Question to you Yankees and confederates(civil war question)

[BenvZijl]

As a History teacher here in the Netherlands i have a hobby and that's the American Civil war.

Now i wonder if you know a Store who sells T-shirts, books etc about this era.

already got 1
http://www.civilwarstandard.com/
anybody know if they are trustable?

thnx in advance

Ben van Zijl
The Netherlands

[Zeus-cat]

I have never heard of the store you provided the link for, but like a lot of internet stores you sometimes have to take your chances.

Here is a link to some information provided by the U.S. National Park Service on the Gettysburg site. Many of the Civil War sites are managed by the NPS so you may find more information on specific battlefields by going to the site for that park/battlefield.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/main-ms.htm

http://www.nps.gov/ is the main site for the NPS.

The miniseries titled Gettysburg (starring Martin Sheen as General Lee) is an excellent movie. It is based on the book Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. His son, Jeff Shaara wrote a book that covered the civil war before Gettysburg and another book that covered the war after Gettysburg. I didn't think these were quite as good.

This site has a lot of info and links to stores selling t-shirts and books.

http://www.civil-war.net/

[Scharnhorst1943]

Look up the battlefield locations and you can order from the online gift shops.

[horseback]

Civil War T-Shirts?

I can see it now:

"My Great GrandDaddy Captured Richmond And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt"

cheers

horseback

[LEBillfish]

Not trying to slow down your interest as I think it's great you're looking into it....Yet in all honesty it is a subject as vast as any 4 year long war....You'd think not, yet I bet you could spend a lifetime studying itm and still not know it all.

The reason I say that is, your best bet to start might simply be prowling the web, then finding American Civil War discussion forums of which I'm sure there are many out there...The folks there could probably help you much more then most here.

[luftluuver]

books

http://www.historyofwar.org/bookshop/books_american_civil_war.html

[-HH-Quazi]

I am lucky to live in an area full of Civil War history & hard fought battles such as the Battle of Franklin. There is actually a slate rock wall built by the confederates less than 1\2 miles from my home and stretches for 8 miles just outside Nashville, TN. You see civil war history buffs with their metal detectors looking for metal objects such as rifle bullets, coat buttons, just anything metal dating back to that time. You can also go to Franklin TN and find old brick walls still standing with bullets holes\marks from that war. A fine place to live for anyone interested or intrigued by the Civil War.

[Copperhead311th]

If your intested in hearing the Confederate side of history rather than reading typical yankee propaganda being taught in th US today...

becuase unfortunatly history is often written by the victors.

i highly recomend this book:
The South Was Right! by the Kenedy Brothers (http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199680235&sr=1-1)

They lay it all out there in the open in black & white and they back up there research. every thing in the book is in the index. every claim they make can be prvoven factual. Since your from the Neatherlands i would expect you to have an open mind about the subject and not harbour any of the same rescenment & prejudaces that are still (sadly) Alive & well even today in our country.

as for t-shirts. hell i live in alabama they still play Dixie on the radio here. lol ya can get Confederate t-shirts in the corner store.
but for nice selection i recomend this site.

Dixie Outfitters (http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/)

Been a while sicne i looked at that store. i didn't know HK Edgerton had his own T-shirt now. great man i got to meet him once here in Montgomery.

http://www.barberandcompany.com/prodimg/lg/5487.jpg


Living in the Home of the Civil rights movment & the 1st capital of the confederacy some times has it's advantages.

[Copperhead311th]

Just read up on HK's blog. and thought this was hysterical. this was what HK was doing on new years day.

