I support the CSA but thats because when you get past all the dumb lies your history books tell you they really where the good(well good est)side in the war, that war was not about Slavery, more men died than every US war ever combined! So you can't say that so many men died for freeing slaves or keeping them... Any Historian or just plain smart person would know the real story, that the south was fighting for Independence just like the Colonists in the Revolution, they where fighting for rights and freedom not slavery and what not. And the Union was fighting to keep the country together as one not to free slaves which they did not care one bit about when it came to the man who was dying out in the field or to really any Union leader, sure Lincoln cared about them but he even said that it wasan't something he was gonna fight over ever. And sure the CS lost but they fighted much more fiercely and bravely and where fighting to defend their homes and true American freedom, and in my opinion it was a war where the Good Guys lost cause they where outnumbered, if you ever see paintings and pics you always see southerners in anything they could find to wear cause well they where rebels, but now days people on both sides act like the other wasant American especialy southerners, but they need to remember that their own General, General Lee even said that something they tend to forget is that they both are american, so if the veterans at the anniversary in Gettysburg in the 20s and 30's could shake hands and laugh and admit they where brothers than why cant we do that 200 hundred some years later and learn the truth about it in school, cause when ever were in the civil war in history i always have to do the same speech about how it actauly went and what they where actauly fighting for. If you disagree than iam sorry but you are very ignorant and may as well stay in the 1st grade since thats all you seem to want to know about the most bloody and emotional war this Country of ours have fought.
Well let's be fair. If the confederacy would have won it would now be in a state of complete disrepair and would be begging to get back into the Union. They had almost no industry and wouldn't have been able to compete in a global world.
They had almost no industry and wouldn't have been able to compete in a global world.
they can barely survive on their own now. if they had one the war, we would have inevitably taken back their land, whether it was through war or through the south having nothing to do as their own country.
they can barely survive on their own now. if they had one the war, we would have inevitably taken back their land, whether it was through war or through the south having nothing to do as their own country.
Exactly, they're would have been no chance of them lasting this long to complain if it wasn't for the Union bringing them back into the Union.
Hum, I'm not completely stumped but I've never really thought of the whole economic issue but here's what R.E.Lee said, I'm loosely quoting his "Memoirs". He was upset with Confederate President, Jefferson Davis for not taxing the South as soon as secession letters were signed. According to Lee, " just a few months ago the South was wealthy" and he continued by saying that his men were starving, etc.
Here's how I feel about the entire "conflict". In regards to slavery, I can't help but think of it in today's terms. For some reason, my mind refuses to accept the concept of "human bondage" without getting a headache. It's tough enough to consider what the Roman society did to their slaves much less consider the same concept just a 144 years ago, I think this year it will have been 145 yrs. ago?
What angers me, to the point of disgust is that President Lincoln canceled habeas corpus and declared war, why war? People, think about it. This is a measure of last resort not the first **** thing you do. Perhaps Buchanan was fed up with what he called,"the spoiled brats", but war. I find it hard to believe that that's the best Lincoln, who by the way was a very intelligent attorney, knew the law, was well versed in the Constitution, etc.
Even England was able to abolish slavery without declaring war on it's citizens.
I've been doing a lot of research on this subject and it seems as if the more I read the more questions I have.
If the confederacy would have won it would now be in a state of complete disrepair and would be begging to get back into the Union. They had almost no industry and wouldn't have been able to compete in a global world.
Maybe, maybe not. We wouldn't know cause it never happened. I'm sure though the CSA would've came to an end, but the U.S. would've added more rights for the states if we would've won.
And the right to own slaves was near the top of the list.
Incorrect. All the way at the bottom. Just think about it, why would the South even want to fight for some slaves. Thats the dumbest reason to fight. Just for slaves. The Union didn't even fight for slaves. Lets just get this slavery issue out of the way. Cause it had little effect in the War of Northern Aggression.
Maybe, maybe not. We wouldn't know cause it never happened. I'm sure though the CSA would've came to an end, but the U.S. would've added more rights for the states if we would've won.
Then we would have a weaker federal government and thus a weaker country.
Incorrect. All the way at the bottom. Just think about it, why would the South even want to fight for some slaves. Thats the dumbest reason to fight. Just for slaves. The Union didn't even fight for slaves. Lets just get this slavery issue out of the way. Cause it had little effect in the War of Northern Aggression.
It still became a fairly important issue in the end. Generally it state rights vs. the federal government.
Incorrect. All the way at the bottom. Just think about it, why would the South even want to fight for some slaves. Thats the dumbest reason to fight. Just for slaves. The Union didn't even fight for slaves. Lets just get this slavery issue out of the way. Cause it had little effect in the War of Northern Aggression.
Why do you keep calling it the War of Northern Aggression? It was the American Civil War. It was a war over states' rights that was started because both parties were mad at each other. It was a war where both sides used slavery as an important political scapegoat to justify the war.
Slavery wouldn't even be on the causes list, because all-in-all this was not a slavery war, or a war of Northern Aggression(srsly, that name sounds really douchey). It was a war of two whiny factions of the same country that split up because of states' rights. They used a big social issue at the time, slavery, as a propaganda device.
She blows a whistle, really LOUD, you know like the obnoxious buzzer at basketball game! Time out children and please listen because I have received an important request from a M O D E R A T O R.
Please, do not use the term The War of The Northern Aggression.
Others have been complaining and this thread may go the way of the last one: To the black hole of threads... and simply disappear!
From now on, simply use this ACW, for American Civil War. It is my sincere wish to only share information that I consider to be true, based on government records, Lee's letter-books, Lincoln's letters, Grant's letters and Confederate President Davis' letters.
I'm personally excited about a subject that for so many years was crammed down kid's throats in the South. Forgive if I seem to be coming on too strong at times but when I've had a historical break through I'm eager to share that information with anyone who'll listen. Post me on my profile if I make you angry or, if you find anything offensive. Thank you for reading and complying because some of us have worked hard on our research.
Please, do not use the term The War of The Northern Aggression.
Ugh, thank God. I was getting really annoyed by that, lol.
Post me on my profile if I make you angry or, if you find anything offensive.
Don't worry about that - the only people who would find you offensive should take it upon themselves to leave the WEPR and toughen themselves up a bit. You've been fairly polite insofar - dubness has been the crazy one.
So don't worry - you have nothing to be sorry about yet
Slavery wouldn't even be on the causes list, because all-in-all this was not a slavery war, or a war of Northern Aggression(srsly, that name sounds really douchey). It was a war of two whiny factions of the same country that split up because of states' rights. They used a big social issue at the time, slavery, as a propaganda device.
Yes, exactly. While slavery may have been important, calling it a cause of the Civil War is hugely inaccurate. Its analogous to saying that the assassination of Ferdinand was the primary cause of WWI.
On the other hand, saying slavery had "little effect" on the civil war is just as inaccurate. After all, both the confederate constitution and the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States mention slavery. For instance, the Texan Declaration says:
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind,
Obviously, the South very much considered the right to own slaves as very important.
Due to the pointlessness of historical speculation, I can't really say that the civil war would have been avoided if the South had just abolished slavery. The north might have just found something else to rally around.
Basically, slavery wasn't a cause; it was a catalyst. But it was a very important catalyst.
Yeah. This is sort of not what you guys are talking about (xD) but the Union had HUGE advantages in the war. Way more soldiers... more gunpowder... a navy...
"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." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
On Negroes:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
