillery but caused mass carnage when used against long range rifled barrels in both shoulder fired weapons and in artillery. A smoothbore musket was lucky to hit a group of 100 men at 100 feet while a model 1863 Springfield rifled musket was accurate to 3-400 meters and deadly to twice that distance. The changes in technology played a large role in the casualty counts when tactics were not modified to adapt to the changing conditions. The only reason our casualties in WW I were relatively low was that we cam late to the party. The inability of the various high commands in WW I to adapt to further technological changes caused the casualties of millions from machineguns, poison gas, and advanced artillery. Beginning to notice a pattern here folks?

[ray hampton]

the civil war been over [ well it are suppose to be over ] for 150 years but it is still causing problems for some people, I have try to trace my family tree but run into a dead-end close to the date of the civil war

[Bob Rufener]

My wife and I visited Charleston and Ft. Sumter last year. An interesting place. I have read a number of books and seen a lot of footage of the civil war. Quite frankly, I didn't see much civil about it. Thousands of men from all sides were virtually slaughtered. It truly was a dark area in American history. I haven't visited any of the battlefields but it is on my bucket list.

[Belinda Barfield]

My wife and I visited Charleston and Ft. Sumter last year. An interesting place. I have read a number of books and seen a lot of footage of the civil war. Quite frankly, I didn't see much civil about it. Thousands of men from all sides were virtually slaughtered. It truly was a dark area in American history. I haven't visited any of the battlefields but it is on my bucket list.

I agree, nothing "civil" about it.

[Lee Koepke]

We took a trip a few years back that brought us through the Shenadoah Valley and eventually back to Gettysburg ... the story of Gen Early and his men that basically WALKED ( fought ) almost the same route we drove in about 3 weeks ... hundreds of miles, battles EVERY day, hike the mountains to the next battle ... every day for three weeks .... he was within blocks of the White House when his men just couldnt fight any more. Its almost incomprehensible in todays technological / automated society.

[Rod Sheridan]

As a bit of a history buff, I have visited Shiloh and Gettysburg and as others have said, the loss of life in relation to the population of the country was incredible. As Belinda remarked, there was nothing civil about it.

As in all wars, fighting is the failure of diplomacy.

I'll have drink tonight in honour of the brave soldiers lost on both sides, as well as the civilian casualties, and hope that we never head down that path again.


Regards, Rod.

[ray hampton]

according to the dictionary CIVIL 1 not military or religious 2 polite

civil war,war between factions of the same nations


is the word civilization based on the word civil ?

[Von Bickley]

I prefer to call it the "War of Northern Agression".

[Pat Germain]

Although technology was limited during the Civil War, it sure had a significant impact. The telegraph allowed almost immediate communications. Railroads in the North transported equipment and personnel at seemingly blinding speed. Ironclad ships could lob cannon balls at one another all day with little impact. And technology was a significant advantage for the North.

Seems pretty tragic all that new technology was used for such horrible objectives at the time. Of course, as we now know, it would get much worse in years to come. I was recently reading about English towns who lost completely all their young men in WWI. I'm sure many American small towns experienced the same thing in the civil war. No doubt on many occasions they lost their young men to both sides.

[Kenneth Moar]

I'm a Canadian, I don't know a lot about the US Civil war, but it is an amazing fact that the US put itself back together after what seems like a horrific conflict, that divided states, communities and even families.
I'm proud that a Canadian wrote an iconic song that captured some of the heartbreak, hurt and pride that was felt on both sides of that conflict. A well known performance of this song was sung by an American ,name of Levon Helm, member of the "Band" in "The Last Waltz" around Thanksgiving 1976??, . When I see Levon perform , I don't see Levon I see Virgil Caine, and I hear the pain and loss he has endured.
"The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down" is one of those songs that seems to convey the very essence of the Civil War. This song may be about the end not the beginning, and more about the "South" than the "North", but mostly it's about the sacrifice of the hundred's of thousands of casualties on both sides.

All the Best to the USA

[Kevin W Johnson]

For those close enough, or those who want to make a trip....

The reenactment of the Battle of New Market is coming up May 14th and 15th.

http://www2.vmi.edu/museum/nm/reenactment/reen%20announce.htm

Sadly, i'm close by and forget every year until its too late. I plan to make it this year.

[Jim Creech]

I prefer to call it the "War of Northern Agression".

That is, after all, the proper name for it.

[Joe Angrisani]

That is, after all, the proper name for it.

No. That is an opinion. One hundred fifty years and "it's" still there, huh? :(

Far and away, both South, North, east, west and internationally, it is known as the American Civil War.

[Don Buck]

And to tie the Civil War discussion to woodworking, here's a winter view outside my door to my woodworking shop in Lexington, VA of the grave site of Stonewall Jackson. Most of Stonewall is buried here, his arm is still buried near the site he was shot.

191371

Don

[Scott Shepherd]

No. That is an opinion. One hundred fifty years and "it's" still there, huh? :(

Far and away, both South, North, east, west and internationally, it is known as the American Civil War.

Joe, I believe that's a term used in jest, not a serious one. Living in the Capital of the Confederacy my entire life, I can tell you that it's not much more than a joking phrase used when talking to people from up north. It's a button pusher and almost always gets a reaction, just like in this case.

Just my opinion.

[Curt Harms]

As Belinda noted, the quality and level of medical science was low at that time and as many died of wounds and sickness and disease as were outright killed in combat. In much of the 19th century a hospital was a place you went to die. An equally important factor was the use of Napoleonic era tactics which were suitable for relatively low powered and inaccurate muskets and artillery but caused mass carnage when used against long range rifled barrels in both shoulder fired weapons and in artillery. A smoothbore musket was lucky to hit a group of 100 men at 100 feet while a model 1863 Springfield rifled musket was accurate to 3-400 meters and deadly to twice that distance. The changes in technology played a large role in the casualty counts when tactics were not modified to adapt to the changing conditions. The only reason our casualties in WW I were relatively low was that we cam late to the party. The inability of the various high commands in WW I to adapt to further technological changes caused the casualties of millions from machineguns, poison gas, and advanced artillery. Beginning to notice a pattern here folks?

I visited the site of the battle of Fredericksburg a few years ago. That battle seemed to typify what Dave is talking about re tactics, weapons etc. I was reading the markers, looking at the terrain and thinking to myself "What were they THINKING!!? Shoulder to shoulder ranks marching into forces sheltered behind stone walls and breastworks. The only thing missing was pinned-on targets, fer chrissake.

[Greg Peterson]

Had the south had their way, the 'gentlemen' farmers of the day would have expanded their definition of slavery to include indentured servitude of caucasians, catholics and immigrants as well.

Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

The war was about slavery. But it was not just about freeing blacks, it was to prevent the enslavement of whites. This is a matter that has been obscured over the past 150 years. But history tends to shade any event over time.

[Jerome Hanby]

Maybe some moderators need to step in and lock this thread, Posts like this one are likely to generate some observations about intelligence...



Dad the south had their way, the 'gentlemen' farmers of the day would have expanded their definition of slavery to include indentured servitude of caucasians, catholics and immigrants as well.

Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

The war was about slavery. But it was not just about freeing blacks, it was to prevent the enslavement of whites. This is a matter that has been obscured over the past 150 years. But history tends to shade any event over time.

[Charlie Reals]

Joe, I believe that's a term used in jest, not a serious one. Living in the Capital of the Confederacy my entire life, I can tell you that it's not much more than a joking phrase used when talking to people from up north. It's a button pusher and almost always gets a reaction, just like in this case.

Just my opinion.
My Mother used it to push buttons lol. She was from Cullman co. Alabama which was named after a Colonel Cullman, a Yankee officer who ended up with a vast tract of land and sold it to Yankee soldiers for $1.00 an acre. My fine upstanding southern family is in fact mostly Yankee blood.:eek:;)

[Kent A Bathurst]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the election of Abraham Lincoln was the start of the War of the Rebellion.


Heh-heh-heh. Well.......... in 1832-33 Andy Jackson made very clear his intention to send in the Army + Navy to straighten things out in South Carolina, after they passed laws saying, in effect, that the constitution and laws of South Carolina took precedence over the constitution and laws of the United States.

This issue was called "nullification" in the young country's argument of Jeffersonian States Rights politics v. Madison's Federalists - did the Constitution of The United States represent the supreme law of the land, or was it a political document that was to be continually at risk from actions by the several states individually [ie - "nullified" by state laws]. That had more-or-less been cleared up in the early 1800s, primarily by the remarkable skills of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but there was still a lot of probing and pushing for soft spots by the hard-core.

South Carolina - shocked that the adamantly states-rights Jackson would take that Federalist position, and aware that Jackson knew very well how to kick some serious butt when he wanted to, said "ooops - never mind" and reversed their laws. But they seethed with anger, and were itching for a states rights fight - especially when they perceived a clear and present danger to the engine of their economic prowess - cheap labor.

So - yes - The election of Lincoln was the tipping point, just like a lit match would be to rockets that were already built, aligned, and fused.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

Joe, I believe that's a term used in jest, not a serious one. Living in the Capital of the Confederacy my entire life, I can tell you that it's not much more than a joking phrase used when talking to people from up north. It's a button pusher and almost always gets a reaction, just like in this case.

Just my opinion.

And that "button pushing" will become "sabre rattling" in a heart beat.:D

[Dave Anderson NH]

Jerome and the rest of you fine folks,

As long as things don't deteriorate, I'll let this discussion continue since we are talking history rather than current politics. Having said that though, the minute things start to become contentious and get into any of the SMC prohibited areas I'll either lock or delete this thread.

Kent has offered a simplified version of the roots of the Civil War. The seeds were sown all the way back at the Constitutional Convention which produced the US Constitution. It was not only states rights, it was a basic philosophical difference over how strong a central government we should have. There was a strong feeling on the part of the "Jeffersonians" that some rework and tweaking of the Articles of Confederation was adequate and that a wholly new constitution was unnecessary. This was opposed by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. In many ways it was a split along a geographical North vs South line and also of merchant vs agrarian. This too is a simplification, but the roots of the war preceed the event by over 70 years.

[Keith Outten]

The war was about slavery. But it was not just about freeing blacks, it was to prevent the enslavement of whites. This is a matter that has been obscured over the past 150 years. But history tends to shade any event over time.

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.

[Lee Schierer]

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.


True, but one of the BIG states rights issues of the time was the right to own slaves. There are those who claim the old market in Charlestown, SC was just a market and the fact that slave auctions were held there isn't important.

[Montgomery Scott]

The war was over the issue of slavery. The north pushed for containment and the eventual ending of slavery and the south resisted it because it was all about the money. The south was able to be economically viable because of slavery. The issue of states' rights ties right back into the issue of slaves and the ownership thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_%28United_States%29#Causes_of_secession

[Jerome Hanby]

Slavery was and is a moral failing. Women are the nominal keepers of morality in our society. And if you think they wouldn't have put an end to slavery (and all the Tom Foolery in which many of their husbands were engaging) then I suspect you have never been married. There were some evil folks that would have continued in the practice as long as it was profitable, but that issue, like so many others, was about to be settled by capitalism. James Watt effectively ended slavery. The practical steam engine was the harbinger of all manner of mechanical devices to revolutionize agriculture. Illiterate, ignorant slaves beaten with whips to keep them in line don't keep maintenance records, they can't be trusted with expensive/dangerous equipment, and will eat you out of house and home tending your fields by hand when your neighbors are operating combines and tractors and producing for a fraction of your cost.

Slavery was an issue that could be used to divide groups of people. Since two Democratic candidates were splitting the vote and the new Republican party was benefiting from being the only other choice when the Whigs and No Nothing parties pretty much folded, Lincoln seized on the issue of slavery and rode it into the White House. Same thing happens Today, look what we've had in the White House in current and past years. How many times does some vocal "minority" group of people (like the Moral Majority, Tea Party, or Move On) supply the issues to which that some savvy politician hitches their star. I'm not saying that these minority voices are always wrong, but I think it's more about what's expedient than it is about what is right.

[Kent A Bathurst]

...Kent has offered a simplified version of the roots of the Civil War....

Dave - perhaps over-simplified.........I've just found it intriguing that Andrew Jackson, the fire-breathing-Jeffersonian, took a 180 [well, maybe a 135] once he was in the Office of the President. His "base" was dismayed and appalled at his actions in the "Nullification Crisis", and at the moderate Jeffersonians and moderate Federalists he appointed to the Supreme Court.

I recently finished an outstanding biography: John Marshall - Definer of a Nation. He served under Washington at Valley Forge, he served the state of Virginia in various important roles - in both the Virgina legislature and the House of Representatives - and, via his role on the Supreme Court, he defined the nation's constitutional government as we know it today. He was in the middle of a very important period in the growth of a new nation.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.

Keith - I'll not take a public position on this one, but you will probably find this article from the Washington Post either [a] informative or [b] very, very aggravating. To "over-simplify" once again, they basically say that the story "from a Southerner's point of view" has undergone significant political spin since the actual events.

And - yes - it is the Washington Post - the far-left mouthpiece :D. But, I always try to read well-written articles by people with different views that mine - to see what the other side of the story looks like.

Five myths about why the South seceded: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.html

Regards,

Kent

[Rick Potter]

Please folks, don't let my initial post go sour. I just thought it was an interesting fact which beared mention. As others have already said, all the casualties were ours.

I have taken quite a few tours of Civil and Revolutionary war battlefields (sometimes hard to remember which is which, since they are so close. As a Californian, they are very sobering, especially since we don't get much schooling on the war.

One noteable man lived his later life in my area, George Foster, was the recuperating soldier given 'light' duty as bodyguard for Secretary of State Seward. He saved his life in the assassination attempt(s), and was given the Congressional Gold Medal, a $5000 reward, and was made paymaster for the army.

We have several soldiers from both sides buried in the local cemetary. They are all honered on Memorial day.

Rick Potter

[Dave Anderson NH]

Kent, Given the strong opposition of views between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, it is interesting to note that they were cousins and because of politics almost never spoke to each other. Bit of a lesson there.

Rick,

In our little town of Chester NH the Civil War monument was not erected until 1904 when they could afford to pay for it. The names of veterans were in raised lettering on the granite base. In 2004 we rededicated the monument and based on further research added almost 2 dozen names by attaching a bronze plaque. The names had been left off when the monument was built. The names were known, but because the men were paid substitutes for prominent locals who bought their way out of service, they were never properly honored. No one in power apparently wanted a reminder of their less than honorable actions.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Kent, Given the strong opposition of views between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, it is interesting to note that they were cousins and because of politics almost never spoke to each other. Bit of a lesson there.

From what I've read, it appears that the politics reinforced a deep-seated disgust they both held for each other, dating way back to their early days. They were cousins, indeed - from the Randolph clan - the uppermost of the upper tier of Virginia aristocracy - except the big money descended down Jefferson's side of the family, while Marshal's Dad took the family to the western "frontier" of Virginia, and was of very modest means.

So, they didn't like each other at all as just family, and then the whole political thing on top of that - probably didn't trade many Christmas cards, eh?

[ray hampton]

While I may not agree with every comment about the civil war, I am glad that the truth were spoken by the rebels and yankee

[Rod Sheridan]

Discussions of the Civil War (War of Northern Agression), always take me back to my first visit to Shiloh and a tour of the grounds.

It was early April, the weather was warm, and I had a day off from a business trip, just perfect.

I went on the guided tour, and was early so I was able to spend some time with the tour guide, and I learned a lot from the preliminary discussion.

Once we were on the tour we visited the gravesite with thousands of white markers on the already green grass of the gently rolling ground. It was one of those moments I'll never forget, read what you want, watch what you will, the first time you stand before that many markers of the fallen, it's a humbling and thought provoking moment. I cannot imagine what it must feel like for people whose ancestors lie there.

We also toured the 3 large mass grave burrows that were the original Confederate graves, if I remember correctly. A young man behind me remarked that it wasn't right that one group was treated differently (not so politely), and me, like an idiot, remarked that the victor builds the monuments.

I was trying to be on my best behaviour, and not stick more than one foot in my mouth at a time, however, my accent betrayed me, leaving the young man to yell at me that I only found it funny because I was on the winning side.

I was momentarily speachless, until the tour guide told the young man that I was from further north than the Union states, which simply caused more confusion. Finally I said that I was Canadian, at which point I was told that I was probably on the winning side in our civil war.

The remainder of the tour was extremely interesting, and that odd encounter has reminded me ever since to be careful and respectful when visiting civil war sites.

As always a viewpoint depends upon the point of origin, which made me smile when I read the jesting about the Civil War/War of Northern Agression, it's like your War of Independance, on my side of that artificial line called a border, it's the Revolutionary War as we're part of the British Empire.

Hopefully in the future we'll be able to settle differences through diplomacy..............I can always hope....................Rod.

