Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Breaking News", the South Lost the Civil War. Vanity
self | 9/26/02 | tall_tex

Posted on 09/26/2002 6:42:56 PM PDT by tall_tex

I have been watching Ken Burns, "Civil War Series" again. I do not know why I keep watching and holding out hope that this time we might just win.

My sad announcement, is that we did not win, this time either.

Why did we loose, surely we had God on our side.

Why do the good guys continue to loose, Roy and Dale won, the Lone Ranger and Tonto won.

The Clinton's win, the Dash@@786450897, have and are winning still, and again.

I guess good guys finish last, maybe we should not be such good guys.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-318 next last
To: stainlessbanner
Stainlessbanner's prediction: 500+ thread

I refuse to participate...

151 posted on 09/26/2002 9:02:22 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Stainlessbanner's prediction: 500+ thread

I refuse to participate...

152 posted on 09/26/2002 9:02:22 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: groanup
indeed, however, I wouldn't have a problem with either.
153 posted on 09/26/2002 9:03:50 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"begun in the South, not just begun......"

One two three o'clock rock. Whatever are you talking about?

154 posted on 09/26/2002 9:04:07 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
No doubt there is some great footage, good music. Too many folks get caught up in the presentation and accept the production's view as the gospel. I have different views from Burn's on the War, however, I can appreciate the footage and photographs of our ancestors.

Anyone who has stood on one of those battlefields feels the heavy burden of our forefathers.

155 posted on 09/26/2002 9:06:03 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Come join the fun :-P
156 posted on 09/26/2002 9:06:53 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Good points, all, and while I think that Abraham Lincoln was the right person at the right time in history, he had flaws as Frederick Douglas notes.

And you're right, slavery wasn't the only reason for the war. But the rift that led to secession had its roots in the preservation of slavery in the states and expansion into the territories (at least so as to avoid a predominance of free states).

Lincoln or no Lincoln, the peculiar institution would have ended sooner or later, and given the predisposition of those who believed that their lifestyle depended upon slave labor not to give it up, the issue was certain to be forced by violence. Just MHO, of course.

157 posted on 09/26/2002 9:07:54 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tall_tex
Maybe you are a little confused. The South was the side that owned slaves and was fighting for EVIL-an evil despised by every decent human being on the planet.

The South were "the bad guys."

The North was fighting against the states that wanted to leave the union because the country had elected an anti-slavery president. Thus, it was the North (not the South) that was on the ant-slavery side. It was the South that wanted to continue a brutal regime that held people in chains and bought and sold them as property, without interference from the North.

Thus, the North were "the good guys."

I hope this helps.
158 posted on 09/26/2002 9:08:10 PM PDT by The Person
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Suppose I should have phrased that better. But it's late...and the tropical storm woke me up early this morning banging on the roof and window, awful racket.

Slavery and racial relations in the South are a difficult subject. As a many-generation Southerner (the first of my white ancestors came over from Scotland in the early 1600's to raise tobacco) the whole thing is not overly pleasant to talk about, and it is really not possible to wrap it all up into a neat little generalizing phrase or two. But then, if it were not for the complications of history and its lingering affects on the present, history enthusiasts would not have so much interesting stuff to envelop themselves in.

159 posted on 09/26/2002 9:08:34 PM PDT by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Pushi
States' Rights is a broad topic, but I don't believe Southerners wanted a bunch of Damnyankees telling them what to do--period.

But they went to war because they didn't want the Yankees telling them what to do about slavery.

Economics was an important factor.

Yes, probably the most important factor. The Yankees were disgusted by the economics of slavery (a system where production was controlled by slaves, motivated by fear of physical punishment, and not free workers incentivized by the idea of advancement, self improvement, and more money) and the South feared their means of production, slaves, would be freed by the democratic actions of their countrymen.

when you consider the percentage of Southerners who fought in the war who owned slaves, it could not have been the major issue. Why would I, a person who does not own slaves, fight for your right, as a slaveholder, to own slaves?--just doesn't make sense.

They fought because they were invaded and people they knew were killed. They were invaded because their feudal masters seceeded over their desire to hold slaves.

And then, there is always the fact that people just resist change--any change, whatever it is--especially rural, independent people.

Sure. The change they were resisting was the end of slavery.

The sad thing about it is that Lincoln was obsessed. If he had let the South go, it would have eventually rejoined the Union. Also, the southern states would have eventually eliminated slavery on their own. Then we would not have all the animosity we have today.