New Years Day - January 1, 2008


New Years day would find me spending most of the morning at the computer reporting on the final days of the March Across Dixie Re-Union March. However, as I headed home, I decided that it would be a great afternoon to fly the Chrisitian Cross of St.Andrew over the overpass of Interstate 40; especially it being New Years Day. As I stood on the bridge, I would be approached by a young White lady, who would ask if she could take a picture of me.Before she could leave, a young man who apparently was with her, approached and asked if he too could take a picture with me. He told me that he was a soldier and had just returned from Iraq. He said that as he and his lady approached the bridge from the freeway below; seeing the Battle Flag flying swelled his heart with as much pride as any day he had stood and saluted the Stars and Stripes in Iraq.He said that he and many soldiers from both sides of the Mason and Dixon had spoken of me often, but he never thought that he would one day get the opportunity to stand beside me and have his picture taken. I told him just how honored that I was to find myself standing beside one of Americas heroes, and I thanked him for his service to our country.Just as I decided to furl my flag, a car would drive up with Illinois tags on it, an elderly White man was driving, with an elderly White female on the passenger side. She leaned over and said to me;damn, I thought that they had stopped all the White Thrash from flying that piece of garbage down her, and I'll be damn if we don't come here for the holidays and find you, a Colored man of all things, standing out here in the freezing cold, flying that flag! Before I could say anything, her companion said; Honey, just leave it alone, he's just Southern.


lol ROFL lol
give 'em Hell HK! lol
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Stiletto-]

I'm sorry Copperhead, I don't mean to start a flame war or anything, but from what I can tell about this H.K. Edgerton guy, he thinks the only people who cared about the slaves "were the southern white man" and that they were well taken care of. Apparently he also thinks blacks were brought to america as a gift from God? Have you ever seen the miniseries roots? If being brought over on a boat where slave drivers poor salt-water on your open wounds from being whipped, I wouldn't want that "gift from God" myself. Apparently he is a darling for the white supremasist movement?

I'm sorry I don't know much about this guy, but I doubt I would want his views taught to kids in the Netherlands, let alone adults in America.

[jadger]

Originally posted by Stiletto-:
I'm sorry Copperhead, I don't mean to start a flame war or anything, but from what I can tell about this H.K. Edgerton guy, he thinks the only people who cared about the slaves "were the southern white man" and that they were well taken care of. Apparently he also thinks blacks were brought to america as a gift from God? Have you ever seen the miniseries roots? If being brought over on a boat where slave drivers poor salt-water on your open wounds from being whipped, I wouldn't want that "gift from God" myself. Apparently he is a darling for the white supremasist movement?

I'm sorry I don't know much about this guy, but I doubt I would want his views taught to kids in the Netherlands, let alone adults in America.

Since when was a TV miniseries taken as historical fact? Not to mention that the TV series is based on a novel. a novel being defined as: a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.

Also, this topic is about the American Civil War, not slavery in America. two totally different topics, the Southern states seceeded because a man they hated was (they felt unfairly) elected President predominantly by the Northerners, who were often seen as overbearing on their Southern neighbours. Imagine that, a President so hated that millions of people want to leave the country, not even George W. Bush is hated that much.

And I'm Canadian, just wanted to put that out there for further reference in this discussion.

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by Stiletto-:
I'm sorry Copperhead, I don't mean to start a flame war or anything, but from what I can tell about this H.K. Edgerton guy, he thinks the only people who cared about the slaves "were the southern white man" and that they were well taken care of. Apparently he also thinks blacks were brought to america as a gift from God? Have you ever seen the miniseries roots? If being brought over on a boat where slave drivers poor salt-water on your open wounds from being whipped, I wouldn't want that "gift from God" myself. Apparently he is a darling for the white supremasist movement?

I'm sorry I don't know much about this guy, but I doubt I would want his views taught to kids in the Netherlands, let alone adults in America.

Well i'll be honest here Stiletto, i don't know that much about him. I've met the guy. talk to him for about 3 mins tops. I know little of his true belifes. but if what you say is true then my opinion of the man is very diminished. What i know of HK is he is an outspoken advocate of southern rights and values, and an student of civil war history.

His belives and mine may be much farther apart than i had originally thought. I better do a little more reading.

and that was one of my 1st questions to him when i met him. from his own mouth he is not and advocate of the white supremasist movement.
and nither am i. the only good nazi/skin head is one with a bullet in his skull. they give southern heratige ppl a bad name.

as for physical abuse of forced slavery in the south....resarch shows that only about 60% of the people forced into slavery and imported here were phisyscally abused. i'm not trying do defend anything...i'm just saying that if you dig deeper into the historical records it becomes apparent that abuse was not as wide spread as it is portrayed today. Slave labor was the worst thing to ever happen to the southern states.

I trust that you understand and are smart enough to know that the issue of slavery was NOT the primary cause of the war. Infact it was a minor issue @ the time. and it only affected 10% of the population at the time. Slavery was an economic vacume on the south. most ppl free men (black & white alike) were hard pressed to find work share cropping. which was the primary type of employment at the time. and i also hope that no one is under the misscomception that every person of color in the south in that time was a slave. indeed there were more free men of color in the south than in the north. Some of which were plantation owners themslevs.

[jadger]

copperhead, it seems that Stiletto was only saying that just off the top of his head, and has never done any research on the guy, hence the " but from what I can tell about this H.K. Edgerton guy" statement.

basically, he was basing his whole statement off of watching a TV show from the 1970s.

[Copperhead311th]

A minor corrction it is offically known as the "War of Southern Independance" not the American Civil War. that what they call it up north. i disagree. there's absolutly nothing "Civil" about war.

As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.

[Esel1964]

Have you tried to look for artifacts at ebay?:
http://collectibles.listings.ebay.com/Militaria_Civil-W...ocmdZListingItemList (http://collectibles.listings.ebay.com/Militaria_Civil-War-1861-65_W0QQdfspZ32QQfromZR4QQlopgZ1QQsacatZ13958QQsocm dZListingItemList)

As usual,beware of fakes,but it looks like there a few decent pieces listed.

[Capt.LoneRanger]

Although it's even more dragging the original thread into a political discussion, I was always interested in the American Civil War-history.

It's a delicate discussion, though, as there are many aspects of that war. War against slavery was the most public matter, of course, but that was not what the war was about originally. It was a war for resources, for wealth and against the ever growing economical competition in the south, that made those states stronger and stronger.

Sure this wealth was based on the back of the slaves, no doubt about that, but the reasons for war were still the same as they are now. Describing a war against racism and to unite a divided country is way more likely to be accepted by the publicity than a war for financial reasons.
Same thing happens today, if you watch the news. There are hundrets of terror-camps in Africa, but only countries with rich resources are being liberated from the terror-regimes.

[I_KG100_Prien]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
If your intested in hearing the Confederate side of history rather than reading typical yankee propaganda being taught in th US today...

becuase unfortunatly history is often written by the victors.

i highly recomend this book:
The South Was Right! by the Kenedy Brothers (http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199680235&sr=1-1)

They lay it all out there in the open in black & white and they back up there research. every thing in the book is in the index. every claim they make can be prvoven factual. Since your from the Neatherlands i would expect you to have an open mind about the subject and not harbour any of the same rescenment & prejudaces that are still (sadly) Alive & well even today in our country.

as for t-shirts. hell i live in alabama they still play Dixie on the radio here. lol ya can get Confederate t-shirts in the corner store.
but for nice selection i recomend this site.

Dixie Outfitters (http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/)

Been a while sicne i looked at that store. i didn't know HK Edgerton had his own T-shirt now. great man i got to meet him once here in Montgomery.

http://www.barberandcompany.com/prodimg/lg/5487.jpg


Living in the Home of the Civil rights movment & the 1st capital of the confederacy some times has it's advantages.

As if there isn't southern propaganda LOL

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:


As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.


if your talking about war crimes, fort pillow comes to mind, also there's the battle of the crater.

thats just off the top of my head, im sure i can find many many more instances of the summary execution, i.e. murder, of black soldiers.

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Although it's even more dragging the original thread into a political discussion, I was always interested in the American Civil War-history.

It's a delicate discussion, though, as there are many aspects of that war. War against slavery was the most public matter, of course, but that was not what the war was about originally. It was a war for resources, for wealth and against the ever growing economical competition in the south, that made those states stronger and stronger.

