cuchulainn
Member
To this day, the U.S. Constitution allows slavery in narrow circumstances.
Confederate or Union?
- Thread starter ComputerFlake
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
Dilettante - I've added the URL for the statement to my earlier post. I'm still having trouble making posts before timing out, but not as much trouble as I had earlier today at the office. Check out the casualty figures at the bottom of the page, too. JT
Glock Glockler
Member
Mr. Flory,
I'm curious why you made no mention of that fact that the North allowed slavery within it's borders as well, and that the Federal govt even used slaves for manual labor over the course of the war. Both govts allowed slavery, so on those grounds they are on equal footing, but the North went a few steps further and invaded the South, which only wanted to be left alone.
I fail to see how the two can be considered equals.
I'm curious why you made no mention of that fact that the North allowed slavery within it's borders as well, and that the Federal govt even used slaves for manual labor over the course of the war. Both govts allowed slavery, so on those grounds they are on equal footing, but the North went a few steps further and invaded the South, which only wanted to be left alone.
I fail to see how the two can be considered equals.
fallingblock
Member
Without belaboring the point.....
The average Southron in the ranks was not fighting for the institution of slavery. It was one of the factors which contributed to the onset of war, but those boys were fighting for their state, not the slaveowner. The vast majority of Yankees (including my great grandpa, if his correspondence is to be believed) were fighting for the union, not the slaves. The slavery issue was not a winner outside the abolitionist's stronghold of the Northeast.
Do those of you who watched Ken Burns' series remember delightful old Shelby Foote's narration of the incident where some Yankees asked their Confederate captive why he was fighting...and the Confederate replied:
"Because you are here".
It was a much simpler and more rural nation in those days. Aside from the major urban centers in the Northeast, most of the United States population lived in small towns and on farms. The concept of state's rights held great appeal for such provincial settlement dwellers...
It holds great appeal for some of us today
The average Southron in the ranks was not fighting for the institution of slavery. It was one of the factors which contributed to the onset of war, but those boys were fighting for their state, not the slaveowner. The vast majority of Yankees (including my great grandpa, if his correspondence is to be believed) were fighting for the union, not the slaves. The slavery issue was not a winner outside the abolitionist's stronghold of the Northeast.
Do those of you who watched Ken Burns' series remember delightful old Shelby Foote's narration of the incident where some Yankees asked their Confederate captive why he was fighting...and the Confederate replied:
"Because you are here".
It was a much simpler and more rural nation in those days. Aside from the major urban centers in the Northeast, most of the United States population lived in small towns and on farms. The concept of state's rights held great appeal for such provincial settlement dwellers...
It holds great appeal for some of us today
Flory,
Let me guess, you are a history professor at Purdue University
I sure hope you aren't in the English Dept.......
If you were educating my son, I do believe I'd ask for my money back!!
Good luck with that chip on your shoulder.....it looks really heavy......
ComputerFlake
Member
Honestly, I think slavery still exists today but in another form. Hispanics are slaves today. Slaves to the system. They come into this country illegally and we put them to work doing sgut jobs and pay them practically nothing. It's better than living in Mexico, so I understand it, but they are no less slaves than blacks were who worked on a plantation and were paid nothing more than the ability to live, eat, and have shelter.
But I guess blacks didn't have low-riders during the Civil War so the comparison isn't really valid. As long as I get a good deal on my taco, I can live with it.
On a serious note, I wonder how long it'll be before we see Martin Luther Valdez, Jr take a stand for the hispanic community and start demanding equal pay and equal rights? According to recent polls, hispanics already outnumber blacks in the US. I imagine their freedom plight happen soon.
JohnBT
Member
"...take a stand for the hispanic community and start demanding equal pay and equal rights?"
You missed it. Check out the United Farm Workers, the grape strike and the nationwide lettuce boycott of the mid-1960s. Do a search on the union leader Chavez.
And I don't see how you equate the hispanic/latino group with plantation slaves. Do the Mexicans working here get chased down and shot if they leave their jobs? Your logic eludes me.
John
You missed it. Check out the United Farm Workers, the grape strike and the nationwide lettuce boycott of the mid-1960s. Do a search on the union leader Chavez.
And I don't see how you equate the hispanic/latino group with plantation slaves. Do the Mexicans working here get chased down and shot if they leave their jobs? Your logic eludes me.
John
Sgt- Actually Glockler and I are good friends...so my statements are mostly in jest to him. FYI I'm a Management student at Purdue...and I've only received "A"s in my Engrish crasses.
I'm sorry but no one has provided me with evidence that either side was right. Once again, the North accepted slavery on some levels like Glockler said, and they did not allow states to secede. The South was wrong because they had legal slavery. Regardless of their intentions after the war, they allowed slavery, plain and simple. Its not like we're talking Axis vs. Allied here, since both the North and South were in the wrong.
I'm sorry but no one has provided me with evidence that either side was right. Once again, the North accepted slavery on some levels like Glockler said, and they did not allow states to secede. The South was wrong because they had legal slavery. Regardless of their intentions after the war, they allowed slavery, plain and simple. Its not like we're talking Axis vs. Allied here, since both the North and South were in the wrong.
Dear Mr. Flory,
I'm glad you got the humor in my post
Sounds like you are doing well at Purdue, but I do question what you have been taught about the War Between the States.....
It's not your fault, our education system is run by out of control liberals with an agenda. It starts in Kindergarten and gets worse from there. As with most any topic, one should keep an open mind and do some research, before arriving at a hasty conclusion. I agree that slavery was wrong, but it was legal in the land of yankees, as well as in my beloved Confederacy. Not to mention, that it really was a small part of the reason for the conflict. The winner, writes the history books....pure and simple. And they have been rewritten several times for various reasons, that include promoting animosity between blacks and whites and to feed the weak minded's feelings of guilt. My Ancestor's, both white and Choctaw Indian, owned slaves and I feel no guilt. There are good things and bad things that have happened since the beginning of time and those of us alive today are not responsible for them, anymore than those who fought the War Between the States. They inherited slavery from the British and French......
In any case, I hope that you continue to do well in school.
Good Luck, Sgt
I'm glad you got the humor in my post
Sounds like you are doing well at Purdue, but I do question what you have been taught about the War Between the States.....
It's not your fault, our education system is run by out of control liberals with an agenda. It starts in Kindergarten and gets worse from there. As with most any topic, one should keep an open mind and do some research, before arriving at a hasty conclusion. I agree that slavery was wrong, but it was legal in the land of yankees, as well as in my beloved Confederacy. Not to mention, that it really was a small part of the reason for the conflict. The winner, writes the history books....pure and simple. And they have been rewritten several times for various reasons, that include promoting animosity between blacks and whites and to feed the weak minded's feelings of guilt. My Ancestor's, both white and Choctaw Indian, owned slaves and I feel no guilt. There are good things and bad things that have happened since the beginning of time and those of us alive today are not responsible for them, anymore than those who fought the War Between the States. They inherited slavery from the British and French......
In any case, I hope that you continue to do well in school.
Good Luck, Sgt
ComputerFlake
Member
First of all, no one holds sit-in protests because of and sings songs about Chavez. I'm talking about someone worthy of a holiday. That person hasn't come along for the hispanic community yet. Unless you count Jesus el Christo.
Not all slaves were unhappy people who were shot for running away. Plenty of them never wanted slavery to end. I just finished reading a story about a black woman who said she was less happy with freedom than slavery because she had nothing and lived like a rat after Northern troops forced her family from her plantation. Your logic of why a slave couldn't also be happy eludes me.
Mexicans working here may not be chased down but they are treated like animals in some instances and are paid substantially less than white Americans. It can be likened to slavery in that situation.
ComputerFlake,
Don't forget about us white folk......There are a lot of white people and American Indians, who would love to have what the Mexicans do. And no matter how bad you think they are treated, they've got it much better here than back home. Of course if we shot them as they crossed over and sealed off our border, we'd be better off....but if they weren't doing better here, they wouldn't be coming, now would they?
Sgt
TamThompson
Member
What Felonius said on the first page!
The CSA. We would've eventually done the right thing and freed the slaves, probably within 10-20 years.
And damned right, Texans are mad! We still have the right to break up into 5 states, you know, so I wouldn't push us.
The CSA. We would've eventually done the right thing and freed the slaves, probably within 10-20 years.
And damned right, Texans are mad! We still have the right to break up into 5 states, you know, so I wouldn't push us.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Do it! Please! We could use the extra 8 republican senators in Washington.
TamThompson
Member
Mmm, no. I don't vote Republican, so...no. Not all Texans are Republicans. Witness the huge fight we're having over redistricting, engineered by Tom DeLay. I mean, c'mon, a district that carves up Austin so that we deliberately lose Lloyd Dogget (Dem.) and we're in a district with the Rio Grand Valley? Doesn't make sense.
Glock Glockler
Member
Mr. Flory,
Speaking of Axis v Allies, who do you prefer on the Eastern Front? Not quite a simple as it seems now is it?
What about at Thermoplea? The Greeks are championed as the good guys but Athens was a Democracy that allowed murder as long as the majority voted for it (Socrates), Sparta was a police state, and neither one recognized the rights of women, and both had slavery, so would you fight with them or the Persians?
Would you prefer the English nobles or the English King if a war would have ensued over the Magna Carta? Were either one champions of freedom and property rights of the common man?
None of the above mentioned groups are very good by your standards, so which would you prefer? I know exactly who I would prefer.
War is nothing more than a military solution to a political problem, and politics is the art of the possible. While ancient Greece was nothing Chris II would be itching to move to it was certainly better than the society of the Persians who did not recognize the right to self government, which was the significant difference between them and the Greeks. Many of the Americans that fought against the Brits in the revolutionary war owned slaves and though women as little better, but does that not mean that they are the better of the two?
Political change is often slow, especially when it's for the better, but you do not achieve it by persuing progress because the side is not perfect. The failed war of Southern independence was a rebellion against the growing tyranny of the Federal govt that seeks to make all Americans into slaves regardless of their color, which I hardly think is conducive to freedom.
I think AHenry said it best: 'I'd fight like hell to preverve the CSA, then once that was accomplished I'd fight like hell to end slavery'.
Speaking of Axis v Allies, who do you prefer on the Eastern Front? Not quite a simple as it seems now is it?
What about at Thermoplea? The Greeks are championed as the good guys but Athens was a Democracy that allowed murder as long as the majority voted for it (Socrates), Sparta was a police state, and neither one recognized the rights of women, and both had slavery, so would you fight with them or the Persians?
Would you prefer the English nobles or the English King if a war would have ensued over the Magna Carta? Were either one champions of freedom and property rights of the common man?
None of the above mentioned groups are very good by your standards, so which would you prefer? I know exactly who I would prefer.
War is nothing more than a military solution to a political problem, and politics is the art of the possible. While ancient Greece was nothing Chris II would be itching to move to it was certainly better than the society of the Persians who did not recognize the right to self government, which was the significant difference between them and the Greeks. Many of the Americans that fought against the Brits in the revolutionary war owned slaves and though women as little better, but does that not mean that they are the better of the two?
Political change is often slow, especially when it's for the better, but you do not achieve it by persuing progress because the side is not perfect. The failed war of Southern independence was a rebellion against the growing tyranny of the Federal govt that seeks to make all Americans into slaves regardless of their color, which I hardly think is conducive to freedom.
I think AHenry said it best: 'I'd fight like hell to preverve the CSA, then once that was accomplished I'd fight like hell to end slavery'.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
The Democrats successfully gerrymandered the districts back in the early 1990s, so that the Republicans have a minority of seats, even though they have a majority of total House votes.
Cosmoline
Member
I'm with the CSA on this one. Slavery was disgusting, but the union did not fight to free the slaves until it had no other choice. Moreover, the freedom the slaves obtained was short-lived, and quickly replaced with Jim Crow and de facto indentured servitude. In time slavery would have been abolished in the CSA, and without the bloodshed of the war or the elogated troubles of the 20th century. I'm convinced that much of the southern resistance to civil rights was because they were being told they HAD TO.
Aside from the slavery issue, the north had little valid grounds for the invasion. If its purpose was to reclaim federal properties, it could have done so without total war.
Besides, the ONLY good thing to come out of the Civil War on the political level was abolition. The blocade forced the UK to look elsewhere for its cotton, which spurred the British colonization of India, Africa, and plenty of other places. It also led the way to the US becoming a great power by the 1890's. This, in turn, led to our own attempts to build an empire, our involvement in foreign affairs. Our intrusion into the European conflict in WWI basically forced Germany to concede. If US troops (and more importantly--the threat of millions more US troops) had not been there, Germany could have and almost certainly would have smashed through to Paris. Thus the bigger dog would have won, and there would have been no WWII, no loss of countless millions of lives.
And today we'd have two fine, wealthy republics instead of one not-so-fine empire.
Aside from the slavery issue, the north had little valid grounds for the invasion. If its purpose was to reclaim federal properties, it could have done so without total war.
Besides, the ONLY good thing to come out of the Civil War on the political level was abolition. The blocade forced the UK to look elsewhere for its cotton, which spurred the British colonization of India, Africa, and plenty of other places. It also led the way to the US becoming a great power by the 1890's. This, in turn, led to our own attempts to build an empire, our involvement in foreign affairs. Our intrusion into the European conflict in WWI basically forced Germany to concede. If US troops (and more importantly--the threat of millions more US troops) had not been there, Germany could have and almost certainly would have smashed through to Paris. Thus the bigger dog would have won, and there would have been no WWII, no loss of countless millions of lives.
And today we'd have two fine, wealthy republics instead of one not-so-fine empire.
Bigjake
Member
WOW
some awesome discusion going here, to the point where i just read the whole 5 pages in their entirety.... i think the CSA was in the right, but thats just me. all this boils down to though is beating a dead horse.
some awesome discusion going here, to the point where i just read the whole 5 pages in their entirety.... i think the CSA was in the right, but thats just me. all this boils down to though is beating a dead horse.
telomerase
Member
Does Iraq have the right to secede?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20030827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_costs_2
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20030827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_costs_2
Sgt- Don't worry sir, I have thick skin To be completely honest, my formal education about most aspects of history is nil. I learn everything through reading, the History Channel, and by reading threads like this/talking to people like Glockler or Chris II/etc. At first getting plummeled on a history thread used to embarass me, but now I try to get people like Glockler fired up so he can throw me some interesting bones to chew on. I understand you sentiment exactly on formal education...especially things that are not hard sciences. Subjects like history, poli sci, English, etc. are not taught very well at all. But I guess I can just hang onto my poop scoop for dear life and just start digging Thanks for the well wishes BTW!
Glockler- Now that is good stuff! I see exactly what you are trying to say. I wasn't thinking of it in the context of generations, rather in the context of a single person's lifetime.
To be completely honest, my formal education about most aspects of history is nil. I learn everything through reading, the History Channel, and by reading threads like this/talking to people like Glockler or Chris II/etc. At first getting plummeled on a history thread used to embarass me, but now I try to get people like Glockler fired up so he can throw me some interesting bones to chew on. I understand you sentiment exactly on formal education...especially things that are not hard sciences. Subjects like history, poli sci, English, etc. are not taught very well at all. But I guess I can just hang onto my poop scoop for dear life and just start digging Thanks for the well wishes BTW!Glockler- Now that is good stuff! I see exactly what you are trying to say. I wasn't thinking of it in the context of generations, rather in the context of a single person's lifetime.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
Slavery was one factor that gave rise to the war. Lincoln addressed it in his inaugural address and promised to leave the institution intact. While the majority of men who wore the gray (and butternut) did not own slaves nor cared a wit about them, they were concerned about states' rights and afraid that their lives (as miserable as some may been) was threatened by the North.
By the same token, most of the boys in blue didn't march off to free the slaves. Some certainly did. Robert Gould Shaw and several officers of the 54th Massachusetts were abolitionists. What did that majority fight for then? Why, to preserve the Union (and for the honor of the Nation). Remember the song, Battle Cry Freedom? It goes, "The Union forever, hurrah, boys hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with the Star"[/i]
Don't forget about the Draft Riots, the biggest of which was in NY and protrayed in the movie, Gangs of New York. The rioters didn't want to die for slaves and killed many folks of African descent living there. They even burnt down an orphanage and killed any kids not rescued by the firefighters or police. As a sidenote, the repression of the riot was my favorite scene. The Federal troops had just won a great victory at a small town called Gettysburg and were incensed and saw the rioters as traitors. When they marched north to restore order, they were happy about it (also beats fighting Rebels who can give as good as they receive).
Was seccession wrong? Apparently not. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited it. Recall that Jeff Davis was never tried as a "traitor" for leading the rebellion. The North had another "tricky" issue to contend with too. Remember West Virginia? Well, that was part of the Old Dominion State until McClellan wrested control of it from her. The North then allowed the residents to secede and form a new state. How does this tie in? Well, if a portion of a state could secede, then why not a state from the Union? That was one embarassing issue that no one wanted to raise should Jeff go to trial.
The mistake the South made was firing upon Fort Sumter. They should have starved Anderson out (before being fired upon, Anderson ran out of Hard Tack and his mess sergeants were serving rice and salt pork). He would have left in another 24 hours anyway. Beauregard couldn't wait (and didn't know if another supply attempt was going to be made). Both sides were naive in thinking it would be a quick war. Lincoln called for 75,000 men for 90 days. Everybody believed one battle and it would be all over. 600,000 dead later, opps. Too bad the family feud wasn't resolved diplomatically.
I would like to close with comments about Wirtz and Andersonville. Byron is right in that the South could not deliver food stuff to the PoWs. There were many unnecessary deaths associated with starvation. Wirtz to his credit complained to Conf. General Richard Lee (see Destruction and Reconstruction, p 216, "In this journey through Georgia, at Andersonville, I passed in sight of a large stockade inclosing prisoners of war... a man who said his name was Wirtz... complained of the inadequacy of his guard and of the want of supplies, as the adjacent region was sterile and thinly populated. He also said that the prisoners were suffering from cold, were destitute of blankets, and that he had not the wagons to supply fuel. He showed me duplicates of requisitions and appeals for relief that he had made to different authorities...").
Wirtz was no angel though. Prisoners complained that he robbed them and that his guards were brutal (the original camp guards were soldiers and treated the prisoners with empathy but when they were replaced with 2nd line troops - old men & young boys, the cruelty really got bad). In Writz's defense, the Confederate supply system was horrible. Supplies (including food) did not reach their own armies and rotted in depots. Unlike the North which appointed a railroad man in charge of all railroads, the Southern railroads continued to operate for profit and if the military had to wait by the wayside, so be it. That's one advantage of a centralized federal government over a confederate one. The Confederates couldn't do that without risking become a "federal" government. Finally, the cutting off of PoW exchange didn't help any (blame Grant & Lincoln). However, partial blame must fall on the Confederates themselves since the Union wanted to exchange 1:1. However, the Confederates refused to recognize Afro-Union soldiers and would not exchange them. Since they refused, the Union refused altogether. Unfortunately, men on both sides suffered and languished in prisons because of it.
By the same token, most of the boys in blue didn't march off to free the slaves. Some certainly did. Robert Gould Shaw and several officers of the 54th Massachusetts were abolitionists. What did that majority fight for then? Why, to preserve the Union (and for the honor of the Nation). Remember the song, Battle Cry Freedom? It goes, "The Union forever, hurrah, boys hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with the Star"[/i]
Don't forget about the Draft Riots, the biggest of which was in NY and protrayed in the movie, Gangs of New York. The rioters didn't want to die for slaves and killed many folks of African descent living there. They even burnt down an orphanage and killed any kids not rescued by the firefighters or police. As a sidenote, the repression of the riot was my favorite scene. The Federal troops had just won a great victory at a small town called Gettysburg and were incensed and saw the rioters as traitors. When they marched north to restore order, they were happy about it (also beats fighting Rebels who can give as good as they receive).
Was seccession wrong? Apparently not. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited it. Recall that Jeff Davis was never tried as a "traitor" for leading the rebellion. The North had another "tricky" issue to contend with too. Remember West Virginia? Well, that was part of the Old Dominion State until McClellan wrested control of it from her. The North then allowed the residents to secede and form a new state. How does this tie in? Well, if a portion of a state could secede, then why not a state from the Union? That was one embarassing issue that no one wanted to raise should Jeff go to trial.
The mistake the South made was firing upon Fort Sumter. They should have starved Anderson out (before being fired upon, Anderson ran out of Hard Tack and his mess sergeants were serving rice and salt pork). He would have left in another 24 hours anyway. Beauregard couldn't wait (and didn't know if another supply attempt was going to be made). Both sides were naive in thinking it would be a quick war. Lincoln called for 75,000 men for 90 days. Everybody believed one battle and it would be all over. 600,000 dead later, opps. Too bad the family feud wasn't resolved diplomatically.
I would like to close with comments about Wirtz and Andersonville. Byron is right in that the South could not deliver food stuff to the PoWs. There were many unnecessary deaths associated with starvation. Wirtz to his credit complained to Conf. General Richard Lee (see Destruction and Reconstruction, p 216, "In this journey through Georgia, at Andersonville, I passed in sight of a large stockade inclosing prisoners of war... a man who said his name was Wirtz... complained of the inadequacy of his guard and of the want of supplies, as the adjacent region was sterile and thinly populated. He also said that the prisoners were suffering from cold, were destitute of blankets, and that he had not the wagons to supply fuel. He showed me duplicates of requisitions and appeals for relief that he had made to different authorities...").