This isn't even worth discussing. No one has any idea what would have happened. There was no way to avoid horrible war once secesstion occurred. Given simple demographics, there is no way the "South Woulda Won" (except possibly by fighting a purely defensive war, and even then the best they would have acheived would have been a generation's independence, then probably been knocked over by the north, which even without the south would have been the most powerful country in the world by 1890s.)

The war between the states was all about slavery. In the very largest sense, it was about the agricultural age giving way to the industrial age, but slavery was certainly the most important factor in the alienation, separation, and war between north and south.

160 posted on 09/26/2002 9:11:02 PM PDT by motexva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: motexva
Absolutely. The antagonism against the North was mostly about slavery and the trigger was the election of an anti-slavery president and the success of an anti-slavery party--the Republican Party.
161 posted on 09/26/2002 9:18:47 PM PDT by The Person
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: tall_tex
Maybe we can at least find some evidence that the Yankees cheated, and demand an asterisk?
162 posted on 09/26/2002 9:19:32 PM PDT by kilohertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
When I go there I usually stay in Alvin. Trust me New York is not a place that I want to go back to. Thanks for getting this thread gettin all heated up. We will talk again. We do good work. Tom
163 posted on 09/26/2002 9:23:07 PM PDT by tall_tex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Person; motexva
Before you go putting Lincoln on a pedestal, consider the Republican interests of trade and industry. It's been documented many times Republican focus was on industrialization and tariffs, not on freeing the slaves.
164 posted on 09/26/2002 9:25:19 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
has to be.
165 posted on 09/26/2002 9:26:11 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tall_tex
No prob :) I'm sure I will see you around. Hopefully you will have learned to reply to posts chronologically. :-P
166 posted on 09/26/2002 9:27:22 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
You're fighting a lost cause with them, Stainless..they know Lincoln was a god because they learned it in publik skool....
167 posted on 09/26/2002 9:28:42 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tall_tex
The War was fought over economics and taxation-slaves were a commodity.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the right to suceed and wished them well. Founders supporters jump in.How can peaceful secession be treason? We did just that from England?

Lincoln was a dictator;
Why did so many states refuse to send their troops to Lincoln when he demanded them?
Read the reply from Arkansas. "...defend with our honor, lives, and property...." sound familiar?
Suspended habeas corpus, appropriated money from the treasury,shut down newspapers, imprisioned the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,called up troops for 3 years without Congress approval. To vote in his election you had to pass through platoons of Union troops stationed at the voting booths.instituted military tribunals.refused to exchange prisioners-but also refused to export medical supplies to the south..causing deaths of his own at places like Andersonville. Lincoln "blamed" the Civil War on God.The emancipaption proclamations sole purpose was to cause a slave rebellion in the south similar to the one in Haiti.Lincoln want to colonize the slaves outside of the US and send as many free blacks with them as he could-Logistically impossible. Emancipation only applied to southern states...hmmm?

Lincoln, Sherman,Sheridan and Grant..all war criminals by any standard. Check the Geneva codes of 1863.

The Northern policies following the war were the cause and effect of the inception of the KKK.


168 posted on 09/26/2002 9:29:04 PM PDT by MP5SD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
Lincoln had not done one damn thing to them at that point.
"In 1861, President Lincoln appointed Dana as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Massachusetts. As such, in 1863, he successfully defended the United States in the Prize Cases before the United States Supreme Court (these were a group of cases, consolidated for appeal, on the capture of ships attempting to break the blockade of the Confederate ports. The issue argued revolved around two separate issues: was the Rebellion a "war" and when did the "Civil War" begin, in April, '61, with President Lincoln's Declaration of a blockade or in the summer when Congress approved what the president had done. The court unanimously ruled in favor of the administration's position that the Rebellion was a war but more narrowly (5-4) supporting the premise that the president's call for troops on April marked the beginning of the war. Not surprisingly Chief Justice Taney felt that the war could only begin when Congress said it did, very much as he had done in ex parte Merryman [67 U.S. (2 Black) 635]."
Lincoln did start the War.
169 posted on 09/26/2002 9:29:06 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MP5SD
Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the right to suceed and wished them well.

Lincoln acknowledged the right of secession in 1848 - apparently he changed his mind in 1861!

170 posted on 09/26/2002 9:33:39 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Sir,

Your point is historically irrefutable.
171 posted on 09/26/2002 9:34:05 PM PDT by MP5SD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: MP5SD
Thank you, kindly. In my haste, I forgot to add, your post 168 was fantastic. Keep your powder dry!
172 posted on 09/26/2002 9:38:29 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Just try responding tomorrow, when you can type and some ability to make us understand what in the world you are trying to tell us. Inquiring minds would love to know. Tom
173 posted on 09/26/2002 9:53:26 PM PDT by tall_tex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
The first night, he dug into slavery and presented a case for victimology

So the slave weren't victims?