Sure this wealth was based on the back of the slaves, no doubt about that, but the reasons for war were still the same as they are now. Describing a war against racism and to unite a divided country is way more likely to be accepted by the publicity than a war for financial reasons.
Same thing happens today, if you watch the news. There are hundrets of terror-camps in Africa, but only countries with rich resources are being liberated from the terror-regimes.

Same interest in the topic here. As such I feel the need to correct some notions here.

First of all, teh southern states did not gaiin power, they lost it. Both economy and political wise. The north grew much faster both in population and economy. Most immigrants came to the north, which was also heavily industrializing. The foundation of the north was based on free labour and enterprise.

The south was quite the opposite, agriculture and alltogether more patriachatic. More "old fashioned", so to say.

Slavery was the base of the southern cotton industry, the only major industry the south possed, with most of it going out as exports.

The north was staunchly against slavery, both based on basic morales and economy ideology. And though the south was never directly threated to stop slavery before the war, new US territories were to be slave free, as such further reducing the south political influence in the union. That is why the south preoduced such a defensive agressive stance towards all questions regading slavery and, followed by that, state rights. Too put it bluntly, without the question of slavery, there would have been no question of state rights.

The south just saw its future at stake when democratic president Lincoln come into power, his relativly new party the embodiment of the northern stance on slavery, and seceeded.

[jadger]

The north was staunchly against slavery, both based on basic morales and economy ideology.

I'm assuming that by "economy ideology" you mean that the North had a severe shortage of cheap labour to work in the new factories as it was heavily industrializing. Who was cheaper to get to work for you than former slaves? no one of course.

It wasn't so much a question of "basic morales" as most people in the north couldn't care what was happening to some uneducated chattel hundreds of miles down south. It was more a question of "where can I get the cheapest labour?" and they found it by undermining the South's economy and bringing them North. Even an immigrant white man, even if he was Irish or some other hated group, would still get paid more than a freed slave.

[icrash]

Originally posted by BenvZijl:
As a History teacher here in the Netherlands i have a hobby and that's the American Civil war.

Now i wonder if you know a Store who sells T-shirts, books etc about this era.

already got 1
http://www.civilwarstandard.com/
anybody know if they are trustable?

thnx in advance

Ben van Zijl
The Netherlands
Let me see if I can find the copy of a diary kept by one of my ancestors. I've moved & will have to look for it. If you want & can send you a copy.

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The north was staunchly against slavery, both based on basic morales and economy ideology.

I'm assuming that by "economy ideology" you mean that the North had a severe shortage of cheap labour to work in the new factories as it was heavily industrializing. Who was cheaper to get to work for you than former slaves? no one of course.

It wasn't so much a question of "basic morales" as most people in the north couldn't care what was happening to some uneducated chattel hundreds of miles down south. It was more a question of "where can I get the cheapest labour?" and they found it by undermining the South's economy and bringing them North. Even an immigrant white man, even if he was Irish or some other hated group, would still get paid more than a freed slave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i wasnt aware of any great migration of freed slaves to the northern states, either before or after the war. after the war quite a few went west, not north if i remember correctly.

the big migration of black people to northern industry didnt begin till ww1.

if your talking about the underground railroad before the war, those numbers were miniscule compared to immigration.

[BOA_Allmenroder]

Get a copy of the DVD series 'The Civil War' by Ken Burns. It's outstanding.

If you're interested in particular battles there are two references: The US Army War College Guides to various battlefields. And the 'official' war history "The War of the Rebellion.'

The US Army War College guide is really a guide to each battlefield but does contain battle reports by the various unit commanders involved (both North and South) from Company up to Army Commanders.

Same for the "Rebellion" series, which is a collection of the official after action reports filed by both sides for each battle. Be forwarned however, each "battle" will contain several volumes (yes volumes) of after action reports. I think Chickamauga is 8 or 10 volumes alone.

But they do contain some interesting reading from the commanders who witnessed, and survived, each battle.

[stalkervision]

Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Get a copy of the DVD series 'The Civil War' by Ken Burns. It's outstanding.