Wirtz was no angel though. Prisoners complained that he robbed them and that his guards were brutal (the original camp guards were soldiers and treated the prisoners with empathy but when they were replaced with 2nd line troops - old men & young boys, the cruelty really got bad). In Writz's defense, the Confederate supply system was horrible. Supplies (including food) did not reach their own armies and rotted in depots. Unlike the North which appointed a railroad man in charge of all railroads, the Southern railroads continued to operate for profit and if the military had to wait by the wayside, so be it. That's one advantage of a centralized federal government over a confederate one. The Confederates couldn't do that without risking become a "federal" government. Finally, the cutting off of PoW exchange didn't help any (blame Grant & Lincoln). However, partial blame must fall on the Confederates themselves since the Union wanted to exchange 1:1. However, the Confederates refused to recognize Afro-Union soldiers and would not exchange them. Since they refused, the Union refused altogether. Unfortunately, men on both sides suffered and languished in prisons because of it.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
I would say the Civil War is largely the fault of the Southern politicians, who initiated secession to pretect their personal material interest in the continuation and expansion of slave power, and plowed under hundreds of thousands of boys to try to preserve it. As their own public statements attest (reading those pesky primary sources again, sorry... ), they considered slavery a positive moral good, not something that was a necessary evil that would eventually go away. So the claim that slavery would have gone away on its own seems specious to me if the slave owners were making alot of money off it and thought God said it was good to go. Because you know how eager people are to abandon ways of getting rich that have God's seal of approval on 'em.
The State's Right's claim is true as far as it goes, but again by actually reading the primary source material it is clear that the "right" to own slaves was the paramount concern of the Southern politicians. The fact that they could dupe otherwise disinterested farmboys into fighting with some ersatz visions of herrenvolk democracy or wild stories about Republican-sanctioned forced negro sex with their sisters just goes to prove that the public at large is stupid.
Even if you somehow accept that this circimstance can co-exist with being on the "right" side, you have to recognize that secession was a suicidal strategy that made certain all the bugaboos that the war was supposed to prevent in the first place. It directly lead to a vast expansion in federal power and set the South as a whole back 100 years. Even if we accept for a moment that the South was fighting for all the right reasons, and that secession was perfectly legal, we are still forced to conclude that the war itself was folly on an immense scale... a gamble for high stakes where the other guy has the stacked deck.
), they considered slavery a positive moral good, not something that was a necessary evil that would eventually go away. So the claim that slavery would have gone away on its own seems specious to me if the slave owners were making alot of money off it and thought God said it was good to go. Because you know how eager people are to abandon ways of getting rich that have God's seal of approval on 'em.The State's Right's claim is true as far as it goes, but again by actually reading the primary source material it is clear that the "right" to own slaves was the paramount concern of the Southern politicians. The fact that they could dupe otherwise disinterested farmboys into fighting with some ersatz visions of herrenvolk democracy or wild stories about Republican-sanctioned forced negro sex with their sisters just goes to prove that the public at large is stupid.
Even if you somehow accept that this circimstance can co-exist with being on the "right" side, you have to recognize that secession was a suicidal strategy that made certain all the bugaboos that the war was supposed to prevent in the first place. It directly lead to a vast expansion in federal power and set the South as a whole back 100 years. Even if we accept for a moment that the South was fighting for all the right reasons, and that secession was perfectly legal, we are still forced to conclude that the war itself was folly on an immense scale... a gamble for high stakes where the other guy has the stacked deck.
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
Lee was clearly the best General of Napoleonic warfare in the Civil War. The problem was that the Civil War was the last Napoleonic War and the first modern war. The definitive switchover occured on July 3, 1863 at Gettysburg with the annihilation of Pickett's Charge... 50% casualty rate. Grant was a better modern warfare general than was Lee.
My 2 cents on the subject of this thread: The War of Southern Aggression was initiated by them durn southern rebels by firing upon innocent union forces which were merely minding their own business manning a federal fort. Them southern dudes wanted to steal sumpin that did not belong to them.... simple as that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