174 posted on 09/26/2002 10:48:34 PM PDT by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: All
I have read through this whole thread...and as usual, the Civil War discussion has been almost exclusively of slavery.

Sigh..how to persuade those that it was of states rights, is a useless endeavor.

The slavery issue was only brought about by the continuous efforts of the anti-slavery lobby itself in the political forum.

Abe Lincoln, himself, did not consider it an issue, until forced into a corner to be re-elected.

And may we never forget that when the draft was instituted by the Union, there were riots in Manhattan where free negroes were killed in protest.

Sorry, but to yall who consider slavery to be the main issue of the Civil War....you are foolishly mistaken.

175 posted on 09/26/2002 10:51:55 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Conservobabe
Abe Lincoln, himself, did not consider it an issue, until forced into a corner to be re-elected.

Lincoln did consider slavery an issue in the Civil War. On June 16, 1858, before the war, Lincoln declared that the issue of slavery would not be resolved until the nation was all slave or all free, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". While he may have not taken a stance on the right or wrong of slavey, he did realize that it was an issue. To say otherwise is revisionist tripe that is common on these threads.

176 posted on 09/26/2002 11:09:49 PM PDT by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Conservobabe
there were riots in Manhattan where free negroes were killed in protest.

Also, these riots were mainly conducted by Irish immigrants that were upset that the blacks would take their jobs when they went to war. It was not a pro-slavery riot. More revisionist tripe.

177 posted on 09/26/2002 11:14:25 PM PDT by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: socal_parrot
I did not say that it was a pro slavery riot. I merely said that it happened, and negroes were killed in the North because of a dispute. How did the North value the lives of negroes, I ask.
178 posted on 09/26/2002 11:25:32 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Conservobabe
The exhausted troops from Gettysburg were called in to quell the riots in Manhattan because of the Union draft. I doubt that it was all Irishmen that they encountered resisting. LOL
179 posted on 09/26/2002 11:31:34 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: socal_parrot
What Lincoln realized in his mind...and what he did for political gain are two different things, methinks. If he was a man of principle, he would have listened to his mind, instead of his politics in the first year of the Civil War.
180 posted on 09/26/2002 11:41:35 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
YOU WROTE: "It's been documented many times Republican focus was on industrialization and tariffs, not on freeing the slaves."

MY REPLY:

Do you honestly believe that the Civil War was over tariffs?

Just so you don't think I bash all Southerners, I'll share Peggy Noonan's recent comments about the South and the reaction to the Muslim doctors who thought they'd play a prank on a Georgia woman.

THE REST IS PEGGY NOONAN:

They sensed the questioning within the gazes, and they thought it would be amusing to show these stupid and uneducated Southern people, these dumb crackers, these yokels, who was boss. You think we're bad guys? We'll show you bad guys.

And so one of them or a few of them said the things Eunice Stone says she overheard. Talk about explosions, references to Sept. 11, talk about how Sept. 13 will be even bigger.

And Ms. Stone, alarmed, put herself on the line. She called the police and told them what she'd heard. She was interviewed by them repeatedly and exhaustively. She did everything she could to see that the young Muslim males were stopped.

The young Muslim males took off in their cars, driving south. They were stopped in Florida, where police closed a highway for an entire day as robots searched their car. The young Muslim men, the police said, were not entirely cooperative. They had attitude. Certainly in their interviews after they were released, after nothing was found in their cars, they displayed plenty of attitude. They were an unsympathetic bunch, in both ways. They showed scant sympathy for those they'd inconvenienced and alarmed, and they also inspired no sympathy for their plight. Later, a sister of one of the young men went on CNN to declare that this was the South, and you know how the South is: "It has a reputation of racism."

I thought, as I watched this: It has a reputation for patriotism, too. It's why Southern men and women join the armed forces in such high numbers, and why, if the sister were ever attacked by a terrorist, they'd risk their lives to save her sorry, sanctimonious little . . . Well, as I watched I got a little mad.

The South's reputation for patriotism may be why Eunice Stone put herself on the line, and wound up overwhelmed by insults and unwanted fame, in the hospital, and ultimately being patronized--We won't sue you--by the three young Muslim males.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002297




181 posted on 09/26/2002 11:50:22 PM PDT by The Person
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
The south went down like an altar boy!
Do we really need anti-Catholic statements?
182 posted on 09/27/2002 12:40:04 AM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
to do with the war,

Speaking of war, there's one coming. When are you gong to enlist?

