| Author | Message | ||
     Revz |
Which side would the 21st century USA be on if they could help in the 19th Century American Civil War? | ||
| Birdy |
The crooks in DC now would be on both sides. More money selling arms to both the Blue & Gray and stringing things out for years than helping one side win outright. | ||
| Budgolf |
+1 | ||
| Sifo |
Wouldn't we still be on both sides of a civil war? | ||
| Brumbear |
Well now if I could own a lil Chinese man with a full beard that stuttered I might have a different point of view. I would call him lilphocker and feed him jewjew bees  But I believe Sifo is correct on this one | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Sifo +1 When young I believed I'd firmly be on the North's side. Purely because I believed slavery is wrong, and needed to be done away with. Now I'm not so sure - Still am against slavery, don't get me wrong there. And it has nothing to do with living in the South now, but feelings/thoughts I've had for a few years now. There is a part of me that feels the south got suckered into a civil war. Consider: This Lincoln character comes out of no-where after loosing every other election he had run in. He is a figure the "North" absolutely knew the "South" would never go for. The North was able to use slavery as a rallying point for northern citizens. An awesome tactic, at a time when the South was gaining in power and prestige. And at a time when the north wanted to make sure it could continue to receive southern raw materials at cheap prices. The North wanted the slaves to go free. The North at the same time refused to pay higher prices for raw materials. So you have the North telling the South to release all of it's labor, but giving the South no way to pay for it. Hardly an "equal" proposition. Lincoln continued to use, abuse, and violate the constitution during his presidency / civil war. After the war the South, was firmly under the North's thumb. The North controlled the people, the banks, the land, the price of goods, etc. Objectives complete. Today I'd be on the side of Liberty. I'd look at, and examine all sides of the issue(s) I could. I do not think I'd allow one popular public rallying point to make my decision for me. Living down here now, I can say the South Ain't forgot neither... | ||
| Glitch |
Isn't a civil war two parties of the same country fighting over that country? The South seceded from the USA becoming the CSA. The South was fighting for the CSA not trying to take over the USA. Slavery and bigotry have no place in the New South, nor anywhere else for that matter. | ||
| Ulynut |
Greed is the root of any war. Slavery wasn't even an issue when the war started. "Honest" Abe used it to rally up the 300,000 troops he needed to conquer the C.S.A. In fact, slavery was on the decline with the invention of the cotton gin. History books are written by the victor. | ||
| Brumbear |
I just checked ebay no lilphockers as of yet | ||
| Stirz007 |
Whisper - whoa, there cowboy! Remember, history is written by the victor and not the vanquished. The War was NOT about slavery, even though that is conventional wisdom. Obviously the slave issue figured heavily into the lead-up, but the war was about State versus Federal control of local affairs. At one time, this country was a Republic - States had control of their own affairs. Northern abolitionists wanted to force Southern slaveholders to abandon the policy. Keep in mind, there were slaveholders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line - the issue came to a head when abolition became a condition for statehood (hence the Mason-Dixon line). Much of the real reason for the conflict was in fact economic. Some fellers up north were trying to cripple the economic power of southern states. And yes, with the advent of the gin, slavery would have largely disappeared within 10-20 years. In fact, Lincoln avoided tying slavery to the war of reunification until very late in the conflict. I too, feel that slavery is not acceptable, however, the myth that the war of insurrection was about slavery is just that, a myth to support another agenda. The North won because they had a huge pool of immigrants coming in to places like New York (no job? - join the Army of the Republic) and most of the factories and industrial infrastructure - they sure didn't have the best military minds of the conflict. Plus, the adoption of 'total war' by the North, wherein the strategy of destruction of anything of economic value was widely practiced (Sherman's march to the Sea, the burning of Atlanta) was never really implemented by the South. | ||
| Glitch |
We are a band of brothers and native to the soil Fighting for our Liberty, With treasure, blood and toil And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star! Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights, hurrah! Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.  | ||
| Brumbear |
that's not nice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCR83LxGKkg | ||
| Slaughter |
Bonnie Blue Flag? Somalia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia | ||
| Aesquire |
Are you guys fighting the Civil war again? What's that make, 278 million times? The North wanted to keep control of industrial production, and denied the South heavy industry. The North wanted raw materials, and balked at the rising prices in competition with England. While Slavery was an issue, it was loudmouth Northern Newspapers and Abolitionists more than Congress by a big margin, concerned about slavery. Or so the Southerners I know tell me about the history of the War of Northern Aggression. | ||
| Aesquire |
 ( born in a territory, not a State at the time, that Slaves escaped to. Know some of the kin of escaped slaves myself. ) As to the question? That, I think, would depend on the politics and ideology of the Prez & Congress. The People of Today would oppose Slavery, and the aggressiveness of the North. Would the Dem's of Today support the Dem's of yesteryear? | ||
| Spdrxb |
My history knowledge is lacking. However if the South had won,dont you think we would be two different Countries right now? | ||
