1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

150 years ago

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Bisi, Jun 23, 2013.

  1. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    150 years ago today 6/23/2013 lead units of the glorious Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac River on their march North.

    Also out west outside Vicksburg Grant is up to some dirty Yankee tricks. LOL

    The most important moments of the Civil War were playing out 150 years ago.
     
  2. patrick Swartz

    patrick Swartz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    121
    Dear Sir,

    It is good to see that someone other than we patriots here in southern West Virginia,remember the war of northern aggression.

    States rights advocate,

    Patrick Swartz
     
  3. SirMissalott

    SirMissalott Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Patrick and all else, I would recommend a GREAT book on the subject " The South Was Right" by James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy. An amazing parallel of what was going on back then and what we are witnessing today, with PC, media bias, pulling the race card to get public support, big government etc..For those who think the North/Abe Lincoln did what it/he did to protect the oppressed this is a real eye opener. Just remember " the Side who wins the war gets to write the history."

    P.S. I was born in New York?
     
  4. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    Patrick,

    Are you suggesting that the Civil War was fought by the Confederacy to protect states' rights and not to defend slavery?

    Also, are you forgetting that the part of Virginia, now know as West Virginia, wouldn't join the Confederacy. That's how we got West Virginia.

    SirMissalott,

    Lincoln never said that the he was fighting the war to "protect the oppressed" He said he fought to preserve the Union.

    While it is true that usually the winning side gets to write the history, in the case of the Civil War, most of the history seems to have been written by Southern writers. Please note Patrick's posting.

    Think about that "honorable gentlemen of the Confederacy story" Robert E. Lee. You know, the single man responsible for more American deaths than any other.
     
  5. SF SGM

    SF SGM Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Palm Coast, Florida
    Traders,
    Perhaps you should read the U.S. Constitution, reference how a part of an existing state may become a separate state. It states that the loosing state legislature, in this case, Virginia must vote to approve the new state. I highly doubt that Virginia in 1863, would vote to allow a portion of their state to become a Yankee state.

    As far as R.E. Lee being responsible for more American deaths than any other, that is really far reaching. Lee only commanded the ANV and nit until late in the war did he command all C.S. forces. I know you that with you knowledge of that war, that you are aware that Confederate forces were divided into three MACOMS. The Federal forces were also divided into three and not till Grant came east, were they under the command of one person.

    Van
     
  6. SF SGM

    SF SGM Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Palm Coast, Florida
    Trader,
    My bad, I posted an incorrect statement above reference the southern forces being divided into three major commands when in fact there were four. I have a bad habit if overlooking the Trans Mississippi department.

    Van
     
  7. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    SF SGM,

    i was aware that Lee started the war commanding the Army of Virginia, after turning down Lincoln's offer to lead the Union forces. My point is that if he had sat out the war, which is what I think he should have done, the war would have been much shorter and many less Americans on both sides would have been killed. He was most likely the best of all the generals of both sides and his lack of participation would have been significant. I believe the ultimate courage would have required him to stay home. So, I stand by my statement. He was responsible for more American deaths than any other person. Making Arlington, his home plantation, a national cemetery that started with Civil War dead was, I believe, fitting and proper.

    West Virginia became a state during the Civil War. My guess is that Virginia, as you have suggested, never authorized it as required by the Constitution, but since it had succeeded from the Union, the Congress didn't need Virginia's approval. It is an interesting point and would make a wonderful PHD dissertation. We know WV became a state and we know when.

    Patrick,

    Still think it was about "State's rights"?
     
  8. cbxchris

    cbxchris Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    771
    Traders, my wife is from southern WV, That was NEVER nor will ever be "yankee" territory.

    Robert E Lee's estate was removed from his ownership illegally. That is why the US government eventually paid for it although not nearly what it was worth.

    Since the northern forces were doing most of the attacking it seems those in charge of those armies would be at fault for the deaths.

    You will never get a true southern gentleman to go against his heritage. The south would be a far greater place if that war could have been won. I am positively sure of it.
     
  9. Michael.B

    Michael.B Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Messages:
    96
    Come on guys, Traders is totally correct. The Civil War was ALL about slavery, even though slavery wasn’t brought up until it became clear to LINCOLN that “Save The Union” wasn’t going to win HIS war.

    The Civil war was OBVIOUSLY all about slavery, even though Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 legally declared that slaves WERE property and only freed slaves in Confederate-controlled areas. Northern slaves weren’t freed until two years later on December 6, 1865. That is 1003 days after the Emancipation Proclamation and 241 days after Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865, ending the war!
    (umm, wait a minute… forget that part… The Civil War ended slavery… I know because the victors said so.)

    The Civil war had NOTHING to do with the fact that the north was not paying their bills, but was shifting their debt onto the South, who had already paid their share.

    The Civil war had NOTHING to do with the fact that the tax structure was set up so the agrarian South would subsidize northern industry.