183 posted on 09/27/2002 3:05:51 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
I've caught a lot of this series. It seems pretty good. Simultaneously, I'm reading "The Battle Cry of Freedom," which begins by describing the roles many of the better-known Civil War generals played in the earlier war with Mexico.

You're watching the work of a communist revisionist on PBS and reading the propaganda of a communist "historian", so why not go ahead and register democrat so you can vote in a fashion to match all this new knowledge you're acquiring?

184 posted on 09/27/2002 3:10:17 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Couer de Lion
Had it not been for the issue of slavery the Federals would've had very little moral ground on which to stand in prohibiting secession. Because of this peculiar institution and preservation of it was the actual reason that secession was sought, meant that those seeking to save the Union were left with the moral higher ground.
Remember that the war started when the rebels attacked federal property.

The Confederates seceded in an effort to preserve a way of life which was rapidly becoming antiquated and was eventually doomed. Slavery was a very visible and extremely objectionable symbol of that way of life, and was indeed an integral part, as was the legislated inferiority of free blacks.

Indeed, in their desire to hang on to the ways of the past they resembled environmentalist Luddites more than modern conservatives. Ironically, to even stay in the war as long as they did they had to become what they opposed, an industrialized state with increasing federal perogatives, particularly regarding the military.

-Eric

185 posted on 09/27/2002 4:26:57 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
so why not go ahead and register democrat so you can vote in a fashion to match all this new knowledge you're acquiring?

Oh, maybe because Democrats were the pro-slavery party then, just as they are now? Next stupid question, please.

186 posted on 09/27/2002 5:04:39 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Conservobabe
The reason I argue that slavery was the motivation for secession is because I have actually read every Article of Secession and every one of them said that they were seceding because they wanted to preserve slavery.

You could look it up.

I have lived in the South my entire life. I was taught that the Civil War was about state's rights, and tariffs, not slavery.

Actually reading the Articles of Secession opened my eyes.
187 posted on 09/27/2002 5:25:53 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

Comment #188 Removed by Moderator

Comment #189 Removed by Moderator

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

Comment #191 Removed by Moderator

To: maxcygregg
It is my understanding that only four states published declarations of the cause of secession.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/plat.html

All four of them stated that slavery was the reason, including Texas.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Texas

The more northerly states favored the Crittendon Compromise, which would have maintained slavery in the slave-holding states. After the failure of the Crittendon Compromise, the rest of the slave-holding states seceded.
192 posted on 09/27/2002 6:09:43 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: The Person
Do you honestly believe that the Civil War was over tariffs?

Do you honestly believe that the WBTS was over slavery?

193 posted on 09/27/2002 6:10:07 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: maxcygregg
You're getting things backwards.

The reason it wasn't a "war to free the slaves" is that the North did not start the war, the South did.

The South seceded in order to keep slaves.

The North fought in order to preserve the Union.
194 posted on 09/27/2002 6:11:41 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: socal_parrot
So the slave weren't victims?

The victims were the 600,000 men who gave their lives (black, white, etc) and many more who were wounded, left financially broke, lost their homes, businesses, and families both North and South.

195 posted on 09/27/2002 6:13:17 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Do you honestly believe that the WBTS was over slavery?

And even more of a fantasy that the war was all about slavery is the "fact" that the North can claim some moral high ground for "ending slavery."

The war was NOT about slavery until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

But I'd almost be willing to concede the slavery issue if the North would admit what we all know to be true.

The North only wanted an "end" to slavery because slavery was no longer profitable for them.. There was no moral outcry (or if it was there it was very small) to free the slaves. And when the union actually enlisted black soldiers, thousands of white union soldiers deserted.

So fine. Say the war was about slavery. But it was about the economics of slavery, not the morality of slavery.

The North may have "wanted" to free the slaves. But they would have fought the war all over again to keep them from moving in next door.

196 posted on 09/27/2002 6:19:23 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

Comment #197 Removed by Moderator

Comment #198 Removed by Moderator

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

To: maxcygregg
At any rate, the war was not to end slavery, it was to preserve the Union. On that, I am sure we can agree.

Nevertheless, secession was motivated by the desire to retain slaves, which were of great economic importance to southern states, especially those in the Cotton Belt.
200 posted on 09/27/2002 6:46:44 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-318 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson