[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Full-Auto 

Today we learn that the Civil War was fought over slavery (it wasn't).

Hint: What was the hot-button issue that caused the schism between the North and South and led to the South seceding?

We're taught that Lincoln was the great emancipator (he wasn't). Here are some quotes from Lincoln that show his true feelings on the issue of race and slavery... funny how you don't learn about these in high school history class.

Hey, I actually do remember hearing about those... and you know what? They're all from pretty early in the conflict (or before it), and considering the atmosphere of the time, it's not surprising that a politician would say things like that in order to appease the populace and get people to vote for him. But you know what? People grow, and change. I believe that by the end of the war, Lincoln's thoughts on slavery and the rights of the former slaves had changed considerably from what they were before the war, although obviously he was still a human being and not perfect.

Here's a page on Lincoln's views on slavery:

Abraham Lincoln on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then there's that letter to Horace Greeley, which you took out of context. Here's a little more of it:

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

He wasn't saying that he'd rather not free any slaves, just that his first priority was to save the Union. That's a little different than you made it look... And it makes sense, because he wouldn't have been able to free any slaves at all if the Union broke into pieces, would he? Also remember that some of the border states still had slaves, and Lincoln had to say things like this to keep those states appeased, because imagine what would happen if, say, Maryland switched sides, leaving Washington, DC in the middle of the Confederacy!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

You mean the War of Northern Aggression against a sovereign nation, The Confederate States of America.

To bad the war criminal (crimes against humanity) Lincoln wasn't killed sooner. He was responsible for more American deaths than any other wars combined.

Now Lincoln has been spun into a hero. I guess only in a country that has a holiday for a man responsible for probably the biggest genocide in history, Cristoforo Colombo (Cristóbal Colón).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by JohnM15141 

Luckily, the good guys won!

Woot, General Sherman! Kick Arse!

Yeah, I dare you to go to Atlanta and say that. I double-dog dare ya.

[JohnM15141]

Out loud with people around? No way...

...for them, udder defeat is a hard thing to take.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, I dare you to go to Atlanta and say that. I double-dog dare ya.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, I dare you to go to Atlanta and say that. I double-dog dare ya.

I was born in Atlanta, and my great great great great grandfather was General George Pickett, of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.

Guess what? The war was over 130 years ago. Who the **** cares any more?

[CharlesS]

edited for vmarks.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by JohnM15141 

Out loud with people around? No way...

...for them, udder defeat is a hard thing to take.

I figured it had more to do with having 70-80% of your children being shot and stomped to death, plus the whole city being burned to the ground.

Hint: Sherman, Lemay, and Iwane Matsui were all the same type of villain.

[scottiB]

Like Railroader, my interests were primarily in 20th century conflicts, but I moved to north west Maryland two years ago, and I can't drive a mile without passing a historical marker. My wife drives past the Antietam Battlefield on her way to work, and when traffic is bad on 270 for my commute, I drive 355 south over the Monocacy River and The Monocacy Battlefield.

I try to imagine troops marching on the road I'm driving when it was dirt, and formations lining the farmlands on my right with horses and cannon. It's still pretty rural where I live, surprisingly so to me, and South and Braddock Mountains are all thick forests. It would be hard navigating those woods, and I wonder what lies beneath and who was never found.

One Saturday every month or so, I go to the battlefields and monuments. I find it fascinating.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I try not to read the Political Lounge, but somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you've probably had a few choice words for the Muslim world in there now and again. I wonder if you'd be willing to go shout some of them in the middle of Tehran...

Can't say that I have, but it's nice to know you're thinking of me.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I figured it had more to do with having 70-80% of your children being shot and stomped to death, plus the whole city being burned to the ground.

Please cite sources for your claims.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I was born in Atlanta, and my great great great great grandfather was General George Pickett, of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.

Guess what? The war was over 130 years ago. Who the **** cares any more?

That's a shame. Your ancestor was a good man, a bit lacking in common sense, but a good man.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's a shame. Your ancestor was a good man, a bit lacking in common sense, but a good man.

Where are you from?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Where are you from?

I live near Knoxville, TN.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I live near Knoxville, TN.

Born there?

[Shaddim]

Was born in Florida.

[zro]

Is it really a shame to not foster resentment for seven generations? I don't understand this at all.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Was born in Florida.

Well, unless you can cite some sources for the claims you're making, you sound like another misinformed idiot. It takes only the most basic historical knowledge to know that Sherman evacuated the city before it was burned.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zro 

Is it really a shame to not foster resentment for seven generations? I don't understand this at all.

Resentment, no. That doesn't help anyone. But it is wise to care and remember.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Well, unless you can cite some sources for the claims you're making, you sound like another misinformed idiot. It takes only the most basic historical knowledge to know that Sherman evacuated the city before it was burned.

You know, I've heard that too, but all historians agree that he didn't bother to evacuate hospitals, the elderly, or the injured. Now, other people who were there, including some of my distant family, said he just started burning and let the citizens figure it out for themselves. It's all written by the side who won, and anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You know, I've heard that to, but all historians agree that he didn't bother to evacuate hospitals, the elderly, or the injured. Now, other people who were there, including some of my distant family, said he just started burning and let the citizens figure it out for themselves.

Who are these "all historians?" What books or journals are you citing? What research supports this? Where is your proof?

Circular logic doesn't help you here. Cite your sources.

[Shaddim]

Well, I guess I can let you talk with my cousin Judy, but she's pretty old and you have to be nice to her. You can tell her about your great, great, great, great, grandpa. I think she's a bit stuck on him, since he was such a gallant sort.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I guess I can let you talk with my cousin Judy, but she's pretty old and you have to be nice to her. You can tell her about your great, great, great, great, grandpa. I think she's a bit stuck on him, since he was such a gallant sort.

In other words you have no sources to cite. You've heard stuff and you assume it's true because it fits into your world view. I, too, have old relatives, and even they don't care any more.

If you ever want to take the time and actually read about Sherman's march, you will find out that loss of human life was remarkably light. And, after the burning of Atlanta the Union Army no longer burned towns or cities, as they realized destroying the rail lines was as efficient with much less effort. The only other city burned was Columbia, South Carolina, and this was done without Sherman's orders.

[Shaddim]

Ah, found the book in my library:

Amazon.com: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians: Books: Walter Brian Cisco

It's a good read, very revealing.

[Kerrigan]

Why is everyone hating on Shaddim for bringing to light valid issues concerning the South? We are discussing the bloodiest war in American history, mind you.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ah, found the book in my library:

Amazon.com: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians: Books: Walter Brian Cisco

It's a good read, very revealing.

Not sure. Looks like it's been savaged by some reputable historians for being poorly researched.

Anywho, just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is true. I'm still waiting for Heather Graham to call me.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is everyone hating on Shaddim for bringing to light valid issues concerning the South? We are discussing the bloodiest war in American history, mind you.

Because he's not referencing anything other than his own opinions. You want to make claims, you'd better have some facts to back them up.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is everyone hating on Shaddim for bringing to light valid issues concerning the South? We are discussing the bloodiest war in American history, mind you.

It's a touchy subject still, seems to me that some people around here care more than they like to lead on. Like this fella:

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Who the **** cares any more?

War criminals, like William Tecumseh Sherman, created wounds in this country that still haven't fully healed. Parts of the South are still feeling the impact of Reconstruction. Hell, I don't think South Carolina ever passed a vote to rejoin the Union.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Hint: What was the hot-button issue that caused the schism between the North and South and led to the South seceding?


Hey, I actually do remember hearing about those... and you know what? They're all from pretty early in the conflict (or before it), and considering the atmosphere of the time, it's not surprising that a politician would say things like that in order to appease the populace and get people to vote for him. But you know what? People grow, and change. I believe that by the end of the war, Lincoln's thoughts on slavery and the rights of the former slaves had changed considerably from what they were before the war, although obviously he was still a human being and not perfect.

I don't know that Lincoln's views changed considerably. The rumblings of emancipation had begun in the 1850s. That it took until 1862 when the war was underway to get around to it is a matter for speculation and discussion, as is the fact that Union slave states were allowed to retain their slave state status, showing that Lincoln did have some concept of States' Rights.

It is worth remembering that the Confederate States of America were planning on granting emancipation to all slaves who put on the uniform and fought. This plan was never enacted, because it was conceived near the end of the war.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Resentment, no. That doesn't help anyone. But it is wise to care and remember.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Apathy is a very bad thing. Just ask the people in the World Trade Center. Not to derail the subject or anything.

[Full-Auto]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't know that Lincoln's views changed considerably. The rumblings of emancipation had begun in the 1850s. That it took until 1862 when the war was underway to get around to it is a matter for speculation and discussion, as is the fact that Union slave states were allowed to retain their slave state status, showing that Lincoln did have some concept of States' Rights.

Exactly right. Many of the "border" states were allowed to keep practicing slavery to appease them. Lincoln didn't live his entire life thinking whites were superior to blacks only to change his mind a year or two into the war he started. That's absolutely silly at best. The issue of slavery was nothing more than a talking point used to demonize the south and to give the north moral justification for imposing their will on the south economically.

Let's not mention that well after the war blacks were treated as second class citizens by both sides (north and south) with "white only" facilities, not being able to vote, etc. It seems like the great emancipator left a few things out, eh?

The north was imposing tariffs that were crushing the south. As early as 1833 it was predicted violence would erupt over these unfair tax laws. South Carolina told the fed's to stick it and a "force bill" was introduced that would authorize the use of they military to enforce acts of congress. That's right, the north was talking about using the military to kill civilians to impose their tax laws.

These hostile tariffs that were designed to hurt the southern economy continued with new laws passed in 1842, 1857 and 1861. These tariffs were intended to divide the north and the south, which they did.

It is worth remembering that the Confederate States of America were planning on granting emancipation to all slaves who put on the uniform and fought. This plan was never enacted, because it was conceived near the end of the war.

Not to mention the practice of slavery was dying in the south at the time of the civil war. Let's also not mention it was still alive and well in northern states as well, just under a different name in many cases. Very-very few southerners were slave owners, and there was a growing outcry against the practice in the south. Slavery was coming to an end on its own.

To claim we killed hundreds of thousands of Americans because we wanted to hurry up and stop an institution that was on its way out already is ludicrous.

As for "saving the union", Lincoln did no such thing. He forever destroyed our nation usurping state and individual rights. What we're left with today is an all powerful federal government that's wildly out of control and the original checks and balances are forever lost. We can't stop the federal government from taxing and spending, racking up a HUGE deficit, increasing its size to the point where it's the largest employer in this nation or from starting pointless wars in places like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc.

When the federal government forces a state to remove a flag from its state capital under the threat of withholding millions in funds (money taken from the citizens of that state), there is something VERY wrong. How this should work is that if the federal government does something the majority of the states don't agree with, the states withhold funding from the federal government.

Heck, take a look at the 16th Amendment as another example of the all powerful federal government over stepping its bounds. The necessary 3/4 of the states didn't ratify the 16th Amendment yet the federal government went ahead with instituting the federal income tax. Now we hand over almost half of our income to the feds in taxes and it's completely unconstitutional... and the states are powerless as are the people.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Full-Auto 

Not to mention the practice of slavery was dying in the south at the time of the civil war.

Link please. The link I posted earlier said that Lincoln's policy of not creating any new slave states would have caused slavery to die out eventually... but the South seceded over that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Full-Auto 

As for "saving the union", Lincoln did no such thing. He forever destroyed our nation usurping state and individual rights. What we're left with today is an all powerful federal government that's wildly out of control and the original checks and balances are forever lost. We can't stop the federal government from taxing and spending, racking up a HUGE deficit, increasing its size to the point where it's the largest employer in this nation or from starting pointless wars in places like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc.