    The Civil war had NOTHING to do with the fact that if the South were to secede, the north would not only have to pay their own bills, but would have to negotiate a fair trade for much of the food they ate and the textiles they used.
     
  10. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    Michael.B,

    Considering that the Southern States for a very long time before the Civil War virtually controlled Congress it is hard to believe that the South was subsidizing the North in any significant way. Post some references so I can read up on this. I already know about the tariffs.

    cbxchris

    "That was NEVER nor will ever be "yankee" territory." Yes but it did not fight in the Civil War, sent some troops to fight for the Union, and did become a State, yankee or not, on it's own. Perhaps you wife hasn't voted recently in US federal elections.

    "Robert E Lee's estate was removed from his ownership illegally." That's what the Supreme Court said, and I am sure you and I have always agreed with the decisions of the Supreme court.

    While it is true that the "northern forces were doing most of the attacking" , to have done otherwise would have lost the war. All the Confederate forces had to do was defend their borders. That would have made the succession complete and destroyed the Union. To blame the Union for all of the deaths is like saying that Tojo, the war leader of Japan wasn't responsible for all of the WW 2 deaths in the Pacific. According to your logic, it must have been us since among other things we dropped the atom bomb.

    "The south would be a far greater place if that war could have been won. I am positively sure of it."
    Sure, I can just see those happy "darkies" working in the fields during the day and singing and dancing at night. And, the South wouldn't have to import all of those illegals from across the border to bring in the crops.
     
  11. SF SGM

    SF SGM Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Palm Coast, Florida
    Patrick,

    In 1850, the total revenue of the United States was 111 million dollars.. Of that, southern states paid around 93 million. You stated that the southern states controlled Congress prior to the war, that is incorrect. The north technically controlled both houses, the Senate by the fact there were more northern states than southern and the House due to the population difference.

    No war was fought over one single reason, this one included. States rights, tariffs and slavery were the major factors of this war. The north tried to solve the slavery issue with the 2nd 13th Amendment also known as the Corwin Amendment which legalized slavery. Ratified b by Congress and by three northern states but not by the Confederate states for they had left the Union. It is still on the books as an active amendment. Lincoln was in favor of it being ratified.

    Arlington House was not Lee family property but belonged to his father in law and included all the slaves which in Custis will were to be freed which Lee did. Lee's family was not wealthy as most people believe. His father, Light Horse Harry Lee, spent his money and was on the verge of being put in debtors prison when he died. Lack of money was one of the reasons Lee went to West Point. Lee resigned and if Lincoln had not lied to the Virginia peace delegation would have never fought against the United States. He was not alone in this stance, Longstreet, Stewart, and several other high ranting generals only resigned when their home states left the Union.
     
  12. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    SF SGM,

    Your posting was addressed to Patrick, but i am going to assume it was for me and i will try to respond.

    I think we can both agree the basic question we are dealing with is "What caused the Civil War" You believe "States rights, tariffs and slavery were the major factors of this war." i believe it was almost exclusively slavery with all its implications.

    For you to be correct, you would have to assume that the secessionist States of Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and South Caroling lied when they seceded and published their reasons for secession. If you skim through the published statements you can immediately understand why the wanted out. It was to protect and expand slavery. There were two States Rights that they were interested in. First was they right to own slaves in the then current slave states, which i don't think had been seriously challenged., In addition the slave States wanted the right to expand into new territories. The other State Right that interested them was in respect to the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required every State to return escaped slaves, property, to their rightful owners. Many Northern States were exercising their own States Rights and refusing to obey the federal law. My guess is that is not the State Right you were referring to.

    So, what State Right, other than Slavery, was at issue?

    If the issue of slavery had been settled to the satisfaction of the slave States, it is hard to believe there would have been a civil war. While there was a tariff issue, it was relatively minor compared to the issue of slavery and it is hard to imagine that the secessionist States would have gone to war over tariffs.

    The fact that other Union officers left the Union army to join the Confederacy doesn't alter my opinion of Lee. It is important to remember that these men were commissioned officers in the US Army, not the army of Virginia, Georgia, etc. and all had pledged to defend the Constitution

    While Lee did the honorable thing of officially writing a letter resigning his commission, which was officially accepted by his commanding officer, I still believe he should have stayed home. Because of him, the war lasted much longer and many more lives were lost. It is also important to remember that by joining the Confederate army he had to be willing to kill men who were likely friends and renege on his pledge, when he was commissioned, to protect and defend the Constitution.

    I did not understand your comments about Lincoln lying and suggesting that Virginia/Lee wouldn't fight. Please explain.
     
  13. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    6/25/1863 - Lee himself crosses the Potomac at Williamsport.
     
  14. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,258
    Slavery was viewed as an unfair labor advantage that the south had and that is why it was abolished by the politicos in the north. It had zero to do with civil rights. Helps to consider the racial segregation that was prevalent throughout this country well into the 1900's.

    Mike B. has obviously done some real research on the war. The info is out there but you need to dig for it as you will not find it in a modern day history text.
     
  15. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    wolfram,

    I have never heard the "unfair labor advantage" argument for the reason that the North didn't like slavery.

    It's hard to believe since slavery had been common in the North and that included the enslavement of American indians, but had been voluntarily and gradually eliminated. The North was much more industrial than the South so the fact that the South was using slaves primarily in agriculture had little negative commercial effect on the North. It would be easy to argue that it had a positive commercial effect on the North.

    Slavery wasn't abolished until after the Confederacy was formed, not before. And, it was, as far as I know, not threatened in the then current slave states.

    So, I wonder if you could cite some original source material that backs up your position. There is a lot available that describes abolitionists' campaigns so if you are right, there must be many more sources that say something like, "We don't use slaves, so they shouldn't either" and that this opinion was the driving force.

    "Helps to consider the racial segregation that was prevalent throughout this country well into the1900's."

    Of course that's true and it occurred because once Federal troops were removed from the South, Southern whites were determined to erase as many as possible of the newly granted freedoms to the freed slaves. Like voting, etc. And then of course there was lynching (public murder with no fear of punishment) and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. After reconstruction, life in the South for blacks wasn't much different than it had been before the war.
     
  16. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    I would have rather lived in the south as a field hand than in Detroit as a welfare rat !!! Call that freedom??
     
  17. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    shannon391 ,

    "I would have rather lived in the south as a field hand than in Detroit as a welfare rat !!!"

    i wonder why you would prefer to be a slave, property, rather than take welfare with the possibility you might be able to do better. I believe you, but it's pretty depressing.

    Rick,

    "It was about money."

    Are you suggesting that the Confederacy was formed because the secessionist states thought they could make more money than if they stayed part of the Union.? Or is this just some sort clever comment with no facts.

    Sure, there was commercial activity during the war between the North and the South, but I will be interested to see how you can show that it was the cause of the war. Waiting eagerly for more information.

    wolfram,

    Are you still doing your research so that you can show that the war was about "unfair labor advantage" that the South had over the North. I know it will be interesting reading.
     
  18. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,617
    Rick,

    i did read the link you posted. Perhaps you posted the wrong link. The one you cited talks about the commercial activity that went on during the Civil War between the North and the South. As far as I can see, there was little mention of commercial problems causing the war. The article did forget to mention the trade that went on between the Confederate soldiers trading tobacco with the Union soldiers for food.

    Try posting the correct link. I will certainly read it.

    "Are you aware of the high tariffs that affected the South adversely and benefited the North?"

    Yes, if you had read my posts before commenting on them you would have notice that I said, for example, on 6/25, I said "While there was a tariff issue, it was relatively minor compared to the issue of slavery and it is hard to imagine that the secessionist States would have gone to war over tariffs."

    In another posting I said "I already know about the tariffs."

    While it didn't seem germane to the issue, "What was the major cause of the Civil War", I did do the "homework" that you suggested. As far as I can tell, New Jersey ended slavery in 1865. I hope that information is useful to you.

    In any case, I have a homework assignment for you. Read the statement of secession of at least on of the Confederate States and cite quotations that show their reasons for secession.

    Yes, for the South, it was about money, the slave business was very profitable. It was also about the "Southern way of life" and that also really meant slavery and the superiority of the white race. For the North, the issue was the Union.
     
  19. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,258
    Traders,

    I don't have the documentation you are looking for and actually it is something I learned in my sophomore of college. Kind of suprising really because the school was Colorado State University which was fairly liberal even in the 80s when I was there.

    Please don't misunderstand me though, I am in no way a supporter of slavery or racism for that matter. I'm a 'yankee' in terms of where I have lived my entire life so there is no 'Rebel' background or agenda there.

    But I do think the real causes of the civil war need to be taught today as accurately as possible because history has a way of repeating itself if the lessons are not learned. Saying the war was about slavery is not accurate and does nothing more than delude people into thinking the causes were all just and noble. (they weren't)

    I will take exception to your statement about racial segregation being something that occured in the south after the war. It was prevalent throughout this country before the civil war and it was still going on well into the 1960s. I know that because I saw it first hand - even lived through the 'busing' campaign which was supposed to correct the problem.
     
  20. cbxchris

    cbxchris Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    771
    Traders, my wife is from Logan. Her great great great grandfather was with the Logan wildcats who fought for the confederacy. The Wildcat is the Logan High School mascot to this day. I know the area well as does she.

    There are several books on what would have happened to the south if it had won. I am yet to read one where the south would have suffered and actually by now would have easily surpassed its northern neighbors. Its also speculated the south would have ended slavery all by itself early in the 20th century.

    There is a reason the civil war is called the War Of Northern Aggression.


    I consider Robert E Lee to have been one of the most prominent men born of this country. His morals, character and leadership when compared to the POS we currently have leading this country makes one realize really how far we have sunk.