If you're interested in particular battles there are two references: The US Army War College Guides to various battlefields. And the 'official' war history "The War of the Rebellion.'

The US Army War College guide is really a guide to each battlefield but does contain battle reports by the various unit commanders involved (both North and South) from Company up to Army Commanders.

Same for the "Rebellion" series, which is a collection of the official after action reports filed by both sides for each battle. Be forwarned however, each "battle" will contain several volumes (yes volumes) of after action reports. I think Chickamauga is 8 or 10 volumes alone.

But they do contain some interesting reading from the commanders who witnessed, and survived, each battle.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[DuxCorvan]

Why do you call it "Civil War" when there were several states fighting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

[R_Target]

Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Why do you call it "Civil War" ?

Not everyone does. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[staticline1]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:


As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.


if your talking about war crimes, fort pillow comes to mind, also there's the battle of the crater.

thats just off the top of my head, im sure i can find many many more instances of the summary execution, i.e. murder, of black soldiers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might want to add Andersonville to that list. Looks like someone is still sore for being on the wrong side. As to the OP, try on the web looking up US Civil War re-enactoring. I'm sure there should be some decent vendors and forums with people that can help you out. Good luck.

[Capt.LoneRanger]

Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Why do you call it "Civil War" when there were several states fighting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I think because it were different states, not different countries http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Von_Rat]

i didnt mention andersonville because northern prisions were no picnic either.


all in all it was pretty much tit for tat as far as the union or confederacy goes for war crimes. nasty things happen in a war and this one was no differant.

the only exception was the way the confederacy treated black union soldiers, no union crimes are in any way comparable.

[staticline1]

Von, very true and good point.

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Why do you call it "Civil War" when there were several states fighting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I think because it were different states, not different countries http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i always thought that "war of succession" sorry no spell check, was the best name.


for whatever reasons the south wanted to succede, and the union fought to stop them friom succeding.

i say for "whatever reasons" because i don't feel like getting into a big debate with those who think slavery had nothing to do with it.

[Stiletto-]

Jadger I feel like you are trying to put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post I was questioning HK Edgerton, I am not saying I know much about him or that roots is a difinitive source for a lecture in black history. I simply looked up what was on the net about the guy and found a few open ended answers, I have know idea why you are jumping all over me, I haven't even brought up anything to argue against.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by BenvZijl:
As a History teacher here in the Netherlands i have a hobby and that's the American Civil war.

Now i wonder if you know a Store who sells T-shirts, books etc about this era.

already got 1
http://www.civilwarstandard.com/
anybody know if they are trustable?

thnx in advance

Ben van Zijl
The Netherlands


..... Hi Ben,

The American Civil War is indeed a fascinating period in the history of the USA. It's one of my favorite areas of interest as well. There is an immense amount of related material on the web, including the massive Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (through Cornell University if I recall correctly). One excellent battle related website is "Antietam on the Web [ http://aotw.org/ ]

If you can tell me which particular aspects of the war interest you, I'd be happy to make some specific book recommendations. The ACW was one of the first wars fought by a generally literate population, so there is a huge library of written history.

One item of interest from a European perspective is the influence of the refugees, principally German and Austrian, who fled Europe after the revolutionary unrest of 1848/1849 and emigrated to America. Large numbers of Germans fought for the Union side.

Also look into the connection between England and the Confederate states. England dominated the immensely important world manufactured textile trade during this period of time and the American southlands were the world's dominant source of raw cotton. When the Union implemented its blockade of Southern ports and cut off the supply of Southern cotton to English textile mills it caused a great economic slump in England ["the Great Cotton Famine"].

Also try searching the "full view" sector of books.google.com. There is a great deal of material on the American Civil War and the politics which ignited it. Those politics were a lot more complicated than simply questions of slavery and secession.

[RepublicofTexas]

The war is also called the "War of Northern Aggression". I highly recommend two books co-authored by my uncle J. Gary Laine...

http://www.amazon.com/Alabama-Brigade-Between-Union-Con...ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b (http://www.amazon.com/Alabama-Brigade-Between-Union-Confederacy/dp/1572490241/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b)


http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Round-Tops-Alabama-Getty...ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b (http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Round-Tops-Alabama-Gettysburg/dp/1572492236/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b)

[Zeus-cat]

Geez people, settle down. The war ended over 130 years ago.

That said, did Lee do the right thing by attacking at Gettysburg on the final day? I say yes and my wife says no. I think he saw Day 3 at Gettysburg as the last chance for the Confederacy to muster a large army to face the Union forces and achieve a major victory. Lee knew that if he withdrew after day 2 the Union would use its superior forces, supplies and logistics to slowly wear down the Confederacy. If Lee could push through the Union lines he would have a chance at a negotiated settlement.

My wife feels that day 3 was a total mistake and that Lee should have withdrawn after failing to achieve victory on day 2.

[Scharnhorst1943]

Many people confuse the American Civil War as a war to end slavery. That is not the case, Although that became more important later.

Lincoln did not want to out right abolish it imediately, he wanted to regulate it and start a transition to wean the south off of slavery without destroying them. The south, using states rights as a front, said that they could run thier states how they saw fit and that NOBODY would tell them what or how to do anything. Lincoln became president and swore to go forth with his proposals, and the south succeeded on the principle of states rights. The war was initially to preserve the union, so that we remained ONE nation, under God. The war was about keeping the country intact, but the issue of slavery is what caused each side to act. It was only later, when Lincoln issued the Emancimation Proclomation that the war became about freeing slaves.

Just my 2 cents.

[jadger]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The north was staunchly against slavery, both based on basic morales and economy ideology.

I'm assuming that by "economy ideology" you mean that the North had a severe shortage of cheap labour to work in the new factories as it was heavily industrializing. Who was cheaper to get to work for you than former slaves? no one of course.

It wasn't so much a question of "basic morales" as most people in the north couldn't care what was happening to some uneducated chattel hundreds of miles down south. It was more a question of "where can I get the cheapest labour?" and they found it by undermining the South's economy and bringing them North. Even an immigrant white man, even if he was Irish or some other hated group, would still get paid more than a freed slave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i wasnt aware of any great migration of freed slaves to the northern states, either before or after the war. after the war quite a few went west, not north if i remember correctly.

the big migration of black people to northern industry didnt begin till ww1.

if your talking about the underground railroad before the war, those numbers were miniscule compared to immigration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a man is a slave, he is the property of someone else, so cannot freely move to the north to take up a job in the factories. The Northern factory owners wanted them for cheap labour and that was the only way they could get them. Of course, in the end most stayed in the South as they were needed in reconstruction work and had large families down there already.



Jadger I feel like you are trying to put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post I was questioning HK Edgerton, I am not saying I know much about him or that roots is a difinitive source for a lecture in black history. I simply looked up what was on the net about the guy and found a few open ended answers, I have know idea why you are jumping all over me, I haven't even brought up anything to argue against.



Stiletto, it's all in how you stated it. you inferred that HK was wrong and that some made up TV show was right. You take maybe 20 minutes to google the guy and then believe everything you read on him, it takes a little longer than that. You can find that kind of **** about any political person of interest on the internet.

You only asked questions you liked, if they were open ended questions, why were they all geared towards getting one answer or making the guy look bad. For instance, if someone asks you "Hey Stiletto, when did you stop beating your wife?" that infers something doesn't it?

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The north was staunchly against slavery, both based on basic morales and economy ideology.

I'm assuming that by "economy ideology" you mean that the North had a severe shortage of cheap labour to work in the new factories as it was heavily industrializing. Who was cheaper to get to work for you than former slaves? no one of course.