[Keith Outten]

The Civil War was not about slavery, the only issue in the South was States Rights.
I seriously doubt that anyone would believe that so many Southerners would be willing to give their life to protect an institution that was only available to the most wealthy Southerners. A very small group of very wealthy Plantation owners took advantage of their right, at the time, to own people. At the same time a very small group of very wealthy Northerners in Massachusetts and New York took advantage of their right at the time to sell people. Over 90% of the slaves sold to the South came from these two Northern States. The average Southerner during this period of our history was very poor.

The lessons that were learned and the price paid during the Revolutionary War were very much on the minds of Southerners, the last thing they wanted was to replace a King with a Federal Government that would threaten everything they had just recently gained such as their Liberty and the right to govern themselves. Most Southerners of the period had no interest in the slavery issue other than they did not think it was an issue that should concern the new Federal Government.

Here in Virginia the Civil War is everywhere. There are battle fields and graveyards in almost every city and county. When I was young we used to find Civil War graves in the woods, they were literally everywhere. I have found cannon balls in the field behind my house, muskets and bayonets in trees and more buttons and other metal objects than I can remember now. Our History teachers used books that to this day are inaccurate and that failed to tell both sides of this tragic period accurately. IMO history books about the period are no better than newspapers. The truth can be found reading the letters of the period and from the stories we heard that were passed down through our families and those recorded in family bibles.

I lived near Fredericksburg Virginia for several years when I worked at North Anna Power Station. I was able to spend some time visiting the battle fields on that end of the state. I have personally visited the majority of the graveyards in Eastern Virginia, during my youth my Father spent almost ten years researching our family tree. I spent many weeks in the Library of Congress viewing old newspapers for articles concerning the birth and deaths of the Outten family with my Mom, Dad and my sister. Our first ancestor arrived in the Virginia Colony in 1634 so it took many years to account for every member of our family. The education I received over many years doing research of our family history often conflicted with what I learned in every history class I ever attended.

The Northern forces showed no compassion for the South after the war, they burned raped and punished. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery. Many of the things Southerners feared would happen if they lost the right to govern themselves became a reality.

The phrase "War of Northern Aggression" today is not meant to be a slur against those who live in our Northern States, its about our Federal Government both then and now.

Concerning President Andrew Jackson IMO he is without a doubt the most cruel and dishonorable man who ever served in the White House. What he did to the American Indians made the institution of slavery look like a vacation.

American History is an interesting subject and there are valuable lessons for all of us to learn if we accept the truth and the consequences of our ancestors actions. White-washing the facts serves no constructive purpose IMO.
.

[Mike Henderson]

I've studied the time of the Civil War a fair amount and my reading of history is that slavery was the main reason for the war. You can call it "States Rights" if you believe that each state should have the right to decide if slavery can exist as an institution within their borders, but that's just pushing the reason off one level. The differences between the states was primarily the institution of slavery.

The war itself was to decide if the nation would exist as single entity or whether some of the states could secede and go it alone, or form another country. But the reason the south wanted to secede was because of slavery.

After the war, southerns came up with all kinds of reasons for the war, other than slavery, because none of them wanted to defend the institution of slavery, which was impossible.

Mike

P.S. I'm a southerner (deep south, very deep south). But I can read history. And I believe that any unbiased reader of history would come to the conclusion that the primary cause of the American Civil War was the issue of slavery.

[Montgomery Scott]

The Mississippi Declaration of Secession makes it very clear the reason was for the right to own slaves. So far you've provided only an assertion, no sources. Here's a direct quote from the Declaration.

"In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

[Douglas Clark]

The Northern forces showed no compassion for the South after the war, they burned raped and punished. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery. Many of the things Southerners feared would happen if they lost the right to govern themselves became a reality.

While I will not claim to be, even remotely, a Civil War scholar, I personally think that the Northern politicians more than "The Northern forces" were the ones more lacking in compassion following the war. But in light of your assessment, Keith, which I think is mostly fair, it is worthy to recall one interesting irony about that fact. Originally, when Sherman negotiated peace with Johnston the terms were quite generous to the average southerner. In fact, so much so that President Andrew Johnson effectively nullified every aspect of Sherman and Johnston's agreement for fear of the political implications. Consequently, though many Southerner's may revile me for saying as much, I've always felt sorry for Sherman that his form of the peace treaty didn't survive. Those generous terms may have represented Sherman's only possible opportunity to redeem himself, even a smidgen, with the majority of his Southern brethren and it was stripped away from him by a President who, I believe, had little appreciation or understanding of what Sherman had actually attempted both in the efforts of war and the efforts of peace. I have often wondered if Sherman would have experienced greater forgiveness from the South had his original terms been allowed to stand. On the other hand, perhaps not. It is probably easier to forgive those who we are certain have lost enough, such as Lee did as the leader of a fallen army.

In the same vein, I sympathize tremendously with Lee, as well. About two years ago I had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery and Arlington House, which I can actually only describe as a spiritual experience, for me. As I stood there on the front steps of that magnificent house, looking across the river towards the Washington Monument and the Capitol, I tried to comprehend what that moment must have felt like for Lee when he was confronted with the decision. Knowing, that if he chose his beloved Virginia, that the next time he crossed the Potomac that all bets were off and that he would be in enemy territory. That is not only a sobering thought to me, but an absolutely heartbreaking one and I can barely fathom being able to make a choice, let alone even being confronted with it to begin with.

I suppose if I could meet any two people from the Civil War it would be those two Generals. And I know that there are probably a few southerners out there that would curse me to Kingdom-Come to see me venerate Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, but in my humble readings both seemed to be men of substantial character and integrity. And while neither was remotely perfect, particularly Sherman, they both seem to be men who did what they honestly felt was right and acted to the best of their understanding and ability. Unfortunately, it seems that both men were destined to live out the same trial as they suffered the indignity of infamy as a result of that war and yet both seem to have tried so sincerely for reconciliation.

That being said... I hope we never have to do that again.

[Belinda Barfield]

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to Georgia's Declaration of Secession. The right to own slaves was clearly an issue, but preferential treatment of non slave holding states by the federal government was an issue as well.



And I know that there are probably a few southerners out there that would curse me to Kingdom-Come to see me venerate Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, but in my humble readings both seemed to be men of substantial character and integrity. And while neither was remotely perfect, particularly Sherman, they both seem to be men who did what they honestly felt was right and acted to the best of their understanding and ability.

Mr. Clark, I fail to see how you can consider burning a state to the ground from one end to the other "negotiating" peace. Sherman a man of substantial character and integrity? Those in the North and the South faced the atrocities of the war in their very front yards and on their doorsteps. In the south innocent women and children, many of whom lost husbands and fathers in the fighting, were struggling to survive on what little food was left behind when northern soldiers departed their area. Their livestock had been killed, houses raided, gardens trampled, and smokehouses cleaned out. Enduring all of this, they were subjected to Sherman's famous March to the Sea which left much of Georgia a smoking, smoldering ruin. Yes, Mr. Clark, you have found one southerner who takes great offense at the mention of Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, much less one where you venerate Sherman.

I realize that those in the North suffered as well, but the primarily agrarian south did not have the resources required to properly arm the army, or to sustain the population over the prolonged war. I am well aware that both sides suffered horrendous losses. I am also well aware that there was looting and raiding of homes and farms on both sides of the Mason Dixon. Knowing all of that, I still cannot condone the destruction of a state to "negotiate" peace.

It is truly regretable that such as war took place. In defense of the south, many thought that the states would be able to secede and then be left to their own devices. They never anticipated that the war would drag on for so long.

[David Weaver]

It's amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people who live in the south go totally nuts with "it wasn't about slavery". Without the slavery issue, there would've been no civil war. It's convenient to play "we were the good guys" and make it seem like it was about something else now that it's 150 years later.

It was clearly about slavery, which drove the economy of the south. It didn't so much so in the north. The south didn't want to give up slavery any more than anyone else would want to give up a huge sum of their earning potential at the request of someone else.

[Scott Shepherd]

I have to agree 100% with Keith on this one. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until 18 months or so AFTER the start of the Civil War. The War was going on before that issue even came up. I agree that it BECAME about that issue, but it did not START because of that.

There is the Museum of the Confederacy a couple of miles from here, in the city. They have one of the most incredible collections of documents I've ever seen, and they have much more that can be shown privately. Once you see the documents and talk to the historians that run that place, you'll throw your history book in the trash can.

The actual documents are there to support it all, you just have to be willing to accept what you find.

[Mike Henderson]

I have to agree 100% with Keith on this one. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until 18 months or so AFTER the start of the Civil War. The War was going on before that issue even came up. I agree that it BECAME about that issue, but it did not START because of that.

There is the Museum of the Confederacy a couple of miles from here, in the city. They have one of the most incredible collections of documents I've ever seen, and they have much more that can be shown privately. Once you see the documents and talk to the historians that run that place, you'll throw your history book in the trash can.

The actual documents are there to support it all, you just have to be willing to accept what you find.
The events leading up to the Civil War have been extensively studied by scholars for over 100 years. I don't know of any reputable study that does not point to slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War.

Remember that the war was not fought to free the slaves but to preserve the union. The war started because of the secession of the southern states, but the southern states seceded because of the issue of slavery. And slavery was important to the southern states because it was the economic basis of the south.

Southerners continue to claim that the war was caused by issues other than slavery but that's similar to the Holocaust deniers - the truth is just too difficult to accept.

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

.............. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery............

Actually, IIRC, the confiscation was perfectly legal under the laws at that time. Property owners had to pay their property taxes in person, and Lee thought it would be unwise to stroll in to the tax office, seeing as he was a military leader in a rebellion. So, the property was taken for non-payment of taxes.

Now, I admit that it was a really "In your face, Bobby" move to immediately start interring dead Union soldiers on the front lawn of his former home.........that was really twisting the knife.........but from an objective, non-emotional view, I find it a bit amusing. It was a war, after all, and confiscating property was one of the least objectionable horrors.

In a mental rewrite of history, I've been entertained by the thought that, had Lee been less myopic at a critical time, he may have been able to disengage at Gettysburg, wheel around the Union Army, and march into Washington DC virtually unopposed.........and once again slept undisturbed in his mansion on the hill. :D

Shifting gears slightly - One of the last things a delerious Lee said on his death bed was "tell AP Hill he MUST come up". Pretty sure he was replaying Anteitam, where Hill made an overnight 25+ mile forced march from Harper's Ferry....but this led me to wonder about Hill - a man Lee called for in his final hours. There is an excellent biography about this remarkable man - he was the guy that Lee turned to time and again when there was an action that had to be done, and had to be done correctly.

[Kent A Bathurst]

.....It was clearly about slavery, which drove the economy of the south. It didn't so much so in the north. The south didn't want to give up slavery any more than anyone else would want to give up a huge sum of their earning potential at the request of someone else.

Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking - the point that it was only a relatively small group of wealthy people that owned slaves seems disingenuous to me. The wealthy drove the economic engine for everyone, plus people would have been motivated by their visions of becoming wealthy [or, wealthier] themselves, and cheap labor was the ticket. It is not unheard of in history for a war to be launched with flowery, patriotic-sounding rhetoric by the wealthy and political elite, but ultimately fought by the proles.

[Scott Shepherd]

The events leading up to the Civil War have been extensively studied by scholars for over 100 years. I don't know of any reputable study that does not point to slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War.

Yes, it has been studied and in every document I've read, it all started with tariffs being higher on southern states and their rights being taken away from them. You are familiar with 6 or 7 states leaving the United States because of that, right? They didn't leave the United States because of Slavery, they left it because they were being taken advantage of and treated unfairly in the political and banking world.

The fact is that the Civil War was not about 1 thing, it was a combination of many things and those that try to say it was only about slavery are on the wrong side of the truth.

[David Weaver]

The war started because of the secession of the southern states, but the southern states seceded because of the issue of slavery. And slavery was important to the southern states because it was the economic basis of the south.



This is exactly the key. I have never seen anything reputable or even logical that states otherwise.

[Dave Anderson NH]

While we have strong and serious disagreements here over what is historically correct I am very proud that you folks are able to write on an emotional issue such as this without resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

This is the way things should be.

Thank you all.

[Montgomery Scott]

Yes, it has been studied and in every document I've read, it all started with tariffs being higher on southern states and their rights being taken away from them. You are familiar with 6 or 7 states leaving the United States because of that, right? They didn't leave the United States because of Slavery, they left it because they were being taken advantage of and treated unfairly in the political and banking world.

The fact is that the Civil War was not about 1 thing, it was a combination of many things and those that try to say it was only about slavery are on the wrong side of the truth.

The argument of tariffs is a red herring. The fact is that the tariff rates had continued to decrease from the Tariff Act of 1832 to the Tariff of 1857 when the tariff was reduced to the levels they were in 1812.

No, it all goes back to slavery. As it was clearly stated in the Mississippi Declaration of Secession it was also clear in the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina,

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

[Scott Shepherd]

All I can say is come to Virginia and I'll take you to the museums and let you see the documents and talk to the people there. Outside of that, quoting lines from any document isn't going to change anyone's minds here.

I stand by my comments. If you believe what's in your history books, then there's no point in further discussion. If you believe in actual time period documents, and researching it yourself, then we have a good place to start.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Scott,

Why would viewing the documents to which you refer be any more valid than the one to which Montgomery refers?

I would suggest 3 things:

1. This is a political subject.

2. The matter is complex enough that few people have the ability to view or analyze it without bias.

3. It is a matter of no importance in today's world. It's 150 year old history.

I pray we never experience this magnitude of loss of life again in this country for a "civil" war or any other war for that matter.

[Mike Henderson]

All I can say is come to Virginia and I'll take you to the museums and let you see the documents and talk to the people there. Outside of that, quoting lines from any document isn't going to change anyone's minds here.

I stand by my comments. If you believe what's in your history books, then there's no point in further discussion. If you believe in actual time period documents, and researching it yourself, then we have a good place to start.
Scholars have had access to all of those documents for quite a while now (and many other documents) and have come to the conclusion that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. To believe that generations of historians colluded to produce some false history is a real stretch.

Of course, an alternative explanation is that the Museum of the Confederacy wishes to project a certain message and selected documents which support their position. The Richard Nixon Library close to me did the same thing when it was private. Having lived through Nixon's time, I thought I was in some alternate universe when I viewed the displays and documents there.

Mike

[David Weaver]

Of course, an alternative explanation is that the Museum of the Confederacy wishes to project a certain message and selected documents which support their position.

Clearly. There are enough documents in any national or world event to selectively choose a large sample and project any partial truth you'd like to, or put together an incomplete picture and spin it any way you want to.


The Richard Nixon Library close to me did the same thing when it was private. Having lived through Nixon's time, I thought I was in some alternate universe when I viewed the displays and documents there.


I've never been there, but I understand they have now revised some of the exhibits to be a lot more accurate and not just to please the "friendlies" who might be coming through the door and looking for a certain version of "history". I wonder if there are any museums in the south that have done the same thing.

[Belinda Barfield]

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff389008.html)

[Scott Shepherd]

To believe that generations of historians colluded to produce some false history is a real stretch.

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.

The reality is there are 10's of millions of people that believe that the war did not start over slavery, it started over states rights. You are free to believe as you do, and I'm free to believe as I do. I have clearly stated I believe it wasn't started because of it, but it became out it. Reading a history book that tells me different is something I'll pass on. Talking to highly educated people about the subject face to face is something I will believe long before a text book.

Ken, it's 150 years old and has no relevance to today? I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Taking my belief, that it started over states rights, you're smack dab in the middle of a very similar event right now. The supreme court will be hearing a big one here before too long about healthcare. Some states believe it crosses into states rights, and they are heading to the supreme court with it. So it's very relevant to today.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Scott....did you view the document that Montgomery quoted? Why is it less valid than what you prefer to believe?

Can you reasonably ignore a historical document like that?

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........you folks are able to write on an emotional issue such as this without resorting to name calling and personal attacks..

Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!! :p

[Charlie Reals]

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.

The reality is there are 10's of millions of people that believe that the war did not start over slavery, it started over states rights. You are free to believe as you do, and I'm free to believe as I do. I have clearly stated I believe it wasn't started because of it, but it became out it. Reading a history book that tells me different is something I'll pass on. Talking to highly educated people about the subject face to face is something I will believe long before a text book.

Ken, it's 150 years old and has no relevance to today? I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Taking my belief, that it started over states rights, you're smack dab in the middle of a very similar event right now. The supreme court will be hearing a big one here before too long about healthcare. Some states believe it crosses into states rights, and they are heading to the supreme court with it. So it's very relevant to today.

100% spot on Scott. Our history has been taught from a feel good point since day one. Most States knowingly accept text books with mistakes in them and do not bother to note the mistakes. All things in our history are relevant to today.
We call our selves the United States butt most times that is truly a misnomer.
"Lies my teacher told Me" is a good starting read.
Look at how distorted the "Custer Massacre" has been allowed to get even with known history in writing since day one.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

:confused::rolleyes:
Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!! :p

You too?

[Belinda Barfield]

Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!! :p


:confused::rolleyes:

You too?