America became the world's greatest superpower without those "checks and balances" to which you're referring. (Not to mention that referring to America's federal government as "all-powerful" is simply ludicrous. States in America have significant powers in relation to many, or even most, other democracies.) It seems a little silly to blame America's problems on missing "checks and balances" when America's success in the first place may be because of this reason.

I would argue that it's the American people who are responsible for those negative points you're trying to plaster solely on some faceless "all-power federal government." Take some responsibility.

greg

[Jawbone54]

A man I met on the streets of Bossier City, Louisiana.

H.K. Edgerton.



This doesn't have a lot to do with the topic at hand, but it was very odd seeing a 50-something-year-old black man walking down a street in the worst part of town with a big confederate flag. I gave him a ride back to his car (he accidentally walked about 5 miles further than he meant to), and had an hour-long conversation about his beliefs.

Quite an interesting character, at least.

[CharlesS]

The problem with going down the road of states' rights / federal government is that it ends up turning this into a left/right political debate and will end up destining this thread for the Political Lounge.

I have to say though, that yes, having a strong federal government allowed the USA to enter some pointless wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, but it also allowed us to do well in some meaningful wars such as WWII. Can you imagine if half the country seceded every time the people were divided on some issue? We'd be a thousand tiny little countries by now, completely powerless to do anything. Hell, we might have gone to war with each other a bunch more times - the Civil War could have just been a prelude.

[macforray]

Here is a local community web site that may be interesting to some. They hold an annual Civil War reenactment every summer.

SCA-Peterboro Home

[Full-Auto]

...

[Full-Auto]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

America became the world's greatest superpower without those "checks and balances" to which you're referring.

Our day in the spot light is quickly fading. Our dollar is practically worthless on the global economic stage, the EU is rapidly growing to counter our influence (ironically their union is more in tune with the original design of our own government), China is quickly out pacing us in manufacturing...

It's typical for us to sit back and gloat over our relatively brief stint as the worlds only superpower and turn a blind eye to the problems which are destroying our country.

Ron Paul is crazy at times, but he's on the right track. The only way our country will ever recover from decades of federal decay is to abolish the IRS, reduce the size of government considerably, give power back to the states, and put the federal government back on its leash.

I'm sure you fancy yourself as being more intelligent and worldly than our Founding Fathers, but I'll take my chances with their original design vs. the goofed up mess we currently face.

But hey, if you enjoy things like the Patriot Act, paying over half of your income in taxes (income tax, state tax, gas tax, sales tax, death tax, capital gains tax, etc.), ever expanding government, declining dollar, endless wars and military action, etc. and you're not intuitive enough to see the damage it's doing to our nation... far be it from me to try and show you the light.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, I'm Canadian, so I don't have the personal invested element you Americans do of course. But to say "you'll take your chances with the Founding Fathers' original design" seems just silly to me. The world at that time can't even be compared to what it is today, economically, socially or politically. The reason the Founding Fathers' design didn't exactly work in the first place was because of changes in these spheres. You have to have some convincing reason to return to an ideology that didn't work, besides "the Founding Fathers did it."

In other words, the problems you list (dollar value, manufacturing, the "growth of the EU" which I'm not exactly sure means what) don't seem inherently tied to "all-powerful federal government." (For sake of argument I'll ignore the fact that the US does not have an all-powerful federal government by any means.) When you list "endless wars and military action" as a bad result of powerful federal government, you also strangely ignore the fact that the thread topic (Civil War) came before Lincoln won the war and changed the fed-state balance of power as you suggest. How will having stronger autonomous states prevent "endless wars" if the bloodiest war in America's history happened at when this was the case? Furthermore, in the US do States impose taxes? I don't see how giving more power to individual States will somehow magically be able to reduce one's taxes; you'll just be paying them to another government. Are all the taxes you listed up there federal?

Meanwhile, how many billions of dollars are wasted each year as a result of useless subsidies given because of lobby groups? How much of the agricultural sector would be able to survive without government handouts? There's a reason government expanded so rapidly after WWII – because people wanted it to.

greg