It wasn't so much a question of "basic morales" as most people in the north couldn't care what was happening to some uneducated chattel hundreds of miles down south. It was more a question of "where can I get the cheapest labour?" and they found it by undermining the South's economy and bringing them North. Even an immigrant white man, even if he was Irish or some other hated group, would still get paid more than a freed slave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i wasnt aware of any great migration of freed slaves to the northern states, either before or after the war. after the war quite a few went west, not north if i remember correctly.

the big migration of black people to northern industry didnt begin till ww1.

if your talking about the underground railroad before the war, those numbers were miniscule compared to immigration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a man is a slave, he is the property of someone else, so cannot freely move to the north to take up a job in the factories. The Northern factory owners wanted them for cheap labour and that was the only way they could get them. Of course, in the end most stayed in the South as they were needed in reconstruction work and had large families down there already.



Jadger I feel like you are trying to put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post I was questioning HK Edgerton, I am not saying I know much about him or that roots is a difinitive source for a lecture in black history. I simply looked up what was on the net about the guy and found a few open ended answers, I have know idea why you are jumping all over me, I haven't even brought up anything to argue against.



Stiletto, it's all in how you stated it. you inferred that HK was wrong and that some made up TV show was right. You take maybe 20 minutes to google the guy and then believe everything you read on him, it takes a little longer than that. You can find that kind of **** about any political person of interest on the internet.

You only asked questions you liked, if they were open ended questions, why were they all geared towards getting one answer or making the guy look bad. For instance, if someone asks you "Hey Stiletto, when did you stop beating your wife?" that infers something doesn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a bit too zynical a stance I'd say. I can imagine the northern industrial giants would have liked to have some cheap labor, but for that they didn't need the slaves. During these times huge waves of immigrants came into the country, the perfect workforce there right at hand.

But to answer your question, economic idelogy in this regard was ment to be free trade and capitalism, put free men and the industry together and the market will regulate itself.

That said, slavery was seen as uncivilized barbarism in the north and as a black spot on the vest of both the whole nation and the constitution, who grants every human their rights. The south usually countered that by pointing out that blacks were not actually human beeings in countless senate debates about the issue.

[BOA_Allmenroder]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Geez people, settle down. The war ended over 130 years ago.

That said, did Lee do the right thing by attacking at Gettysburg on the final day? I say yes and my wife says no. I think he saw Day 3 at Gettysburg as the last chance for the Confederacy to muster a large army to face the Union forces and achieve a major victory. Lee knew that if he withdrew after day 2 the Union would use its superior forces, supplies and logistics to slowly wear down the Confederacy. If Lee could push through the Union lines he would have a chance at a negotiated settlement.

My wife feels that day 3 was a total mistake and that Lee should have withdrawn after failing to achieve victory on day 2.

Boy, PhDs have been earned and books have been written discussing this topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The definitive answer is: ......... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

However, it's hard to stand on the battlefield and look across those fields and not think "what the hell was Lee thinking?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif irrespective of whether one agrees with or opposes Lee's decision.

[Zeus-cat]

However, it's hard to stand on the battlefield and look across those fields and not think "what the hell was Lee thinking?" irrespective of whether one agrees with or opposes Lee's decision.

I've been to Gettysburg and had the same thought. However, I have been to other Civil War battlefields where the Union had even worse ground to cross (charging uphill, through swamps) into withering Confederate fire and thought that was even more insane. The same could be said of many battles where massed forces charged dug in troops. They did this even in World War I on a massive scale. It wasn't until WWII that western forces abandoned the mass charge. The Japanese and Russians still did it on a lesser scale.

[BOA_Allmenroder]

Agreed. In studying the US Civil War you have to take into account the mindset on 'courage' as well: ie, standing next to each other at Napoleonic Smoothbore range and blasting was considered 'manly' and a normal course of warfare.

Basically, a war that was fought with 18th Century tactics and 19th Century weaponry.

That's why the slaughter was so high/so fast at some of these battlefields.

[Sergio_101]

Gettysburg.....
The South emerging victorious in the war between the states
was as unlikely, or more unlikely than
Germany winning the second great war.
Actually it all came down to the 1864 election.
That Lincoln won meant the south was to loose.

Lee could not have made it much past Gettyeburg
if he had emerged victorious from the battle.
His forces were savaged, hardly in fighting condition.