Me three! delete . . . delete . . . delete:D

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Me three! delete . . . delete . . . delete:D

I find it quicker often to just log out and then log back in......:D

Fewer key strokes.....

[Belinda Barfield]

100% spot on Scott. Our history has been taught from a feel good point since day one. Most States knowingly accept text books with mistakes in them and do not bother to note the mistakes. All things in our history are relevant to today.
We call our selves the United States butt most times that is truly a misnomer.
"Lies my teacher told Me" is a good starting read.
Look at how distorted the "Custer Massacre" has been allowed to get even with known history in writing since day one.

Another view: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-the-Battle-of-Little-Bighorn-Was-Won.html

[Scott Shepherd]

Can you reasonably ignore a historical document like that?

I don't ignore any historical document Ken. What I do is consider it alongside many other historical documents and make a judgement on my own rather than believe everything I read in a book written in modern day times about events that happened so long ago. Just as noted one document, as to be shown as proof, if I put up a document from that era that shows a line that said something about "States Rights" will you believe that to be the whole truth then? Or will that document be discounted as a "non-truth"?

That's my point exactly. We all make our minds up by what we are exposed to and what we believe to be true based on the data we have experienced. It's been 20 years since I looked into any of it, and my decisions were based on what I learned then.

Me producing any documentation isn't going to change your mind on anything, is it? I seriously doubt it.

[Douglas Clark]

Mr. Clark, I fail to see how you can consider burning a state to the ground from one end to the other "negotiating" peace.

I'm going to try and tread carefully here, because my intent was never to offend. Although I knew in advance that some could not countenance my view. Maintaining good feelings (and I realize it may be too late for that with some) and solid understanding are more important to me than needing to be "right" or sway people to my view. So, I will offer this response and then let the issue lay.

I never said that burning the state to the ground was an act of "negotiating" peace. It most certainly was not, anymore than dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of negotiating peace. They were acts of war, pure and simple. I was referring specifically to the formal negotiations that Sherman entered into with Johnston once the war was over. Negotiations that could never have happened until the war was ended. I don't know if you've ever read the terms that Sherman offered to Johnston during that surrender but they were quite generous to the average southerner compared to what Andrew Johnson ended up pursuing. I am actually quite curious, do they even cover that part of the history in the South? It would be truly unjust to condemn a man without reviewing all the evidence. Regardless of what parts of history Southerners choose to celebrate or ignore, it is a fact that Sherman, as much as Lee, made efforts to reconcile after the war was over. And as far as I'm concerned, whether he did enough to atone for his previous sins is only for God to decide.


I still cannot condone the destruction of a state to "negotiate" peace.

This is a difficult, difficult topic and I will not even try to sway you to my view as you seem clearly committed in your position. But I want to at least explain why I maintain the perspective I do, whether you agree with it or not.

I believe that the problem here is the same one that Truman faced in WWII, which is, waging total war is not the same as negotiating peace, but we may never arrive at the opportunity to negotiate peace without first waging total war. It is extremely unlikely, that had the war continued to drag on, that eventually everyone would have just given up and gone home. Consequently, how many more battles would have been fought, how many more lives lost if the war had dragged on? It's really a question of of two evils. There was no good decision, so Sherman and the North chose the one that they hoped would bring the war to a quicker end. Ultimately, both Sherman and Truman were stuck with the choice of deciding which is more immoral, engaging in total warfare as to end it so quickly that, while more damage is done to the land, less lives are lost? Or, leave the land alone and let those at home continue to try and feed more of its people so it can fight more battles and allow the south and the north to lose more lives? People can claim that Sherman's methods weren't necessary (or that Truman's weren't for that matter) but it is all speculation. Because the war ended we will never know for sure whether there were more "appropriate" options. We can only guess, or hope, or think... but usually the conclusion we arrive at is self-serving and it never changes reality.

As with Lee choosing to lead the forces of secession, both Sherman and Truman made the decision that they felt was right. They did not have the luxury of time, or hindsight, or do-overs. They had to commit to a horrible decision and then live with the consequences. Clearly Sherman more than Truman still suffers the consequences of that decision as his name is still reviled in the South. And yet how many southerners were grateful for Truman's decision to act just as drastically towards the Japanese? Why? Because Truman's decision undoubtedly served the U.S. and saved the lives of many southerners, just as Sherman's decision served the Union and saved the lives of many northerners. But what so many people fail to remember, because we tend towards a self-centric perspective, is that, in the long run Truman's decision undoubtedly spared the lives of many Japanese soldiers and civilians, as well. Similarly Sherman's decision undoubtedly saved the lives of many young southern soldiers and families. The south hates Sherman because of the lives he took but they seem to ignore the lives that he probably saved.

Personally, I cannot and will not identify my self as a southerner or a northerner. I had family from both sides. Although, even then, much of my family had already started migrating west. Consequently, I have trouble reviling or condemning either side. Ultimately, I believe as many do, that if you must engage in war, that it is more immoral to drag out the fight. If you have resolved to fight, then you must also fight to resolve and fight to resolve quickly. To allow the war to go on indeterminately, and to sacrifice more lives over and over; I believe that is a greater sin and would have been a greater tragedy.

As a side note, when I lived in Hawaii, it was interesting to me to find out how many Japanese visited Pearl Harbor and the Arizona Memorial. What is curious to me, is that, as a nation the Japanese seem to be far more forgiving of Truman than the South is of Lincoln and Sherman. And yet, maybe that's the way it is when it happens within the "family". It's always harder to forgive someone you have to live with and it's always a deeper betrayal when it comes from within.

[Charlie Reals]

Another view: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-the-Battle-of-Little-Bighorn-Was-Won.html

Ahhh yes,;), the truths that were written from day one but distorted because our country needed a 'Hero". There was a book written about 1905 that had much of this info in it but was edited at Teddy Roosevelt's request because it would destroy a legend.
It's funny how arccheology has bared this info out.:)

[Mike Henderson]

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.
No, I'm not kidding. To believe that the written history of the Civil War is false, as you appear to do, you have to believe that generations of historians, in locations all over the world, colluded in some way, and for some unknown reason, to write a false history of the Civil War. It's simply not possible.

If you had a situation like tobacco research where the tobacco companies were funding the research, you would at least have some basis for being skeptical. But there's no Civil War company funding research on either side.

No, the reason historians agree on the causes of the Civil War is that the documents from that time only support one rational conclusion.

Mike

[Scott Shepherd]

No, I'm not kidding. To believe that the written history of the Civil War is false, as you appear to do, you have to believe that generations of historians, in locations all over the world, colluded in some way, and for some unknown reason, to write a false history of the Civil War. It's simply not possible.

If you had a situation like tobacco research where the tobacco companies were funding the research, you would at least have some basis for being skeptical. But there's no Civil War company funding research on either side.

No, the reason historians agree on the causes of the Civil War is that the documents from that time only support one rational conclusion.

Mike

That's your opinion. There are 10's of millions of people that disagree with your opinion.

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........never said that burning the state to the ground was an act of "negotiating" peace. It most certainly was not.......Sherman and the North chose the one that they hoped would bring the war to a quicker end............let those at home continue to try and feed more of its people so it can fight more battles.....

That action - Sherman's March to the Sea - was a straightforward military action in a war. The battlegrounds had never been in the deep south's heartland. Grant and Sherman had 2 objectives. One was to deprive the enemy [and that's what the Confederates were to the Union Army - the enemy] of supplies to feed, arm, and clothe their forces, which reduces their ability to wage war. The second was more political in nature - they wanted to demonstrate to the deep south what a war is really like -they brought the war to the opposing force's homeland, in a very dramatic fashion. The bloom was off the "romance" of the great struggle pretty doggone quick.

Remember - Grant had earlier done the same thing in the Shennandoah Valley. Stuck initially with a political hack - Maj Gen Frantz Sigel - Grant sent him into the Valley, but he was a miserable failure, and Grant was finally able to get him shelved in a War Dept back room. In goes Phil Sheridan in early atumn 1864. He kicked Jubal Early's butt up the Valley [meaning, from north to south], and destroyed crops, livestocks, and farm buildings from mountain range to mountain range. That was not an act of negotiating - that was an act of war, intended to deprive the enemy of supplies - permanently - and eliminate the Valley as a continual source of insurrection and enemy attacks. No longer needing to worry much about the Shennandoah, Grant could marshall more force against the Army of No Va.

In August 1863, Quantrill's Raiders burned Lawrence, KS. 4 days later, Gen Thomas Ewing issued the infamous General Order No 11. The 4 Missouri counties on the Kansas border were forcibly depopulated - everyone had to get out in 2 weeks - and then everything was burned to the ground. That wasn't negotiating - that was a military action against the enemy, to stop the raids. And it worked. [But, it did leave the region with a couple of Quantrill's and Bloody Bill Anderson's men that had a serious attitude problem - the James brothers].

The cold, horrible, fact is that's how wars are fought. Bombing Hanoi. Obliterating Dresden. Scorched earth - literally - in Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina.

[ray hampton]

No, I'm not kidding. To believe that the written history of the Civil War is false, as you appear to do, you have to believe that generations of historians, in locations all over the world, colluded in some way, and for some unknown reason, to write a false history of the Civil War. It's simply not possible.

If you had a situation like tobacco research where the tobacco companies were funding the research, you would at least have some basis for being skeptical. But there's no Civil War company funding research on either side.

No, the reason historians agree on the causes of the Civil War is that the documents from that time only support one rational conclusion.

Mike



Do you or anyone think that president Lincoln of the north would give orders to start the CIVIL WAR against the south knowing HOW MUCH MONEY that the war would cost without a way to recover the money a thousand percent ?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

My paternal ancestors were from the Carolinas, Kentucky, Missouri. I had family members on both sides of that war.

Beyond that, I am skeptical of any organization that is dedicated to glorify or memorialize either side involved in that war. I would expect them to have a biased view and a planned outcome.

It's easy to selectively choose which documents to use to prove a predetermined conclusion.

I will repeat myself....this is political....it's an emotional and complex enough issue I don't think anybody is capable of rendering an unbiased view of what caused the war.

and while I am a staunch opponent for socialized medicine or national healthcare, I believe it's absurd to say there is any correlation between the future lawsuit and claimed "states rights" issues involving the Civil War.

It started 150 years ago. It's over. Get over it. I didn't do it. I didn't fight in it. I don't feel responsible for it. Get over it!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Please...don't anybody claim Elvis is still alive.......at Area 51 along with those visitors from NM..........

[David Weaver]

There exists a myriad of other historical events that I could find 10s of millions of people who disagree with well established historical documentation, too.

Elvis is just one of them, since you brought it up :)

[Kent A Bathurst]

Please...don't anybody claim Elvis is still alive.......at Area 51 along with those visitors from NM..........


Isn't Area 51 where they have the soundstage used to film the fake moon landings?

[Douglas Clark]

Kent, with a far greater knowledge of specific examples than I had available, you and I clearly concur on this topic. Sherman's actions were not, in principle, out of line with the objectives of war. And for that matter, I have a hard time believing that the South would not have done the same to the north if they would had ability and opportunity to do so. That is why I do not understand the venom that Southerners have for Sherman, particularly. Or is it just Georgians?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Isn't Area 51 where they have the soundstage used to film the fake moon landings?

That's just a rumor but there are 10 of millions who will testify to it........... because they read it in a paper purchased while standing in the grocery checkout line.

[Belinda Barfield]

Kent, with a far greater knowledge of specific examples than I had available, you and I clearly concur on this topic. Sherman's actions were not, in principle, out of line with the objectives of war. And for that matter, I have a hard time believing that the South would not have done the same to the north if they would had ability and opportunity to do so. That is why I do not understand the venom that Southerners have for Sherman, particularly. Or is it just Georgians?

Mostly Georgians, Doug. I well understand that burning Georgia was an act of war but it still seems like he was kicking a man who was already down and nearly dead. Fortunately, Sherman did spare Savannah. Yes, it was 150 years ago but when your family was burned out, lost everything, and never recovered financially it becomes a little personal. I know, I know, 150 years is a really long time and it's not like I actually knew Grandpa Luck, or Grandpa McEachin, or Grandpa Barfield, or Grandpa Martin, or Grandpa Carter, or any of the other family members who fought.

Oh, by the way, I've read books other than those written and published in the south.:) If we ever have an east/west conflict I'll try to read books from your side as well.

[David Weaver]

If we ever have an east/west conflict I'll try to read books from your side as well.

I sense something about Tupac Shakur and Notorious BIG coming on.

[Jerome Hanby]

The cold, horrible, fact is that's how wars are fought. Bombing Hanoi. Obliterating Dresden. Scorched earth - literally - in Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina.

You are absolutely right, the South did exactly the same thing when Lee invaded Pennsylvania, burned, killed, and ruined everything in his path ... oh wait, that's not what happened ... But, I'm sure it will be with the next revision of the history tomes. Or to translate it into a level suitable for the current government schools, Confederacy bad, Union good, sleepy now (paraphrased from Kelly Bundy).

[Kent A Bathurst]

That's just a rumor but there are 10 of millions who will testify to it........... because they read it in a paper purchased while standing in the grocery checkout line.

Hold your horses.....I was supposed to PAY for those papers?

Ruh-roh.

[Scott Shepherd]

and while I am a staunch opponent for socialized medicine or national healthcare, I believe it's absurd to say there is any correlation between the future lawsuit and claimed "states rights" issues involving the Civil War.

It started 150 years ago. It's over. Get over it. I didn't do it. I didn't fight in it. I don't feel responsible for it. Get over it!

First, I'm not a CSA belt buckle wearing person. I own no civil war items, don't even own a book on it. That's how important a role it plays in my life. So get over your "Get over it comments". If we can only talk about things you think are relevant, then what's the point in having "conversations"?

It's your opinion that's it's an absurd comparison. It's my opinion that it's not. It IS a state's rights issue. Don't believe me, read the filings of the papers with the courts. They are taking it to court because they believe the federal government has stepped on the States rights. I don't care if you agree or disagree with health care issues, it's the facts that it's GOING to the supreme court because it IS a state's right case that's being filed.

States rights, that's exactly what the war was about. Now if you look into what States Rights means, it means that at that point in time, the federal and state laws allowed people to own slaves. FEDERAL and STATE laws allowed it. They were seen as "property". So taking someones "property" was seen as a states right issue. You can call it slavery all you want, but at that time it was their rights to own "property".

That was a States Rights case, and it was shown in court to be such.

So the 2 are very much alike.

[Mike Henderson]

That's your opinion. There are 10's of millions of people that disagree with your opinion.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

Kent, with a far greater knowledge of specific examples than I had available, you and I clearly concur on this topic. Sherman's actions were not, in principle, out of line with the objectives of war. And for that matter, I have a hard time believing that the South would not have done the same to the north if they would had ability and opportunity to do so. That is why I do not understand the venom that Southerners have for Sherman, particularly. Or is it just Georgians?

After I made that post, I thought of the demolition of Carthage as another example, but figured an edit for that would have been kinda piling on :)

Yeah - they can get a bit cranked here in Georgia. I guess it's because it's their home [mine also, now], and the state's rights emotions still run high - it seems maybe the Civil War provides a bit of a banner for those feelings, in some quarters. Unfortunately for those with well-reasoned political beliefs, it is also banner for the rednecks that bow to Stone Mountain - birthplace of the KKK by a Confederate General - and "outworlders" can get the two rationales confused, which is a mistake.

My ancestors for some generations back are from central Eastern Kansas. I don't carry any argument with today's Missouri folks about raids that crossed those farms. One of my ancestors got back home from Andersonville with 2 arms and one leg - one of the lucky few. I don't have any hard feelings with south Georgians about those events - it was very kind of Sherman, though, to liberate that hellhole.

I just look at it from a pragmatic, historical perspective. Grant and Sherman wanted to sap the will of the oppfor to continue the fight - kind of "Keep it up, fellas, and there will be nothing left for you to go home to. You cannot stop us. We don't even NEED that Army here in Petersburg." And - yeah, Belinda - they were kicking a man that was down - but their weapons were not down, and in war they don't throw yellow flags for piling on. Grant knew he had an essentially unlimited supply of men, horses, food, and munitions [compared to the CSA, at least], and was very willing to trade men one-for-one in battle - he simply could not lose that game - but he did what he could to end it as quickly as practical.

Sherman isn't held in very high regard by natives here in Atlanta where I live - I can tell you that for sure!! 'Course - I'm sitting here in my woodshop in the basement of a house on the north bank of Peachtree Creek - land that has been continuously occupied by Yankees since we first arrived July 19, 1864. :D :D

On the surface, it might seem that 150 years is a long time to carry a grudge, but I was a kid sitting in Michigan State's Spartan Stadium for the infamous 1966 10-10 "Tie One For The Gipper" game against Parsegian's Fighting Irish, and I can guaran-gol-darn-tee you that holding a grudge for 44 years and counting is easy to do. :p :p :p

[Jerome Hanby]

Here is something topical that is a bit lighter. Several year ago, the stars fell into a mystically significant alignment and two great events took place in the same week. PBS aired a pretty massive civil war program and the Jordan lane branch of KFC opened a buffet line. While a coworker and I were in line to try the one were were discussing the other. The previous nights viewing presented an opportunity that Lee could have taken to push all the way to DC, only he had no way of knowing that there was no significant force capable of hindering him, so he held back. As we were discussing this theory, I realized that this is probably what all d&%$ed yankees think we Southerners do, stand around waiting for fried chicken talking about how we should have won the war...