| Pwnzor |
Are you referring to the War of Northern Aggression?  | ||
| Stirz007 |
As a native-born southerner, that would be 279 million times (at least). Throw in carpetbaggers and Reconstruction, and there are still unresolved collective anger issues. That's why we get a bit testy about that particular subject. And don't EVEN go into the Stars and Bars thing. "Would the Dem's of Today support the Dem's of yesteryear?" I think not. The Party of Lincoln had a lock on the liberal/poor/black/dispossessed/working man vote for years afterward. The Dems were the conservatives of the day. Not exactly sure when the shift happened, maybe around FDR? | ||
| Cowboy |
As I was born and raised on a southern farm/ranch in 1936 there were no slaves, work was hard. Damn yankeys I sure could have used 3 or 4 field hands. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Stirz, Reread my post please. I agree with you on most of what you wrote. I too agree the slavery was NOT the primary motivator for the North. Economics was. Maybe I did not make that clear enough. | ||
| Brumbear |
News Flash....... South Fail but I want my lilphocker anyway!!!!!!! | ||
| Revz |
Anybody want to comment about France straddled neatly on the fence in the Civil War making and selling waffles like they are today? Or should I say selling weapons for both sides then (and today)? And the only person I have EVER heard call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" is Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies. She also noted the magnitude of Grant's retreat to the sea.... And as a side note she probably has been properly cited for that quote in the errorless depository(rather suppository) of historical knowledge, WiKipedia  | ||
| Stirz007 |
Whisper - I wasn't flaming you bro. Some tongue in cheek there. Sometimes my warped humor doesn't translate well on the intrerweb. Granny Mae Clampett Rules! For fun: type in "French Military Victories" into Google and hit "feeling lucky". | ||
| Revz |
 I wasn't flaming back either I was trying to make a joke, but obviously my grin didn't show through the post as I wrote...Started a bunch of silly thoughts though about the Clampett Clan | ||
| Glitch |
Anybody want to comment about France ...  | ||
| Blake |
>>> Slavery wasn't even an issue when the war started. Right, it was 100% about states rights. The right to have slavery.  >>> In fact, slavery was on the decline with the invention of the cotton gin. That is exactly backwards. It was the cotton gin that made cotton such a lucrative crop. Before Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton was hardly worth the trouble. Afterwards it became a veritable gold mine. The processing became mechanized, but the planting, tending, and harvesting was not. The rebels made the first attack. Trying to blame that on the North makes no sense. If you review the debates in congress over slave versus free territory leading up to the war, you cannot honestly claim that "slavery wasn't an issue when the war started." It's just an untenable point of view. The yankees weren't the only customers for confederate cotton. Britain was a big customer as well. Lee? Before Gettysburg, Lee proved himself an exceptionally competent war fighting leader. At Gettysburg, specifically in ordering Picket's charge, he proved himself an arrogant fool. No one who's ever stood atop Cemetery Ridge and viewed what faced the confederates, a mile-long wide-open expanse encumbered by fence crossings and a long uphill grade, could say otherwise. I can't view that battlefield without tearing up and weeping. I despise Lee for it. | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Sayitaintso |
Very well said Blake! You beat me to it, states right on determining the issue of slavery was the "straw (500 lb. tree trunk?)that broke the camel's back". As for Lee and Gettysburg, you would have thought he would have learned from both Fredricksburg battles, and what his troops did to the union army, that attacking across open ground like that was foolish. I grew up in the Fredericksburg area and everytime I visit Mary's Heights, and see what the union soldiers had to cross, it leaves me shaking my head in bewilderment, at both the insanity of it and the intestinal fortitude that the union soldiers must have had to make those charges across open ground and up hill at an enemy entrenched behind a stone wall that was chest high with cannon support. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The rebels made the first attack. Trying to blame that on the North makes no sense. Since I'm sitting about 2 miles from where it actually occurred, I'll have to comment. You do realize the Lincoln very carefully orchestrated events to ensure that we fired the first shot? Immediately following secession, the CSA was attempting to negotiate with Lincoln for a peaceful withdrawal of foreign (U.S.) forces from CSA territory. Lincoln ordered the ship "the Star of the West" to sail to Fort Sumter in Charleston with supplies because he knew we'd fire on it, and he could then say "They started it!". He then called up troops to subdue the rebelious states, which resulted in the immediate seccession of several other states (VA, NC, etc.) who believed Lincoln did not have the authority to do so. Their secession had nothing to do with slavery. The North entered the war on the basis of "save the Union", because most northerners would not support a war to end slavery. The shift in the stated purpose came gradually as public (and political) opinions shifted. I don't think we'll ever understand why Lee tried what he tried at Gettysburg. Longstreet, who was heavily involved at Fredricksburg, sure tried to talk him out of it. The historical novel "the Killer Angels" (later made into the film "Gettysburg") makes a good case that Lee was suffering from severe angina and this affected his judgement. | ||
| Revz |
The only quote I know from Eli Whitney is the one he made to his daughter's suitor... "I don't care who you are get your cotton pickin hands off my gin." |