[Glenn Clabo]

Bingo!!!!!

[Montgomery Scott]

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.

The reality is there are 10's of millions of people that believe that the war did not start over slavery, it started over states rights. You are free to believe as you do, and I'm free to believe as I do. I have clearly stated I believe it wasn't started because of it, but it became out it. Reading a history book that tells me different is something I'll pass on. Talking to highly educated people about the subject face to face is something I will believe long before a text book.

Ken, it's 150 years old and has no relevance to today? I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Taking my belief, that it started over states rights, you're smack dab in the middle of a very similar event right now. The supreme court will be hearing a big one here before too long about healthcare. Some states believe it crosses into states rights, and they are heading to the supreme court with it. So it's very relevant to today.

Please enumerate these states rights that were violated to cause the war. Provide sources as well.

[ray hampton]

You are absolutely right, the South did exactly the same thing when Lee invaded Pennsylvania, burned, killed, and ruined everything in his path ... oh wait, that's not what happened ... But, I'm sure it will be with the next revision of the history tomes. Or to translate it into a level suitable for the current government schools, Confederacy bad, , sleepy now (paraphrased from Kelly Bundy).

Union good
they are good , that why they need the rebels to teach them how to work , as least the yankees that I had work with were not much for hard work

[Kent A Bathurst]

....... I realized that this is probably what all d&%$ed yankees think we Southerners do, stand around waiting for fried chicken talking about how we should have won the war...

10's of millions of people agree!! The rest of us thought it was BBQ. :D :D :D

Sorry, Jerome - low hanging fruit - had no choice.

J.E.B. Stuart was full of himself. He left Lee without "eyes" just so he could spend a few days - ultimately crucial days - riding all the way around the Union Army. OTOH - as the best tactician on both sides of the war, Lee still blundered badly at Gettysburg. But, no one escapes a years-long campaign with a perfect record.

[ray hampton]

of all of the posts here and NOBODY mention the King James Bible and GOD stand on slavery, I do not recall any verses that prohibits slavery and I believe that the slaves were more widespread then compare to the numbers of slaves during the Civil War

[Charlie Reals]

[QUOTE=Jerome Hanby;1 As we were discussing this theory, I realized that this is probably what all yankees think we Southerners do, stand around waiting for fried chicken talking about how we should have won the war...[/QUOTE]

Please, Jerome what qualifies as a yankee :D:D. I guess thats why the rest of this country thinks ussins from Ca. are freaks and hippies. Oh butt wait, most are a mixture of north and south coming west during WWII and inner mingling and now all oh well My Ma was from Cullman and I still got kin there and mobile. I has ancestors who faced each other at a couple battles and inner married when the yankees came south raping and pillaging ;)
I cant even think of a time except with my grandfather that I ever heard about the civil war other than what a hell of a time it had been. it was.
Most lose sight of the fact that whatever atrocities we suffer in our past they were, for the most part, the law of the land at the time.
Do we have any upstate NY history buffs on here? I did research for genealogy there and there were some strange takes on what was and was not a slave there way back in our history.

[Douglas Clark]

I guess thats why the rest of this country thinks ussins from Ca. are freaks and hippies.

Charlie, the reason that most of the country thinks we're all freaks and hippies out in California, is because there's too many dadgum freaks and hippies in this state. At least, that's what you would think if you've only been to Northern or Southern CA. The concept of Central California is wasted on most people, who don't understand that it even exists. Heck even most Californians fail to recognize that it exists. But if you want "normal" Californians you gotta visit the interior of the state! Of course, even then as you say, we all mostly "a mixture" 'round these parts.

[Matt Meiser]

NOBODY mention the King James Bible and GOD stand on slavery

Great.

Now all we need to to is somehow bring sex into the mix and we'll have the "perfect storm" -- religion, sex and politics.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Please enumerate these states rights that were violated to cause the war. Provide sources as well.

Shoot - I'll take a shot. The Constitution does not list rights reserved for the states, per se - no "state's rights" listed. It enumerates the powers of the Federal Government, and anything not specifically identified is left to the several states. Odd document from that respect - it never says what you cannot do, only what the Federal Gov't can do - with one short-lived exception. The 18th Amendment - Prohibition - was the first and only time that something was identified as "you cannot do this....". That didn't turn out well in the long run, and the 21st Amendment reversed it.

So - what authority does the Constitution grant to the Federal Gov't is the real question. [For example - the right to regulate interstate commerce in Article One of the Constitution is the battleground on the health care law, or, at least, specific provisions of the law.] As another example, the right to own property, is fundamental to the Constitution. So - were slaves property or people? That, I believe, is not all that clear-cut.

Yes, they were bought and sold, and were the basic engine to the Southern agragrian-based economy, like a tractor or combine is today. But, if slaves were property, why were they considered at all in apportioning representation in the House of Representatives - something negotiated in Philadelphia, because the Southern Colonies demanded it, or else they would have been severely disadvantaged by the heavily populated North. But the deal [or "Great Compromise"] counted them as only 3/5 of a "person". But - isn't that having your cake and eat it too? "They are property, unless we need them to count as people." It would seem a bit odd if I suggested we count combines as 3/5 of a "person" for apportioning Congressional representation, wouldn't it? That's a tough argument - and not just today - it was a tough one back then.

Assume for a minute the strict state's rights interpretation - that the slaves were property. OK, then - do the states have the right to secede from the Union? A Constitutional question that never ran the gauntlet of the Supreme Court. There was no plaintiff to take the case to the Court - the South wasn't about to submit its grievances to that venue, besides.........

My guess is that the Court, consistent with it's Federalist rulings throughout the early 1800's, would likely have said: Well, hold on a minute, there. The people [as in We, the People] are sovereign. The states are not sovereign. The People enacted this Constitution, for all People - it was not, and is not, a document of the States. This is a political question, not a question of law. The Constitution provides a clear-cut path to resolving those issues - amendments. Go get an Amendment to the Constitution, and you can darn well secede. If you win. B-bye.

Fat chance of that happening, because each of the several States got one single vote on Amendments [oops - outgunned]. And, the southern states knew that. So, the dominoes fell.

And - no, there is no such thing as a list of "state's rights". There is a thing known as powers reserved to the Federal government - the Constitution - and if it ain't in that list then it ain't a Federal power. So - what's on that list is the real question? All indications are that "the power to prevent dissolution of the Union" seems to have been there.

[Charlie Reals]

Charlie, the reason that most of the country thinks we're all freaks and hippies out in California, is because there's too many dadgum freaks and hippies in this state. At least, that's what you would think if you've only been to Northern or Southern CA. The concept of Central California is wasted on most people, who don't understand that it even exists. Heck even most Californians fail to recognize that it exists. But if you want "normal" Californians you gotta visit the interior of the state! Of course, even then as you say, we all mostly "a mixture" 'round these parts.

Ok youngin, now ya went and did it:cool: there were no Hippies till the 60's and us east Oakland folks went to the Central valley to visit our hick cousins.:mad: Lord I hated that lol . Isn't life in Ca. wonderful. Butt, yeah Doug, most not from here have no knowledge past Hollywood and Frisco.

[Bryan Morgan]

OK, then - do the states have the right to secede from the Union?

I know there are threats by some states, do to recent events, of secession... these claims are based on breach of contract. They had contracts to join the union and modern Fed policy goes against those original contracts. I'd like to read some of these contracts for myself...

[Bryan Morgan]

Please, Jerome what qualifies as a yankee :D:D. I guess thats why the rest of this country thinks ussins from Ca. are freaks and hippies.

I find this interesting:

While a few Americans might know that shipments of gold from California helped keep the Union solvent during the Civil War, almost no one know that California had more volunteers per capita in the Union Army than any other state. Nor is it generally known that by war's end California volunteers in the West occupied more territory than did the Union Army in the east.

From here: http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html

[Bryan Slimp]

I will carefully wade in on this one a touch. I've stopped myself several times.

Museums, like history take a slant. If you would like to visit two museums that are on opposite ends of each other there is a Creationism Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and the American Museum of Natural History in NYC.

[Keith Outten]

Historical events are often misrepresented. This is particularly true concerning the Civi War given that the majority of what was written was from the Northern side. When so much of the South was burned during the course of the war records were lost that would have provided a bit more information concerning the South. We found in our family ancestral search that a large percentage of the birth and death information ceased to exist from the period because so many Courthouses were burned. This was also true of Southern newspapers, they were prime targets to be destroyed.

Someone mentioned the NASA moon landing.....I worked at NASA Langley and it is true that NASA pre-recored a video of a successful moon landing prior to the actual event. There was considerable discussion about how to handle the live video at the time and it was decided that if there was an accident they would not allow people all over the world to witness a tragedy. They made a moon model that was about 18 feet in diameter they used for the astronauts to practice landing, one of the practice simulations was recorded and was to be used if necessary. My point here is that Governments have always planned alternate ways to report events if the need so arises and there was most likely a lot of information reported during the Civil War that was dictated by the heads of State on both sides. Given the state of the art in communications during the period is would have been easy for Lincoln to direct the press and they would have believed anything his office provided. Unless you have some gray hair you may not remember that prior to the 1960's you never questioned the President.

Another factor that some here may not have considered is that our values today don't even remotely represent how people viewed things during the Civil War period. In fact our values today are a million miles from when I was young. What was considered a perfectly normal attitude in the 50's and 60's would appall many people today. As a reference for you young folks I remember riding the local city busses and Black Americans had to ride in the back. I know that many of you think this happened hundreds of years ago but it happened in my lifetime. We have come a long way people, my point is that if you intend to judge another generation of people you will most likely be unfair in your observations. You can't possibly put yourself in the period and certainly can't even begin to understand someone else's values.

I mentioned before that in the South the Revolutionary Was was a recent event and people felt much differently about Government. Our Government was still trying to get on its feet in those days and people were skeptical at best. My Grandparents were born just after the Civil War, their lives were affected in many ways during their early years and it left a major impression that affected their values and their attitude. Clearly war propaganda was indeed part of the mix, this isn't a modern warfare technique and lies that were reported over and over became the truth to those who lived far from the battlefields in places that had newspapers it was much easier to distort the truth and have it recorded as historical fact.

There is a very good book called "The Greatest Lies in History" by Alexander Canduci that is an interesting read. It sheds some light on many Historical events and how the truth was distorted or how easy it was to hide relevant information from the public.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I know there are threats by some states, do to recent events, of secession... these claims are based on breach of contract. They had contracts to join the union and modern Fed policy goes against those original contracts. I'd like to read some of these contracts for myself...

Let me be perfectly clear - I am not taking a position on those beliefs or opinions, I am just being a cold-hearted non-political pragmatist. For the record, my party affiliation is "Card-Carrying Cynic."

Sounds like Sancho Panza and Don Quixote are fixna [that right there is a gool ol' southern word] saddle up once again. Good thing, too - those windmills are really getting out of hand, and someone needs to do something.

The Constitution was ratified by a vote of the People in all of the states. It was not ratified by the States themselves - and this is more than an argument over semantics, it is a fundamental principle. Now, they certainly have a legitimate political view - but it has to be resolved politically, because the current Law of The Land is not on their side - there was no agreement with, nor vote by, the States themselves. Simply did not occur. Fortunately, there is a clear-cut avenue they can pursue - an Amendment to the Constitution of The United States - and they don't even need Congress to do it - they can call Constitutional Conventions throughout the country, and take that route. Grab your pitchforks and storm the castle, as it were.

Of course, back in the day, for the purposes of voting, "People" was defined as free, male, owners of real property. Maybe we should just have a popular vote today, with all of the People allowed to vote under today's laws [including, sigh, females :( **] , and see how that turns out? Anyone wanna make book on that?

The one State with the best odds of successfully seceding from the Union is California - when The Big One hits, and it literally separates from the rest of the Union.

** It was a joke, ladies :D. Of course, it does sometimes seem that, for my 35 years of married life, the best my vote can do is cancel out the rest of the household :p.

EDIT: I just took a quick scan, and noted that in all 108 posts, Moderator intervention via edit has happened only twice. Well done folks - please steer clear of the stuff that will get this locked. Of course, I did not count the time that Keith edited himself....gotta think that one through....did he post something that was not in the TOS, and then have to go back to clean up his own post? Hmmmm....sounds like one of those Mobius loop things, where you can't ever get off once you start.

[David Weaver]

Union good
they are good , that why they need the rebels to teach them how to work , as least the yankees that I had work with were not much for hard work

That's an interesting accusation, because in my profession, we generally got the most work out of people in chicago and new york (to the point that I'd call it unhealthy). When we went to the south unit, there was a completely different sense of urgency and speed, and not in a good way.

May be different in different types of work, but in mine, there's certainly no truth to that.

[Charlie Reals]

I find this interesting:

While a few Americans might know that shipments of gold from California helped keep the Union solvent during the Civil War, almost no one know that California had more volunteers per capita in the Union Army than any other state. Nor is it generally known that by war's end California volunteers in the West occupied more territory than did the Union Army in the east.

From here: http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html

There was a federal armory at Copperopolis,Ca, to guard the copper mines there. Now it is a big housing area and most who live there aren't aware nor do they care about the history.
Of course though it is overshadowed by Mark Twain and the frog jumps just up the road lol.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I have found this thread fabulously interesting both from the viewpoint of the different views of the "facts" presented and from the large number of little nuggets of history that folks have dropped. We are now over 111 posts with only two deleted. While it is obvious that tempers have flared at times, the general tone has been both contentious and civil at the same time. That is a rare combination indeed. I'm sure Rick Potter never had the slightest suspicion that the thread he started would take so many twists and turns and continue for so long a time and for so many posts. Such are the ways of internet forums.

[Belinda Barfield]

I don't know about the rest of the south, but here in Savannah when we're standing in line for fried chicken or BBQ we talk about fried chicken and BBQ . . . as in where to get the best. Other than here, the last time I spoke with anyone about the War Between the States was three weeks ago when my company was asked to clean and restore a Confederate memorial in Augusta. Prior to that - can't recall.

I did have a thought this morning (amazing isn't it?). There was another war in which brother fought brother and father fought son. You know, the one that was 235 years ago . . . the one we celebrate on Independence Day? I don't recall anyone ever saying, "that was 235 years ago, forget about it?". Why is it that when a southerner mentions The War we're told, "It was 150 years ago, you lost, sit down, shut up, and forget about it."? There seems to be a bit of irony somwhere in all of that. :rolleyes:

[Kent A Bathurst]

I find this interesting:

While a few Americans might know that shipments of gold from California helped keep the Union solvent during the Civil War, almost no one know that California had more volunteers per capita in the Union Army than any other state. Nor is it generally known that by war's end California volunteers in the West occupied more territory than did the Union Army in the east.

From here: http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html


Bryan - very cool - thanks. I knew very little of the information on that site. I spent my "kid years" in KS, Northern VA, and MD, so I'd been to many, many battlefields even before high school. Even today, the farthest west for civil war sites I have been is Vicksburg - and somehow I have not quite made it to Shiloh, which is embarrasing.

Kinda gives one an umbalanced perspective that did not include the Far West. Now you are forcing me to go dig up some history book[s] of the Civil War in the west. Gonna have to make some tough choices in the crammed-full History bookcase - someone goes to the overflow in the basement.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Belinda,

I didn't mean to insult anyone with my comment.

I apologize if I insulted anyone.

It is still beyond me to understand the need to be obsessed by it 150 years later. I can understand learning from the past but not being obsessed by it to the point that is so obvious in a lot of cases.

We, as a society, will survive and grow by those beliefs that we hold dear and common not by those that divide us.

Again, my apologies to you and any others I may have insulted.

[Charlie Reals]

Ken,
I didn't take it as an insult but more like the typical "flatlander go home" we both know about lol.
I found it kinda funny that shortly after Custer was brought up it went to area 51 and the moon shot. that's typical also . What some call obsession others call passion. it's what makes the world turn.
Lotta good info so far inspite of us all lol

[Belinda Barfield]

Belinda,

I didn't mean to insult anyone with my comment.

I apologize if I insulted anyone.


Ken . . . Ken . . . Ken, SERIOUSLY? If I was offended, you'd know about it. I think you know me well enough to know that. My comment was partially in jest, partially serious. I'm not as hard core "the south shall rise again" is many of you might think. Although I am currently sitting on my front porch overlooking my vast acreage of cotton and tobacco, Mint Julep at hand, playing Dixie on my banjo, with my favorite coonhound at my feet. :D Oh, and I ain't wearin' no shoes!

[Kent A Bathurst]

.............Why is it that when a southerner mentions The War we're told, "It was 150 years ago, you lost, sit down, shut up, and forget about it."?

Waste of breath. Has never been successful, AFAIK. :p :p

[Rick Potter]

Matt,

Here is your sex angle...why do you think they call them 'hookers'.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

RP

[Belinda Barfield]

Waste of breath. Has never been successful, AFAIK. :p :p

There may be a grain of truth in that.

[Belinda Barfield]

Matt,

Here is your sex angle...why do you think they call them 'hookers'.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

RP

A misconception that the term originated during the war in relation to General Hooker's lenient camp policies, but a good try. Know why "your mama wears combat boots" is considered an insult?

[Matt Meiser]

I found it kinda funny that shortly after Custer was brought up it

WHOA! I missed that. Don't be messin' with Custer!

Matt, who grew up in Custer's home town where he's treated like a hero for some reason. We even have this statue.

http://monroe.lib.mi.us/Images/Hot%20Stuff%20images/Custer%20in%20Monroe%20pics/statue-s.jpg

[Belinda Barfield]

Matt, post #73. Nice statue.

[Charlie Reals]

oh no here comes the passion;) Custer is an American hero who let his ego be his guide, even into the spirit world. Several generals of the era did the same, just not to the same extent.
If you can get past the "mission" history, there were more than a few like that in California at the time.

[Brian Effinger]

Matt M. and anyone else - did you know General Custer didn't die a general? I think he was a captain in the army.

[ray hampton]

That's an interesting accusation, because in my profession, we generally got the most work out of people in chicago and new york (to the point that I'd call it unhealthy). When we went to the south unit, there was a completely different sense of urgency and speed, and not in a good way.

May be different in different types of work, but in mine, there's certainly no truth to that.

you never said what type of work you are involve in but I am glad that you got hard workers, hope that you pay them a good day wages

[Kent A Bathurst]

Matt M. and anyone else - did you know General Custer didn't die a general? I think he was a captain in the army.

Correct. His permanent rank was Captain. He received temporary war-time promotions to Maj Gen. When the war ended, he [and all like him] reverted to their permanent rank.

Same thing - kinda - for Ike in WWII. Permanent rank of Lt Col. Temp promotions to Brig Gen, Major Gen, Lt Gen - so he carried Lt gen but was permanent Lt Col. Then perm to Brig. Got temp 4-star in early Aug 43, then permanent promotions to major Gen and Lt Gen in August 43. He ultimately got permanent 5-star after D-Day.

I'm reading history of N Africa campaign, and he was fed up enough, and often enough, to the wrestling with the politics of US v. UK v. French forces + deployment that more than once he groused that he'd rather just go back to his permanent rank of Col, command a Div, and get the heck out of HQ.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Well.....from what I just read of Custer's biography I thought it said he was appointed the rank of Lt. Col. in the newly created 7th Calvary and at General Sheridan's request brevetted the rank of Major General.......the primary difference between a brevetted rank as far as I am aware is pay. He still would have received the pay of a Lt. Col. but would have been accorded all the honors, respect and authority of a Major General.

BTW...if you are ever in eastern Montana, the site of the Battle of the Little Bighorn is just off the interstate and is an interesting place to view. Recent range fires in that area uncovered some physical evidence that lead people to change their opinions as to what happened there.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I stand corrected, then. Been to Little Big Horn site many years back. Very interesting. However - summer, very hot and dusty, "beware of the rattlesnakes" signs along all the paths. I kinda figured I'd have let the Sioux have it.

[Pat Germain]

I haven't seen anyone mention Robert Redford's new film, "The Conspirator". It takes place in post-Civil War America. A woman is accused of being a conspirator in the Lincoln Assassination.

Now, I understand that being a Hollywood movie from Robert Redford, some might expect this film to take a particular political position, play loose with facts and involve lots of hyperbole. But based on what I've read and heard about this movie, it's very well done and actually assumes the audience has some intelligence. The screenwriter did over a year of research.

Anyway, it seems interesting to me. No doubt Redford is releasing it now in conjunction with the Civil War anniversary. And I'm pretty sure it was filmed in Belinda's back yard. Maybe she's an extra. :)

[Charlie Reals]

I spent many nights on the greasy grass long before it was what it is today. I would guess any recent fires, not knowing what recent is, only uncovered what was already surmised after the powers to be started paying attention to what the Lakota had to say.
Another interesting long misunderstood battle sight is Slim Buttes in S.D. A long time ago I was honored to meet folks on the pine ridge who were young children at the battle.
The Pine ridge has paid dearly for kicking Custers butt. More than most can imagine.

There is a story that the reason was because The indians were told by holy men not to take anything from the battlefield that belonged to the soldiers. They didn't listen and in fact items were found on dead indians at Slim buttes that were personal items from soldiers. Then wounded knee and on and on. Sad page in our history.

[Kent A Bathurst]

It takes place in post-Civil War America. A woman is accused of being a conspirator in the Lincoln Assassination.

I wonder if they uncovered the little-known fact that her great-great-grandnephew was behind the grassy knoll? :p

[Bryan Morgan]

Bryan - very cool - thanks. I knew very little of the information on that site. I spent my "kid years" in KS, Northern VA, and MD, so I'd been to many, many battlefields even before high school. Even today, the farthest west for civil war sites I have been is Vicksburg - and somehow I have not quite made it to Shiloh, which is embarrasing.

Kinda gives one an umbalanced perspective that did not include the Far West. Now you are forcing me to go dig up some history book[s] of the Civil War in the west. Gonna have to make some tough choices in the crammed-full History bookcase - someone goes to the overflow in the basement.

:) Given the current state of things I've been reading more about the Civil War lately. I live in CA and you are right, nobody ever thinks about this state when they think about the Civil War (neither did I! I've lived here since birth and it isn't something they teach in school...)

[Bryan Cowing]

I have pics! Here in Canada we are still fighting the civil war. Grave yard here in this village has several veteran's who fought in the war. Their tombstones bear a bronze star. Once a year a re enactment takes place , even the wifes and kids dress the part. They come from all over Canada and the US to take part. I never knew this was taking place, just 20 miles from me. Community is Otterville, Ontario, and at one time had over 200 escaped slaves living here.
191653191652191651191650191649

[Charlie Reals]

:) Given the current state of things I've been reading more about the Civil War lately. I live in CA and you are right, nobody ever thinks about this state when they think about the Civil War (neither did I! I've lived here since birth and it isn't something they teach in school...)

They sure taught the civil war in Nor cal schools when I attended butt then so cal is after all so different :D

[Belinda Barfield]

I haven't seen anyone mention Robert Redford's new film, "The Conspirator". It takes place in post-Civil War America. A woman is accused of being a conspirator in the Lincoln Assassination.

Now, I understand that being a Hollywood movie from Robert Redford, some might expect this film to take a particular political position, play loose with facts and involve lots of hyperbole. But based on what I've read and heard about this movie, it's very well done and actually assumes the audience has some intelligence. The screenwriter did over a year of research.

Anyway, it seems interesting to me. No doubt Redford is releasing it now in conjunction with the Civil War anniversary. And I'm pretty sure it was filmed in Belinda's back yard. Maybe she's an extra. :)

Yep, Conspirator was filmed right here in my backyard. Well, in Savannay anyway. I wasn't selected to be an extra.:( I did stand in line for an hour to submit my head shot and paperwork though. A lot of the others in line were reenactors and came in full gear from uniforms to hoop skirts. I haven't taken the time to see the movie yet, and I didn't watch any of the filming.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I have pics! Here in Canada we are still fighting the civil war. Grave yard here in this village has several veteran's who fought in the war. Their tombstones bear a bronze star. Once a year a re enactment takes place , even the wifes and kids dress the part. They come from all over Canada and the US to take part. I never knew this was taking place, just 20 miles from me. Community is Otterville, Ontario, and at one time had over 200 escaped slaves living here.

Did not realize that, either. Thanks for helping in that war. All is forgiven for burning the White House in 1814. :D

[Keith Outten]

The first picture is the Navy Yard in Norfolk Virginia.
The last four are the Capital of the Confederacy, Richmond Virginia

[Kent A Bathurst]

Atlanta, 1865

As my Dad used to tell me: "Don't let your mouth write any checks your [butt] can't cash."

http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/atlanta/04-0289a%5B1%5D.jpg

http://www.mymodelrailroad.net/images/cwp004.JPG

http://www.williambessette.com/images/railroad.jpg

[Brad Knight]

Just real quick - first of all, the victors always write the history books. If the south had won, we would be reading about the second American Revolution instead of a war about slavery. Second, has anyone considered the fact that both sides are actually correct... but just like modern times... neither side is actually listening to what the other is actually saying. To the north, it may have been about slavery - and they were willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men to their death to impose their will on those in the south, and at the very same time those in the south believed that the northern states didn't have the right to impose their beliefs.

Now, what I've always been confused about is, acocording to EVERY piece of evidence I've ever ready, the institution of slavery was on a steep decline. It was just cheaper and more efficient, after the advent of the industrial revolution, to us machinery to do the work that slaves had done in the past. And, just as Washington had found out 60 years before, slave labor forces were difficult to manage and paid paid workers were more efficient... Yet there was a moral question about what to do with the generations of blacks that were illiterate, dependant and frankly seen as somewhat sub-human by people in the north and south.

So, my confusion is... If slavery was dying, then why the sacrifice of so man young men?

[Brad Knight]

Just a quick note - a modern example of what I'm talking about is sawstop- one side is arguing for safety - the other arguing for free market capitalism - one side accusing the other of wanting people to cut their fingers off and the other is accusing the other side of being fascists.

If 150 years from now, historians were to write about the sawstop, they could write a story about how some people opposed this wonderful safety technology...

... But that wouldn't be an accurate representation.

As far as the Civil War... didn't Lincoln say that his motivation was to hold the Union together? To listen to Lincoln - it was a war against southern cessation - which is why the Emancipation Proclamation came only 18 months after the beginning of the war.

[Keith Outten]

I doubt that anyone will question that Lincoln's motives were to preserve the Union but the Slavery issue was used to gather support for the war. I doubt that the majority of people who lived in the Northern States cared if the South seceded from the Union so Lincoln had to have something to get the Northern people motivated to support a war. Slavery was just a pawn in the real game that involved the Union losing half of the Eastern Seaboard and a major food source at the time. In the early days of the war it was thought that it would be over real quick but the number of casualties on both sides started rising fast and Lincoln had to do something as it was evident that he had a fight on his hands.

In the Southern States the situation was very similar, the majority of the common people didn't care about slavery but they were scared of a Federal Government that seemed to be getting way to powerful. The Southern aristocrats and elected officials were a small group but they had the public platform and they motivated the people to support secession from the Union to protect their States Rights. The aristocrats and politicians didn't defend slavery directly, they pushed the States Rights issue as the primary issue. So the common man in the South really believed that his right to govern himself was being threatened and that was worth the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
.

[Mike Henderson]

I doubt that anyone will question that Lincoln's motives were to preserve the Union but the Slavery issue was used to gather support for the war. I doubt that the majority of people who lived in the Northern States cared if the South seceded from the Union so Lincoln had to have something to get the Northern people motivated to support a war. Slavery was just a pawn in the real game that involved the Union losing half of the Eastern Seaboard and a major food source at the time. In the early days of the war it was thought that it would be over real quick but the number of casualties on both sides started rising fast and Lincoln had to do something as it was evident that he had a fight on his hands.

In the Southern States the situation was very similar, the majority of the common people didn't care about slavery but they were scared of a Federal Government that seemed to be getting way to powerful. The Southern aristocrats and elected officials were a small group but they had the public platform and they motivated the people to support secession from the Union to protect their States Rights. The aristocrats and politicians didn't defend slavery directly, they pushed the States Rights issue as the primary issue. So the common man in the South really believed that his right to govern himself was being threatened and that was worth the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
.
To help me better understand your position, what states rights were the federal government trampling on at that time? Especially to the point of driving the southern states to secede? And if the federal government was trampling on states rights, why was it only the southern states who felt the trampling to point of seceding? Why were northern states not as incensed as the southern states?

Southern politicians were quite powerful in both houses of congress at the time so they had ways to block legislation which would be unacceptable to them.

One possible answer is that slavery only existed in the southern states. Movement to limit slavery, especially in new states, would have threatened the southern states because they could feel that eventually the restrictions would extend to them. Also, as non-slave states were added to the union, it would dilute the power of the southern states in congress, and could eventually lead to laws that would restrict slavery.

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

.......as non-slave states were added to the union, it would dilute the power of the southern states in congress, and could eventually lead to laws that would restrict slavery.


No doubt about that, IMO. See the Congressional laws: Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The latter led to a big influx of people into Kansas from both sides of the issue, attempting to load up the population in anticipation of the vote on free v slave state.

[Brad Knight]

Mike, the thing to remember is that up until the Civil War all rights belonged to the States except those granted to the Federal Government according to the 10th Amendment. The United States were 'These' United States.

It's hard to remember now 150 years after the fact - but the divide between the north and south ran deeper than slavery. If you remember correctly the reason that Washington DC is where it is, is because at the founding there was a divide - and that was when slavery was accepted throughout the states. Remember also that during the constitutional debates - the deciding lines were drawn more along the norther states desires for a stronger federal government and the southern states desire for stronger independent states. That's how we wound up with the house who was supposed to represent the populous - and lean more towards the populous northern states - and the senate who was intended to represent the individual states.

So - if you take just a moment and try to view it from another perspective - it wasn't as much about slavery as it was about who's right it was to decide the issue of slavery.

[David Weaver]

- it wasn't as much about slavery as it was about who's right it was to decide the issue of slavery.

That's sort of like saying a war isn't about resources, but instead about who decides who gets the resources.

[David Weaver]

you never said what type of work you are involve in but I am glad that you got hard workers, hope that you pay them a good day wages

Technical consulting, hours based (time and expense billing) sort of like a law firm works.

Everyone was exempt except the clerical folks (and they weren't *allowed* to work OT, because the company didn't want to pay it).

I guess the pay was OK, but if you split it up by the hours it wouldn't have been. It was more about giving people the hope of lots of pay in the future and seeing how hard they'd work to get there. It was pretty lucrative for the shareholders and some of the freeloaders - I generally billed about 4-6x my pay and benefits. Those days of having that much business to work on are coming to an end, and have ended in a lot of places.

Back then, i thought everyone should work every waking hour if any client wanted anything. I identify with the southern folks now, I think they had the right idea - do your work, be reasonable and don't be rude and ridiculous to someone who doesn't want to work 365 days a year. And that's not to say, also, that I haven't seen plenty of lazy folks here in the north. I'd bet when it comes to how much work folks do, it evens out in the end (as in every region does about the same). It's probably a little easier to be a freeloader in the north.

[Brad Knight]

That's sort of like saying a war isn't about resources, but instead about who decides who gets the resources.

Perhaps - if the resources are in your house and I'm trying to tell you how to use them...

[David Epperson]

To help me better understand your position, what states rights were the federal government trampling on at that time? Especially to the point of driving the southern states to secede? And if the federal government was trampling on states rights, why was it only the southern states who felt the trampling to point of seceding? Why were northern states not as incensed as the southern states?
Mike
The North had imposed tariffs on goods from France that the South were a bit dependent upon. Yet the proceeds of those tariffs were going to the further advancement of technology (factories) in the North. The South was not benefiting from the monies that they were being required to pay. This left them in the position that they could not take advantage of the very "stuff" that had allowed the North to get away from using slave labor. This left the South in that "Catch 22" situation - they had to continue to use Slave labor in order to pay the tariffs that he North had imposed so that they could avoid using slave labor. I think in today's terms that would be akin to an "unfunded mandate".

[Kent A Bathurst]

........all rights belonged to the States except those granted to the Federal Government according to the 10th Amendment...........

Sorry, Brad, but - nice try. :D That's being a bit disingenuous, because the body of the Constitution itself has specific language on the federal powers.

The Federal Gov't has two big haymakers they can - and do - throw in the state's rights arguments - and those two have always been the fundamental basis of the argument over state's rights v federal powers:

The "Commerce Clause" : [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes...

and, the "Necessary and Proper Clause": The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States...."

And therein lies the rub. The Supreme Court, starting in the early 1800's, decided that the Necessary and Proper clause included "implied powers", or, in other words [mine] - well now, if Congress has to make this whole thing work, the powers that have been spelled out specifically clearly must carry with them implied powers that allow them to enact laws to make that other stuff happen.

In the words of Supreme Court Chief Justince John Marshall in an 1819 Court ruling: ".....all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people."

That last hook - "to the people" was another instance of Marshall hammering home the principle - which was a continual theme in unanimous Court rulings in his long tenure - that the people are sovereign, the states are not sovereign. The Constitution is of the people, by the people, and for the people - and the state's ain't in that.

You can certainly argue - as many have done before you - that this is not a proper interpretation - that those words do not mean what the Supreme Court has said they mean, or that a specific case is different than those that have gone before. And - that exact argument will soon be back in the Court again - because of certain provisions in the health care bill. We'll see how those clauses, and the "implied powers", stack up on that case. I honestly dunno, and I'm not taking a stand on the issue - I'm just pointing out that this self-same argument you raise continues unabated since virtually Day One - and it is not a 10th Amendment fight.

Interesting side note - James Madison, as the author of the Federalist Papers, argued strongly about the essential nature of the Necessary & Proper clause in the proposed Constitution. But, he ended up fighting against it in 1791 [over the formation of a National Bank]- and Hamilton had Madison's words from the Federalist Papers read on the floor of Congress. Hamilton won the argument before the Court.

[ray hampton]

Technical consulting, hours based (time and expense billing) sort of like a law firm works.

Everyone was exempt except the clerical folks (and they weren't *allowed* to work OT, because the company didn't want to pay it).

I guess the pay was OK, but if you split it up by the hours it wouldn't have been. It was more about giving people the hope of lots of pay in the future and seeing how hard they'd work to get there. It was pretty lucrative for the shareholders and some of the freeloaders - I generally billed about 4-6x my pay and benefits. Those days of having that much business to work on are coming to an end, and have ended in a lot of places.

Back then, i thought everyone should work every waking hour if any client wanted anything. I identify with the southern folks now, I think they had the right idea - do your work, be reasonable and don't be rude and ridiculous to someone who doesn't want to work 365 days a year. And that's not to say, also, that I haven't seen plenty of lazy folks here in the north. I'd bet when it comes to how much work folks do, it evens out in the end (as in every region does about the same). It's probably a little easier to be a freeloader in the north.

there is one point to consider and that is that any body who work outside in the cold will tend to work hard enough to stay warmer

[Mike Henderson]

The North had imposed tariffs on goods from France that the South were a bit dependent upon. Yet the proceeds of those tariffs were going to the further advancement of technology (factories) in the North. The South was not benefiting from the monies that they were being required to pay. This left them in the position that they could not take advantage of the very "stuff" that had allowed the North to get away from using slave labor. This left the South in that "Catch 22" situation - they had to continue to use Slave labor in order to pay the tariffs that he North had imposed so that they could avoid using slave labor. I think in today's terms that would be akin to an "unfunded mandate".
People like to say "The North did this or that to the South" prior to the Civil War, but it was congress who made the laws and the south had very good representation in both houses of congress, and powerful committee positions, which allowed them considerable influence over what laws were passed, and where the proceeds of the tariffs went. Eleven states seceded out of about 33 or 34 that made up the USA at that time. While eleven is not a majority, it's certainly enough to be able to exert considerable influence. And in politics, deals are made with others to gain their support. It's not unreasonable to assume that the southern position could muster the votes of 15 to 16 states on important issues. That's a lot of influence.

It's the same today. Not all the laws passed are "liked" by all parts of the country. But the people who are aggrieved usually try to work the political process and reach a compromise rather than seceding.

But slavery was one of those issues which did not lend itself to compromise. That's the problem with the "states rights" argument. Almost any "states rights" issue you can think of can be worked in the political arena to find a compromise. It's only an issue like slavery which could not be compromised.

Many southerners make the general claim of "states rights" but when pressed for details cannot provide issues which can be supported through historical research, or even reasonableness. Only slavery stands up as the primary cause of the Civil War, not only from the historical record, but from the words of the articles of secession of many of the states of the south.

Mike

[Gary Hodgin]

My hometown is about 50 miles from Shiloh and I've visited the park several times. We relived about every hour of it in my 7th grade history class on the History of Tenn. Unless things have changed in recent years, it's a great place to visit if you're into the civil war.

My home county was very much divided between Union and Confederacy. I have ancestors who fought on both sides (in fact one fought on both sides, at different times of course), but to my surprise most fought for the Union. An uncle of my grandmother was killed at Shiloh. He was a Lt. in the Union army. I also had an ancestor (other side of family) who was a pvt. in the Confederate army and he killed at Shiloh. That was definitely a strange war. I'm sure glad I didn't live at that time.

[Dan Forman]

PBS just reran the entire Ken Burns Civil War documentary, I saw all but the first episode, which I'll have to catch at my dad's, as he has it on tape I'm sure. My favorite of the talking heads in the program was the late author Shelby Foote, who wrote a massive three volume set on it (1,000 pages for each volume), and offers a southern perspective. If anyone on this thread has not seen this documentary, it is both brilliant and poignant, and I highly recommend it. I'm sure it's available from Netflix.

Dan

[Belinda Barfield]

In light of our discussion, I thought this was sort of interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/17/northcivil-war-sites-events-long-forgotten/?test=faces

Let's don't have the debate about Fox News. K?

[ray hampton]

have anyone visit Camp Nelson Cemetery in Kentucky

[Bryan Morgan]

They sure taught the civil war in Nor cal schools when I attended butt then so cal is after all so different :D

Yeah we just learn about "feelings". The Civil War made people sad, so its not cool to kill your brother, nor is it cool to own slaves. Dude. :)

[Shawn Pixley]

Brad

You have misinterpreted the data. Slave trade (external to the US) was on steep decline. The number of slaves held was rising decade over decade (US census data). Slavery was extended due to the industrial revolution due to cotton production (advent of the cotton gin and the power loom). The prosperty the cotton trade brought to the South made it economicly imperative that they continue and extend slavery.

[Greg Peterson]

The south had an economic interest in slavery while the north was less dependent on slave labor. The south was largely agriculture which required vast amounts of untrained labor.

The gentlemen farmers of the region needed slaves to continue and to expand their operations. Black slaves were easy to get and inexpensive, but they did not have any qualms about enslaving immigrants or catholics either.

Slavery was certainly central to any and all reasons for the war. Virtually any reason provided for the war occurring can be traced back to slavery.

And whether or not the northern states 'remember' the civil war or honor it's memory as much as the south is a ridiculous argument to make. What with all the confederate flags that fly in these United States you would think the south won the war.

[Dan Forman]

The Civil War was not about slavery, the only issue in the South was States Rights.
I seriously doubt that anyone would believe that so many Southerners would be willing to give their life to protect an institution that was only available to the most wealthy Southerners. A very small group of very wealthy Plantation owners took advantage of their right, at the time, to own people. At the same time a very small group of very wealthy Northerners in Massachusetts and New York took advantage of their right at the time to sell people. Over 90% of the slaves sold to the South came from these two Northern States. The average Southerner during this period of our history was very poor.

The lessons that were learned and the price paid during the Revolutionary War were very much on the minds of Southerners, the last thing they wanted was to replace a King with a Federal Government that would threaten everything they had just recently gained such as their Liberty and the right to govern themselves. Most Southerners of the period had no interest in the slavery issue other than they did not think it was an issue that should concern the new Federal Government.



A few interesting statistics from the period...

In 1860, 1 of 7 Americans was owned by another American.

43% of families in the lower south were slave owners.

36% of families in the upper south were slave owners.

22% of families in the border states were slave owners.

95% of blacks lived in the south.

They comprised about 33% of the population of the southern states.

There were nearly 4 million slaves in the US in 1860.

I think we can safely assume this wasn't about just "a very small group of wealthy plantation owners."

The issue of slavery can not be extricated from any of the other issues leading up to the civil war. It was the common denominator. The states rights issues were centered around what a man could or couldn't do with his property, in this case slaves. The south had basically put all of their eggs in the basket of agriculture, and they needed slaves to make that system work. Southerners didn't need to own slaves (though many of them did) in order to benefit from slavery. They were all part of the economy, and that economy needed slaves to function.

Southern whites of the time were also very much afraid of what would happen if the slaves were freed, and they had to live among them. So even if they were not slave owners, they had motivation to keep the blacks enslaved.

An interesting coincidence: Wilmer McLean owned the farm where the first major battle of land forces in the Civil War, then moved to a house in Appomattox Courthouse, the very house in which Lee surrendered to Grant to essentially end the war. It is said that "the war stared in his front yard, and ended in his parlor."

Dan

[Tom Winship]

I just finished reading "Killer Angels" about the Battle of Gettysburg. Interesting read about this time in our history.
Belinda, did not realize the slave population was so high in some states until looking at your link.
Never too old to learn, I guess.
Thanks

[Belinda Barfield]

And whether or not the northern states 'remember' the civil war or honor it's memory as much as the south is a ridiculous argument to make. What with all the confederate flags that fly in these United States you would think the south won the war.

Greg, I'm not sure what argument you feel I'm trying to make. I just thought the article was interesting in view of the question regarding why southerners still talk about the war. There just seem to be more memorials, etc., in the south. You might assume that all of us Georgians fly confederate flags. The last time I saw a confederate flag was three or four years ago. It was flying beside an interstate outside of Atlanta.

[Joe Angrisani]

.....There just seem to be more memorials, etc., in the south.....

I grew up in a little town 200 miles north of New York City. The tallest thing in our village park, towering forty feet over every car and person that goes by on Main St, is a Civil War memorial. I would venture a guess there are more Civil War memorials in the north than there are WWII memorials in the south.

[Belinda Barfield]

I grew up in a little town 200 miles north of New York City. The tallest thing in our village park, towering forty feet over every car and person that goes by on Main St, is a Civil War memorial. I would venture a guess there are more Civil War memorials in the north than there are WWII memorials in the south.

You may be right, Joe, I don't have enough knowledge regarding memorials north versus south to argue the point. I merely referenced an article regarding memorials in the north versus the south. I am proud to say Savannah erected a new WWII memorial. I was there for the groundbreaking Memorial Day two years ago. It was a very moving experience.

[Belinda Barfield]

Just another interesting tidbit from the CBO. Voluntary military by region. It is my understanding that traditionally there are more southern volunteers than from any other region, socioeconomics being the primary driving force.

192010

[Joe Angrisani]

Not trying to argue, Belinda. Just pointing something out. :)

One thing I never saw growing up in the deep North was mint juleps. And THAT'S a shame.....

[Belinda Barfield]

Not trying to argue, Belinda. Just pointing something out. :)

One thing I never saw growing up in the deep North was mint juleps. And THAT'S a shame.....

That is a shame, Joe. I'm torn between whether the National Drink should be Jack and Coke, Mint Julep, or a really good single malt Scotch.

[David Helm]

That is a shame, Joe. I'm torn between whether the National Drink should be Jack and Coke, Mint Julep, or a really good single malt Scotch.

I vote for the Scotch!

[Belinda Barfield]

I just finished reading "Killer Angels" about the Battle of Gettysburg. Interesting read about this time in our history.
Belinda, did not realize the slave population was so high in some states until looking at your link.
Never too old to learn, I guess.
Thanks

You're welcome. My current read - A Year in the South: 1865.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Year-South-1865-Stephen-V-Ash/?isbn=9780060582487

[Gary Hodgin]

I’ve lived in Tenn for all my life, 58 years. I find it surprising that the civil war and its participates are commemorated and honored so much more by the ancestors of the losers than by the ancestors of the winners. I wonder if such a strange thing happens anywhere else.

For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest is perhaps the most honored individual in Tenn. Elvis even runs a distant second to Forrest if you leave out the commercial stuff. Forrest clearly out paces two presidents and numerous other politicians and country music entertainers. He has a state park named after him, was the symbol of the university with the largest undergraduate enrollment in the state, among other statues and honors.

What did NBF do? He was a general in the confederate army that fought an unwinnable war primarily to defend an indefensible institution, a slave-owner, and one of the founders of the KKK. In other words, things to despise, not honor.

I wonder if anyone every considers what the CSA would be today if it had won the war. No one knows for sure, but my guess is that the typical citizen of the CSA would look at the typical citizen of Mexico with envy. The USA and Mexico would both have immigration problems and the CSA would have a migration problem. Slave-owning, agrarian states haven’t done that well for some time. I think the CSA would have been very slow to change. The leaders with power liked it and would have done whatever necessary to maintain it.

In a round-about way, it may be understandable why the war is celebrated in the ancestors of the losers. Victory would have been worse than defeat. This still doesn't explain the honoring of Forrest, Lee, and the rest of the crowd.

[Belinda Barfield]

Gary, I certainly can't speak for all Southerners, and please understand that what I am about to write applies to ALL those who have served and are currently serving in the Military. I personally honor these individuals because they were willing to fight for what they believed in, against all odds, against family members, against conventional wisdom. I honor them because they felt strongly enough about an issue to die for it if necessary. I understand the position that they were fighting to preserve slavery, and yes I believe slavery is wrong, but many of then joined the fight to defend their homes and families from what they determined to be an invading force.

[David Epperson]

Good points Belinda
But if you read the CSA Constitution - we would probably have been better off now had they won.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html
Further importation of slaves was outlawed, as were hidden riders on Bills before Congress. You know the ones, the riders that no one is allowed to read that result in $550 hammers and $700 toilet seats - as well as almost complete economic collapse.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
3. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
5. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
6. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
7. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.
8. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
9. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.
10. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.
11. No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
13. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
14. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
15. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
16. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
17. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
18. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Confederacy, than according to the rules of common law.
19. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
20. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
The use of slave labor was on the way out, everyone knew it, but the transition was in progress - and the process of integration needed to proceed naturally instead of being forced. We still live under the repercussions of that coercion.

[Belinda Barfield]

Good points Belinda
But if you read the CSA Constitution - we would probably have been better off now had they won.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html
Further importation of slaves was outlawed, as were hidden riders on Bills before Congress. You know the ones, the riders that no one is allowed to read that result in $550 hammers and $700 toilet seats - as well as almost complete economic collapse.
The use of slave labor was on the way out, everyone knew it, but the transition was in progress - and the process of integration needed to proceed naturally instead of being forced. We still live under the repercussions of that coercion.

Is it too late to secede again? :D Without the slavery part, of course!!!

[Gary Hodgin]

I see the slavery component of that document a little differently. It only prohibits imports from countries other than slave holding states of the USA. Existing owners would be granted a monopoly in the slavery market. Children of slaves would still be slaves and no state could change that without amendment. I'm extremely skeptical of slavery dying on its own accord. Like any market, there would be ups and downs in sales and prices, but I definitely believe it would have taken state action to prohibit it all together. The market value of a slave might fall, but someone is usually willing to buy if the price is low enough. I'm pretty sure the new owner could find something for the slave to do that would be worth the cost of the slave, especially young females. The CSA constitution could have prohibited slavery, but it didn't. In fact, the document explicitly prohibits states from doing so.

Belinda,
I can't separate the bravery and devotion to cause from the cause itself. I see the CSA's cause as unjust and can't honor those involved in the cause. German troops and suicide bombers were brave and willing to dye for a cause, but I don't want to honor them.

[Belinda Barfield]

Belinda, I can't separate the bravery and devotion to cause from the cause itself. I see the CSA's cause as unjust and can't honor those involved in the cause. German troops and suicide bombers were brave and willing to dye for a cause, but I don't want to honor them.

Gary, I can't really reply to this without going political, but I'll try. Based on your point of view no military personnel can ever be honored. There would be no war if there were no cause. I don't have to honor the cause to honor those who serve. In every war one party is wrong, which party depends on your point of view. I could just as easily argue that we shouldn't honor our WWII personnel who dropped the atom bombs. They were following orders and I respect that.

[Gary Hodgin]

Belinda,
I understand and respect your view, even though I don't entirely go along with it. I've had an ongoing discussion with a cousin of mine for years (Sons-of-Confederacy member) and my daughter and son-in-law once had their den decorated with confederate memorabilia including portraits of Stone Wall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, Robert E. Lee, and Nathan Forrest on the walls.

Once I felt differently about the war and remberances. Heck, I was 8 or 9 before I became convinced the South had lost. I'm proud to be a Southern, as Lewis Grizzard would say, "American by birth, Southern by the grace of God." Southern hospitality, music, and especially food are things I take pride in. However, the war and the treatment of blacks are not things I'm proud of. I'm not much of a political person and I hope I haven't dip into politics. My response has to do with how the war is remembered and the differences between the remembrances in north and south that puzzles me. I think decent people just have different views about these things.

[Belinda Barfield]

Belinda,
I understand and respect your view, even though I don't entirely go along with it. I've had an ongoing discussion with a cousin of mine for years (Sons-of-Confederacy member) and my daughter and son-in-law once had their den decorated with confederate memorabilia including portraits of Stone Wall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, Robert E. Lee, and Nathan Forrest on the walls.

Once I felt differently about the war and remberances. Heck, I was 8 or 9 before I became convinced the South had lost. I'm proud to be a Southern, as Lewis Grizzard would say, "American by birth, Southern by the grace of God." Southern hospitality, music, and especially food are things I take pride in. However, the war and the treatment of blacks are not things I'm proud of. I'm not much of a political person and I hope I haven't dip into politics. My response has to do with how the war is remembered and the differences between the remembrances in north and south that puzzles me. I think decent people just have different views about these things.

And now we are in complete agreement. :)

[David Epperson]

Some of that "treatment of blacks" is well earned - much of it is overblown. In my family history the "Slave" became the 2nd wife after the first one died. In very many households, the "slaves" lived better than the "free" sharecroppers did, and were treated better as well.

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........the question regarding why ......there just seem to be more memorials............

To me - that's an easy one, Belinda. Virtually all of the big battles were fought in Southern territory and, when those memorials were erected, the sentiments ran even hotter that today about sacrificing all against an invader.

We like to travel off the major highways. County seats are particularly interesting - there is always the town square, and in GA there is always a memorial "To Our Glorious Confederate Dead". I'm fine with that. I "get" it. Part of the heritage, and people's ancestors died. On the town square in Newnan, you will see that memorial, and beautiful old magnolias, and also a memorial to two sons of Newnan who were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in later wars. I "get" that one too.

Statistics are spotty for the CSA, due to lack of contemporaneous record keeping; interpretations conclude that of a Union population of 22 mm, 2.7 mm enlisted and 360k died. The CSA population of 9mm had 700k enlisted and 260k died. The proportion of CSA deaths v. enlistments and population was much higher than the Union. Stunning statistic: on both sides, roughly two-thirds of the deaths were non-battle - ie, disease.

I also suspect that these memorials were often erected as an "in your face" response to the Reconstruction mess.

So - in short - IMO there are more memorials because (a) that's where the soldiers fought and died, (b) at the hands of "unjust invaders and aggressors", where (c) the pro-rata deaths of the CSA was much higher, and (d) the victorious enemy was now in control of the territory and the political machine. All humans have pride - I "get" that as well.


........The use of slave labor was on the way out, everyone knew it, but the transition was in progress........


....The number of slaves held was rising decade over decade (US census data). Slavery was extended due to the industrial revolution due to cotton production (advent of the cotton gin and the power loom). The prosperty the cotton trade brought to the South made it economicly imperative that they continue and extend slavery.

No one should kid themselves about the importance of cotton as an economic engine of staggering importance in the world's trade. More millionaires per capita in Natchez than in any other city in the world. And the irony of it all was the "triangular trade" routes for the world's commerce: ships full of cotton and tobacco from the US to England; then they took finished goods [like, fabric from the industrial revolution's looms] from England to Africa; and took a cargo of slaves from Africa to the West on the return trip.


The cotton gin was in widespread use by the year 1800. The ability to get finished product to the world's market soared. But - these machines processed the crop, they did not plant nor harvest it..........that was human labor. Slave labor. A commercially viable and successful cotton harvesting machine did not really hit the market until [I]1948. :eek: The elimination of slavery by the Civil War only created the sharecropper class of blacks, it did not "free" them economically. The mechanized planting and harvesting of cotton is what finally shook up the old order.

The statement that slavery was on the way out is correct. The implication that it was imminent has no supporting facts. Had the CSA won the war, and established it's own country and laws, does that mean that slavery would have continued until 1948, when - at long last - it became economically smart to mechanize the entire process? We'll never know. Fortunately.

[David Epperson]

The statement that slavery was on the way out is correct. The implication that it was imminent has no supporting facts. Had the CSA won the war, and established it's own country and laws, does that mean that slavery would have continued until 1948, when - at long last - it became economically smart to mechanize the entire process? We'll never know. Fortunately.
Actually it would have been economically smart to mechanize earlier - but that was part of the problem. The resources for that effort were going to the North, which had no motivation to expend effort in that direction. Things were flowing in their favor as it was - Before and after the War.

I like your sig line, one of my favorite songs

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon: The Boxer
So long as you understand that it can be taken to apply to all sides of a discussion, we're fine.

[Mike Henderson]

Actually it would have been economically smart to mechanize earlier - but that was part of the problem. The resources for that effort were going to the North, which had no motivation to expend effort in that direction. Things were flowing in their favor as it was - Before and after the War.
Where there's a market, someone will build a product to fill it. So if it's possible to build a machine to plant, tend, and harvest cotton, and that machine is less expensive than other ways of doing it, people will buy the machine. People in the north are good business people, like business people anywhere. If they could make money selling machines to people in the south, they would have done it.

My guess is that it just was not possible to build a cost effective machine until the middle of the 20th century.

Regarding integration, I lived Louisiana during integration. I heard many people say things like, "Integration shouldn't be forced. It should be allowed to happen naturally." Of course, it would never have happened. Look at what it took to integrate the University of Mississippi. Even today, after integration, we still have quite a bit of segregation.

And if you were one of the group of people being discriminated against, how long would you be willing to wait before you gained equal rights? It was about 100 years after the end of the Civil War to the passage of the Civil Rights Act (of 1964). Brown vs Board of Education, which led to integration of schools, was handed down in 1954 but schools in the south were not integrated for a long time after that. I graduated in 1962 and schools in Louisiana were still segregated when I graduated.

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

Actually it would have been economically smart to mechanize earlier - but that was part of the problem. The resources for that effort were going to the North, which had no motivation to expend effort in that direction. Things were flowing in their favor as it was - Before and after the War.

David - Many people had tried - and failed - for many dcades to bring to market a viable cotton harvesting machine, but could not figure it out. It had nothing to do with "economic resources going to the North" - the North had no cotton to harvest. There were huge economic benefits waiting for the guy that could win that specific race - and they were all trying - both North and South - for a long, long time. And, the "resources were going North" for nearly 100 years after the Civil War ended? Uhhhh...nope....the North occupied the South for most of those years. If anything, it would be "the South had no economic reason to pursue it."


My guess is that it just was not possible to build a cost effective machine until the middle of the 20th century.

Yeah, buddy- exactly my point, Mike. "Cost effective" meaning "makes me more money than using slaves."


I like your sig line, one of my favorite songs.

Thanks, David - I changed the sig line to include that when I read your previous post - glad you like it ;). [heading for my foxhole now, before the incoming shells start to land].

[Belinda Barfield]

Another thing to consider regarding mechanization is that new technology, as you guys have stated, can be cost prohibitive. There weren't just two classes, one incredibly wealthy plantation owners and and the other swampers like some of my ancestors, but a lot of folks in the middle. They may have owned only ten slaves. Those ten slaves allowed them to work their small cotton fields, a job too big for the family, but those fields did not yield enough product or income to go out and buy new fangled machine. So, mechanization early on still would not have put a complete end to slavery.

[Jerome Hanby]

Another thing to consider regarding mechanization is that new technology, as you guys have stated, can be cost prohibitive. There weren't just two classes, one incredibly wealthy plantation owners and and the other swampers like some of my ancestors, but a lot of folks in the middle. They may have owned only ten slaves. Those ten slaves allowed them to work their small cotton fields, a job too big for the family, but those fields did not yield enough product or income to go out and buy new fangled machine. So, mechanization early on still would not have put a complete end to slavery.

One exception to that I can see. Those that had the money for machinery would eventually be producing the same goods for a lower cost and eventually have swallowed all the little guys that couldn't compete...

[Gary Hodgin]

It's possible that technological development in the cotton industry could have reduced the demand for slave labor to virtually nothing. But, there was an ample supply of slaves available that could have been used in other areas besides cotton. I think it would have taken a long while for the economics of the slave trade to have essentially ended slavery on its own.

Economics incentives matter, but there were other factors about southern society that would have made it difficult for slavery to just go away. Slavery was ingrained in the fabric of southern society. I doubt many plantation owners were likely to just wake up one morning and go out an free their slaves. Poor whites were poor, but considered themselves to be above slaves. Slaves gave poor whites more dignity than they otherwise would have had. They weren't rich but at least they weren't a slave. I suspect that's why there was more support for slavery among poor whites even though it was not in their economic interests.

[Scott Shepherd]

There's an underlying tone in some posts here that suggest that the picture before the war was a great North and South that held hands and sang songs together. Congress was equally split and there was a perfect balance and harmony among the states. Then the issue of abolition came up and all heck broke out. That's far from the situation. There was a great deal of tension in the country at that time. You had people fighting for land, creating states, creating governments, etc. There were many many pains between the North and South PRIOR to the war. It wasn't all peaches and cream until that one issue came along.

The North and South had problems long before the civil war. Whitewashing over that part of history as if everything was great before hand isn't accurate.

[Belinda Barfield]

As a side note, something I find interesting about the Savannah, Beaufort/Hilton Head, SC area. I haven't found this anywhere else in Georgia, or other parts of the south. The most expensive houses are in gated communities, many owned by folks from the north who either retired and moved here or purchased winter homes here. Below is a list of names of the more well known gated communities.

Wexford Plantation (I swear I think a requirement for living here is that your boat tied up to your dock must be bigger than your house.)
Sea Pines Plantation
Ford Plantation
Hilton Head Plantation
Moss Creek Plantation
Rose Hill Plantation
Colleton River Plantation
Waterford Plantation
Savannah Quarters

I could go on. A lot of these communities were developed by investors from the north. I just find all of this exceedingly odd.

[Mike Henderson]

There's an underlying tone in some posts here that suggest that the picture before the war was a great North and South that held hands and sang songs together. Congress was equally split and there was a perfect balance and harmony among the states. Then the issue of abolition came up and all heck broke out. That's far from the situation. There was a great deal of tension in the country at that time. You had people fighting for land, creating states, creating governments, etc. There were many many pains between the North and South PRIOR to the war. It wasn't all peaches and cream until that one issue came along.

The North and South had problems long before the civil war. Whitewashing over that part of history as if everything was great before hand isn't accurate.
You're absolutely correct. There are always problems between people - people of different regions, beliefs, etc. That was true then and it's true now. But we usually seem to be able to reach a compromise that, while not ideal for everyone, is good enough.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that everything was kumbaya between the north and south before the Civil War. What was said was that the south had significant power in congress prior the the Civil War, which would have given them the ability to politically defend their position. An issue that led to the war was that as free states were admitted to the union, it diluted the power of the south, and the south was afraid that would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery. There were serious fights in congress about whether new states would be admitted as slave states or free states. The Missouri compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were attempts to address that issue.

[Just as an aside, I always look for economic reasons behind decisions. And abolition would have had serious economic consequences for the south, almost any way you slice it. Slaves were an economic asset. If they were "taken" through emancipation it would be similar (in a way) to taking someone's land without compensation - it would be a serious blow to the net worth of the ex-slave owner.]

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

As a side note, something I find interesting about the Savannah, Beaufort/Hilton Head, SC area. I haven't found this anywhere else in Georgia, or other parts of the south. The most expensive houses are in gated communities, many owned by folks from the north who either retired and moved here or purchased winter homes here. Below is a list of names of the more well known gated communities.

Wexford Plantation (I swear I think a requirement for living here is that your boat tied up to your dock must be bigger than your house.)
Sea Pines Plantation
Ford Plantation
Hilton Head Plantation
Moss Creek Plantation
Rose Hill Plantation
Colleton River Plantation
Waterford Plantation
Savannah Quarters

I could go on. A lot of these communities were developed by investors from the north. I just find all of this exceedingly odd.

Tell me Belinda...you are not insinuating that this is a new form of "carpet bagging" are you?:confused::rolleyes:

[Gary Hodgin]

Over the years a number of yankees have moved into my neighborhood. My closest neighbors are from Wisconsin and Iowa. Other than talking funny and eating strange foods they're pretty good people. My worst neighbor is from Alabama, but that was expected.:)

[Dick Latshaw]

My worst neighbor is from Alabama, but that was expected.:)

Probably one of those 'Roll Tide' people. :D

War Eagle!

[Bryan Morgan]

Is it too late to secede again? :D Without the slavery part, of course!!!

The thunder underground is that its on its way again.... I hope not in my lifetime but it may be inevitable.

[Bryan Morgan]

Some of that "treatment of blacks" is well earned - much of it is overblown. In my family history the "Slave" became the 2nd wife after the first one died. In very many households, the "slaves" lived better than the "free" sharecroppers did, and were treated better as well.

There was a saying I read somewhere from that period in time... something to the effect of "a slave cost money, an Irishman costs nothing..."

[Gary Hodgin]

You got it!

[Dan Forman]

Some new information on Lee's decision to join the Confederacy comes to light...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/?hp

Dan

[Mike OMelia]

Great thread! What is to me so interesting about the Civil War is that the fight was over States Rights. And in the end (or long before it), States Rights in their purest form as exercised by the South led ultimately to the South's demise. As much as we try to limit Federalism, (rightly), you can't fight a war when every Governor has a say in the tactical response.

Mike (who is happy it all worked out)

[John Pratt]

It is true that the addition of new non-slave states would have diluted the power of the south, but the primary reason for these new states to not have slavery was not the abolition of slavery. Lincoln was by no means an abolitionist; however, he was a shrewd politician. His feeling was that by having non-slave states in the western frontier, it would have opened up more land for whites. I am under the frame of thought that the civil war was about states’ rights. Was slavery a major factor? Of course it was. But the reasoning was more about who had the right to tell the states whether they could have or not have slaves. The Compromise of 1850 was a hotly contested issue in Congress and was only passed after the addition of the Fugitive Slave Act (this only fueled the fire for the abolitionists). During that period it was thought that states had the right to determine whether they wanted slavery. California was permitted to petition for statehood as a free state and the Territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah were organized without mention of slavery because those areas would be allowed to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act did the same allowing those states to decide by popular sovereignty. It was with the election of Lincoln in 1860 that he determined the Federal government would now determine whether states (expressly, new states) would not have slavery. I believe that the south saw this as writing on the wall that as new states were admitted (such as Kansas in 1861) that eventually their power in the congress would be severely diluted and eventually the Federal Government would mandate that they too would have to abolish slavery; thus taking away their sovereignty to make their own decisions on the subject.

[Jerome Hanby]

Over the years a number of yankees have moved into my neighborhood. My closest neighbors are from Wisconsin and Iowa. Other than talking funny and eating strange foods they're pretty good people. My worst neighbor is from Alabama, but that was expected.:)

Could you tell he was from Alabama because he wasn't garbed in god-awful orange?

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........It was with the election of Lincoln in 1860 that he determined the Federal government would now determine whether states (expressly, new states) would not have slavery......


John -

I'm with you on your comments - with a slight exception for the one quoted: I don't know about that - I literally don't know. Expand on this one? References I can read?

[Gary Hodgin]

John,
I think what you're saying is what I have come to believe. A key issue was whether new states would have sovereignty over the question of slavery. I don't think the question of sovereignty can be disentangled from that of slavery. After all, I seriously doubt the confederate states would have gone to war if this had been a sovereignty question over garbage collection in the new states. Maybe so, but I think they had a much greater interest in slavery.

All these questions about states' rights and so forth ignore the evils of slavery. Unfortunately, the Constitution didn't deal with it because of its divisiveness. Slavery was simply too inconsistent with the principles of liberty proclaimed in the Constitution. No decent society permits it. It had to go.

[Gary Hodgin]

Could you tell he was from Alabama because he wasn't garbed in god-awful orange?

Love that god-awful orange! We'll be back before 2020!!

[Mike Henderson]

It is true that the addition of new non-slave states would have diluted the power of the south, but the primary reason for these new states to not have slavery was not the abolition of slavery. Lincoln was by no means an abolitionist; however, he was a shrewd politician. His feeling was that by having non-slave states in the western frontier, it would have opened up more land for whites. I am under the frame of thought that the civil war was about states’ rights. Was slavery a major factor? Of course it was. But the reasoning was more about who had the right to tell the states whether they could have or not have slaves. The Compromise of 1850 was a hotly contested issue in Congress and was only passed after the addition of the Fugitive Slave Act (this only fueled the fire for the abolitionists). During that period it was thought that states had the right to determine whether they wanted slavery. California was permitted to petition for statehood as a free state and the Territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah were organized without mention of slavery because those areas would be allowed to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act did the same allowing those states to decide by popular sovereignty. It was with the election of Lincoln in 1860 that he determined the Federal government would now determine whether states (expressly, new states) would not have slavery. I believe that the south saw this as writing on the wall that as new states were admitted (such as Kansas in 1861) that eventually their power in the congress would be severely diluted and eventually the Federal Government would mandate that they too would have to abolish slavery; thus taking away their sovereignty to make their own decisions on the subject.

The problem with trying to make states rights as the primary cause of the Civil War is that you have to explain why it was only the slave states that seceded. If the issue was states rights in general, you would have seen states all over the USA wanting to secede.

You can say that the issue of slavery was a states rights issue, but that's just pushing the cause off one level. The basic problem was slavery. If you support slavery as an institution, then you can raise the issue of who is going to decide whether it's legal or not. If you cannot condone slavery, the second issue never comes up.

Mike

[Joe Angrisani]

......Hilton Head.....Moss Creek......I could go on. A lot of these communities were developed by investors from the north. I just find all of this exceedingly odd.

Not really. It's just a function of cheap land (before, of course) and 20-odd degrees of axial tilt. :)

[Joe Angrisani]

.....If you support slavery as an institution, then you can raise the issue of who is going to decide whether it's legal or not. If you cannot condone slavery, the second issue never comes up.

Exactly. I've been reading along with this very good thread and have wanted to say what Mike just said, but I couldn't come up with the right words. Everything I deleted before submitting was about money beating basic-right-and-wrong or equally complicated descriptions. It always flabbergasts me that there wasn't a majority of people in the slave states who just plain said, "Hey everyone, THIS IS WRONG." But Mike went and made it sound so simple. EXACTLY, Mike.

[John Pratt]

John -

I'm with you on your comments - with a slight exception for the one quoted: I don't know about that - I literally don't know. Expand on this one? References I can read?

At the 1860 Republican National Convention, Abraham Lincoln became the Presidential nominee. The Republican platform specifically pledged not to extend slavery and called for enactment of free-homestead legislation.

[John Pratt]

Edited and deleted By poster.

[Gary Hodgin]

Exactly. I've been reading along with this very good thread and have wanted to say what Mike just said, but I couldn't come up with the right words. Everything I deleted before submitting was about money beating basic-right-and-wrong or equally complicated descriptions. It always flabbergasts me that there wasn't a majority of people in the slave states who just plain said, "Hey everyone, THIS IS WRONG." But Mike went and made it sound so simple. EXACTLY, Mike.

Joe,
It's always puzzled me that non-slave owners didn't rise up against the institution. Maybe the political clout was too concentrated among "property" owners, maybe it was just accepted as a part of life, but I believe it may have had something to do with the social strata of the time.

Although I don't know if there is any income distribution data from the period, I suspect you have a lot of division between the wealthy plantation owners and the typical white person. While I would have thought poor whites would have noticed that their economic well-being was diminished by competition from slave labor, they nevertheless supported the institution because under it they were above somebody else.

What bothers me a bit with the above explanation is that it doesn't jive too well with the post-slavery south. I'm old enough to remember segregation. I have ancestors who I admired tremendously that supported segregation for various reasons. Now, they didn't condone lynching or similar mistreatment, but they didn't have a problem with the Jim Crow laws. I still remember an uncle's explanation as to why water foundations and bathrooms needed to be segregated. I remember a teacher's comments about why integration was bad and what to expect if blacks showed up at our school the next year. The black schools remained open, but blacks were going to allowed to attend our school if they wished. This lady was one of my best friend's mom. She was otherwise a wonderful lady. These explanations for segregation didn't make much sense at time, but it was accepted. People have a remarkable way of accepting terrible things, especially when they're being done to others.

[Dan Forman]

Lincoln himself was not against slavery as an institution. It is only the political winds which caused him to change his stance.

Not true. Lincoln's opposition to slavery is well documented. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by him in 1954:

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

In truth, Lincoln's beliefs and attitudes toward blacks evolved over the course of the war, much influenced by his relationship with Frederick Douglas. He was an astute politician, but he also had serious fundamental changes of how he viewed blacks over time.

Dan

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........He was an astute politician........

No doubt about that. He wanted to preserve the Union, first and foremost. Excerpts follow from his 1862 letter to Horace Greely.

But then, writing to Greely in the middle of a Civil War - the iron-fisted editor of the influential NY Tribune, who was not a Lincoln fan - was a political act in it's own right. He wanted the public platform, while navigating the treacherous shoals: appealing to the broader audience with a broader purpose, while offering manna to his "base". Classic politics. I have to believe that any President or candidate for President studies this letter.

Of course, Lincoln gives no ground on the fundamental issue of "the Union" nor of "the Constitution", in his "view of official duty". As noted many posts earlier, even the fire-breathing "states' rights" Andrew Jackson became more Federalist once he was in that chair.

And, IMO, by protesting so much that it was not about slavery simply underscored the importance of slavery in the conflict.

Excerpts:

I would save the Union....the shortest way under the Constitution.....My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union......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........according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

[Kent A Bathurst]

But we're talking about the Civil War aren't we? Trying to equate two things that different is always fraught with problems.

Right , Mike - we have been successfully dancing around the edges of politics while having an instructional discussion - even from those guys that are clearly wrong :p :p :p [don't start, fellas - keep your perspective and sense of humor - I am just as clearly wrong as you are].

Let's not start dancing around the edges of what many people consider an issue of faith...I don't have the street cred nor the energy for that one.

[Dave Anderson NH]

We will tolerate no further mention or discussion of abortion. Any further mention in any post will have the complete post deleted immediately without any attempt by the moderator staff to do a partial edit.

This is a topic which descends into both politics and religion and as such is not allowed on SMC. It also is one of the most contentious issues in America today.

I will be extremely blunt. Anyone who violates this will immediately lose their posting priveleges and will be reduced to guest status.

[John Pratt]

My apologies for the comparison. as stated in the caveat, it was not my intention to delve into the that topic. I probably should have used a better simile.

[Mike Henderson]

I'll add my apologies, also. I should not have responded - I should have just let it go. Sorry.

Mike

[Gary Hodgin]

I don't know how much life is left in this thread, but at this point has anyone changed his/her mind about the underlying cause of the war? I'm not referring to the reinforcement of an opinion, but rather a directional change. I've learned some things I didn't know, but I haven't changed my mind about anything. I'd be surprised if anyone had a change of mind.

In fact, I think it's extremely rare than anyone changes an opinion after a debate on a controversial issue (sawstop technology requirements, pins versus tails, sand paper versus water stones, SEC football dominance, etc...). The only cases I can think of involve differences than can be resolved with numbers that are acceptable, like who had the highest career batting average Stan Musial or Ted Williams.

[Mike Henderson]

In fact, I think it's extremely rare than anyone changes an opinion after a debate on a controversial issue (sawstop technology requirements, pins versus tails, sand paper versus water stones, SEC football dominance, etc...). The only cases I can think of involve differences than can be resolved with numbers that are acceptable, like who had the highest career batting average Stan Musial or Ted Williams.
I don't know about this issue, but I've changed my opinion in the past about an issue after talking with someone about it. In several instances, the other person brought up points that I hadn't thought of, and those points made sense. I will point out that these conversations were not screaming matches but quiet discussions where the other person listened to my questions and demonstrated that s/he had really thought the issue through - and had considered things I had not thought of. Usually, I didn't change my mind immediately but over the next few days, after mulling the issue over, I came to realize that the other person's position made more sense than my earlier opinion.

Mike

[I think we, as citizens, do not discuss our differences with others enough. Even if you don't change your mind, you come to appreciate why another person holds the opinion s/he does. The problem I've sometimes encountered when trying to have a discussion with another person is that it's obvious the other person has not thought through their position - they're just parroting things they heard somewhere. If I question them about their position, they get defensive - basically take the attitude of "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind's made up."]

[Dan Forman]

I pretty much agree with Mike above. I enjoy a reasoned conversation, to learn WHY others think as they do. It may or may not change my position, but at least helps me to understand where they are coming from.

Regarding some of the assertions made in this thread, I went looking for confirmation of things that didn't seem to make sense to me, and didn't find anything that changed my mind, but at least I looked. I try to keep a relatively open mind. I loved listening to Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary - though I suspect we might not have agreed on everthing, it would have been great to sit and chat with him about it for a while. RIP Shelby.

Just out of curiosity, who here has watched the entire Burns Civil War series, and has anyone read Shelby Foote's three volume work about the war?

Dan

[Gary Hodgin]

I saw the Ken Burn's series a few years ago when it first came out. He has at least a couple more series. I've seen his history of baseball also. Both were interesting and really well done.

I've never read Shelby Foote's three volume history, but I've read two of his fiction novels. Shiloh is a great read for anyone interested in the Battle of Shiloh. It's fiction, but fiction based on facts. He also gave a great interview on Brian Lamb's C-Span series, Book Notes, several years ago.

I also meet a Memphis tobacconist from whom he bought pipe tobacco for several years. Shelby lived in a nice house downtown on the bank Mississippi River during the later years of his life. The tobacconist had a couple of Shelby Foote stories. Shelby seemed a bit eccentric but very interesting (like most novelist I guess). The tobacco shop's best selling tobacco was a mixture named Shiloh, which Shelby Foote actually came up with and gave the guy permission to market under the name Shiloh.

[mickey cassiba]

This has been one of the most interesting OT threads I've read. Indeed, I've had to flip back and forth through it to keep up.
As I have no dog in this race(Paternal Grandparents came from Italy in 1930, Maternal Grandparents, from Ireland in the 1870's), I cannot comment on the validity of the issues that contributed to the war. Charlotte's family, however, were well ensconced in the Appalachia region prior to 1800, and are true Southerners. Fiercely independent, highly opinionated, and up for a good argument at the drop of a hat. Most of the ancestors of her family from that era avoided the war, preferring to continue farming and raising their families in the best way they could. They have a very concise genealogical history of the family, going back to the indentured transport from Wales, of three brothers who were bankrupted, and sent to the west.
The history is fascinating. Please note that these folks, who spread from the Carolina colonies westward were mostly hardscrabble farmers, and, aside from a few moonshiners, law abiding folks, EXCEPT, when those laws infringed upon their rights to their honest endeavors to raise their babies, and provide a better way of life than they had in England. At no point, had any of the numerous branches of her family had the means to purchase or support slaves,(nor the will, considering their beginnings here) quite a few of them were 'inducted' into the Union, and Confederate armies. The tales of 'brother against brother' are well documented in the family annals. Unfortunately for historians, these documents are considered private, and repeated attempts to purchase rights to them, for whatever purpose, have been refused.
I lived in west Tennessee for many years and did visit Shiloh. A very sad place in my opinion...so many killed and maimed! When I lived there, I worked for a land surveyor, and in the ten plus years I worked for him, I saw many small but poignant reminders of that terrible war. A graveyard here, a signpost marking a small battle there, sometimes a small berm on a creek bank, that resembled a fighting position. There are many monuments to the fallen there, both Union, and Confederate. These days, I hear folks, young and old, speaking of revolution...I pray that it never comes(at least, not in my lifetime). Surely we have evolved past the point of armed insurrection. I had the honor, or misfortune, to be involved in the mapping the area surrounding Ft. Henry on the Tennessee river. The things we found there were awe inspiring. One thing we found was a small field hospital. I knew it was a hospital, as some of the artifacts we found were bones with sawcuts, clearly visible. War is terrible, no matter the cause...but war between folk of common ancestry and ideals is unconscionable, I will now step down off of my soap box, and continue to follow this thread with great interest.

[Bryan Morgan]

Some new information on Lee's decision to join the Confederacy comes to light...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/?hp

Dan

Good reading! Thanks!

I think its a dirty trick of Lincoln to have troops buried on Lee's property to punish him and take his land, not being able to take it by any other legal means.

[Dan Forman]

Actually, it was the plan of Brig. General Montgomery Meigs, who considered Lee to be responsible for the deaths of so many Union troops, and wanted to literally lay the blame at his front door. More about the History of Arlington can be found here. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/historical_information/arlington_house.html

The condensed version: the land never really belonged to Lee, but to his wife's father - Lee and his wife were to be allowed to live there for the rest of her life, at which time the deed would go to their eldest son. It was confiscated in 1864 for non payment of taxes, and purchased for government use. The land was given back to Lee's son in 1882 after he sued for it's return, and he sold it back to the government for $150,000 in 1883.

Dan

[Dan Forman]

MIckey---Looks like some colorful history on your wife's side of the family. Most of my ancestors were relatively late arrivals to the new world, I have a call in to my sister to see if she knows of any family connections to the war. I know that one great grandfather on my dad's side, and a grandmother on my mother's side didn't arrive here until well after the war. There were no southern relatives that I'm aware of, most of them settled in Minnesota.

Dan

[mickey cassiba]

MIckey---Looks like some colorful history on your wife's side of the family. Most of my ancestors were relatively late arrivals to the new world, I have a call in to my sister to see if she knows of any family connections to the war. I know that one great grandfather on my dad's side, and a grandmother on my mother's side didn't arrive here until well after the war. There were no southern relatives that I'm aware of, most of them settled in Minnesota.

Dan
Dan, reading the family history(Charlotte's) is kind of like reading reading the old Louis L'aMour novels about the 'Sacketts'. We did trace a settlement in Idaho with the family name, but it's not been confirmed. As far as we can tell, there were no McCoys, but there are a lot of Hatfields. My family tree is pretty boring in comparison. The only thing of note that I've been able to find out is that my grandfather left Sicily around the time that the fascists started their rise to power. Many of my uncles served in the US Forces during WW2, fighting against(I can only assume), the ones that stayed behind. The Irish side of my family is darned near untraceable.They melted in pretty well. Pop's side still, for the most part, reside in the same neighborhood that my grandfather settled in.
BTW, I just read your sig line...yeah, I'm slow. A very telling statement. I hope I'm half as good as my dog thinks I am!

[Belinda Barfield]

Mickey, thanks for sharing a portion of Charlotte's family history. Your description of the family gave me a chuckle. Both sides of my family came to Georgia from North Carolina. My mother's family is just about as close to "mountain folk" as the day they left NC. I'm a combination of mountain and swamper - not a good mix! One of my ancestors, Grandpa Luck, lost a leg to the Battle of Chicamauga. Prior to that he was known as Matthew. He earned the nickname "Luck" after he survived being wounded, having the leg amputated essentially on the field, having the amputation site become infected and having more of the leg removed. According to the stories after he returned home even with a woooden leg he could still outrun anyone in the county. Grandpa Luck was not a wealthy man. While he was away the homeplace had started to fall into a state of disrepair. The roof needed to be patched so Grandpa climbed up the ladder to fix the roof. The only problem was he didn't fix the ladder before he tried to fix the roof. Just as he got to the top of the ladder two of the rungs broke and he fell to the ground. My grandmother heard all the commotion and ran to the window only to hear Grandpa say, "Dang, I broke my leg." This caused no small amount of concern in grandma as she didn't know how she would manage with grandpa laid up until his leg healed. She said, "Oh, Luck, how bad is it?" Grandpa said, "Well, it's gonna' take a little while to whittle a new one."

[Rick Potter]

Good story about Grandpa Luck, Belinda. He sure deserved the name. Gotta tell my Grandpa story.

In 1891 (yes, I am that old) my maternal grandfather was 15 years old, and worked as the nite telegraph operator in a large railroad yard. He was all alone there, in the middle of the night, and heard someone moaning. Upon checking he found that a drunk had fallen asleep on the tracks, and a railroad car being moved had somehow crushed his leg, without anyone noticing.

Grandpa somehow found a doctor, who ordered him to clear the desk in the office and they got the drunk laid out on it. The doctor sawed off what was left of the leg, and stitched it closed while Grandpa held him still.

Different times certainly.

Rick Potter

[Kent A Bathurst]

Rick:

1] what was he drinking? sounds potent. Might want to try some myself.
2] I double-dog-dare you to come up with a follow-up innocent post that initiates a conversation as interesting and widely-participated-in as this one.

[mickey cassiba]

Mickey, thanks for sharing a portion of Charlotte's family history. Your description of the family gave me a chuckle. Both sides of my family came to Georgia from North Carolina. My mother's family is just about as close to "mountain folk" as the day they left NC. I'm a combination of mountain and swamper - not a good mix! One of my ancestors, Grandpa Luck, lost a leg to the Battle of Chicamauga. Prior to that he was known as Matthew. He earned the nickname "Luck" after he survived being wounded, having the leg amputated essentially on the field, having the amputation site become infected and having more of the leg removed. According to the stories after he returned home even with a woooden leg he could still outrun anyone in the county. Grandpa Luck was not a wealthy man. While he was away the homeplace had started to fall into a state of disrepair. The roof needed to be patched so Grandpa climbed up the ladder to fix the roof. The only problem was he didn't fix the ladder before he tried to fix the roof. Just as he got to the top of the ladder two of the rungs broke and he fell to the ground. My grandmother heard all the commotion and ran to the window only to hear Grandpa say, "Dang, I broke my leg." This caused no small amount of concern in grandma as she didn't know how she would manage with grandpa laid up until his leg healed. She said, "Oh, Luck, how bad is it?" Grandpa said, "Well, it's gonna' take a little while to whittle a new one."
Belinda, thanks for the story about Grandpa Luck! Definitely made my evening.

[Steve Schoene]

I really have to disagree about the Civil War. For the South, it clearly was about slavery. The messages of the states as they attempted to leave the union clearly indicated that. Where states rights was mentioned it was in the context of needing state independence to preserve slavery. The South fought to preserve slavery. The slaveholders fought to keep their wealth intact and the non-slave whites fought to keep intact a social group clearly beneath them on the pecking order. Mostly the states rights myth arose after the War to rationalize it and give it a semblance of honor as a Cause rather than simple venality.

It was also likely a really bad political misjudgement. The South could quite likely have blocked emancipation for decades, just as it blocked civil rights legislation for so long.

[Dan Forman]

I doubt this will change any minds that haven't been changed by other evidence, but this popped up today in The New York Times - about Tennessee and it's delayed decision to secede. Makes things pretty clear. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/when-tennessee-turned-south/

Dan