Hindsight is wonderful, we can look back and find the obvious.
Lee was out of ammunition, food and fit soldiers.
He had very poor logistics. His fight was finished.
Failure at Gettysburg was meerly a punctuation mark on the end of the sentence.

What failed so badly at Gettysburg?
Old obsolete tactics.
Pickets charge helps sum it up.
A few thousand men charge a hill heavily manned
with men with massed firepower. (many loaded muskets with buck and ball loads).
Nothing like buckshot in a cornfield. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Love em or hate em, Sherman and Grant were developing the tactics of the future.
Sherman with the scortched earth tactic.
Grant with trench warfare.

In the end the Confederates were beaten the way of modern warfare.
The science of logitsics. SUPPLY and transportation.

In the end the Confederates could never have won. An effective blockade
and the lack of modern transportation crippled them.
That the United States had most of the heavy manufacturing was no
minor factor.

Ont last comment. Have you guys ever seen the photographs of the trenches
and fortifications around Richmond?
You would swear they were in Flanders (WWI).

The american civil way was a dress rehersal for the weapons and tactics of WWI.

Sergio

[DuxCorvan]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i always thought that "war of succession" sorry no spell check, was the best name.

Secession. War of Secession.

War of Succession was in the early 1700s between the Borbons and Habsburgs for the succession in the throne of Spain, after the death of Charles II of Spain. The Borbon candidate, Philip of Anjou, was supported by France, while Archduke Charles of Habsburg had his future states (the Sacred Empire) and the British to support him. Philip V got the throne of Spain but had to give many territories to his enemies, and renounce forever, in his name and his descendants', to the Crown of France.

War of Secession=U.S. American Civil War
War of Succession=The one above

There were other "Wars of Succession" (like when August III got to the throne of Poland), but the above is the best known.

[jarink]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Geez people, settle down. The war ended over 130 years ago.

Amen to that, brother!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
That said, did Lee do the right thing by attacking at Gettysburg on the final day? I say yes and my wife says no. I think he saw Day 3 at Gettysburg as the last chance for the Confederacy to muster a large army to face the Union forces and achieve a major victory. Lee knew that if he withdrew after day 2 the Union would use its superior forces, supplies and logistics to slowly wear down the Confederacy. If Lee could push through the Union lines he would have a chance at a negotiated settlement.

My wife feels that day 3 was a total mistake and that Lee should have withdrawn after failing to achieve victory on day 2.


Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Hindsight is wonderful, we can look back and find the obvious.
Lee was out of ammunition, food and fit soldiers.
He had very poor logistics. His fight was finished.
Failure at Gettysburg was meerly a punctuation mark on the end of the sentence.

What failed so badly at Gettysburg?
Old obsolete tactics.
Pickets charge helps sum it up.

Where Lee (probably) lost the Gettysburg was on the day before the battle when he didn't take Longstreet's advice to adopt a defensive posture on the hills to the south of the Round Tops. Longstreet knew that whichever side attacked the other would suffer greater casualties and that there was really nothing of strategic value to the Confederacy in the area other than the Union army.

This would have been essentially the same strategem they used to good effect the previous year that resulted in the battle of Antietam. The main difference was that at Gettysburg the Confederates would have been in an even better defensive position with clear lines of withdrawl.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I've been to Gettysburg and had the same thought. However, I have been to other Civil War battlefields where the Union had even worse ground to cross (charging uphill, through swamps) into withering Confederate fire and thought that was even more insane.


..... Fredericksburg is a good example.

[Von_Rat]

jadger wrote

When a man is a slave, he is the property of someone else, so cannot freely move to the north to take up a job in the factories. The Northern factory owners wanted them for cheap labour and that was the only way they could get them. Of course, in the end most stayed in the South as they were needed in reconstruction work and had large families down there already.


since it didnt happen in real life, the slaves going en masse north, it sounds alot like a conspiracy theory to me.

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i always thought that "war of succession" sorry no spell check, was the best name.

Secession. War of Secession.

War of Succession was in the early 1700s between the Borbons and Habsburgs for the succession in the throne of Spain, after the death of Charles II of Spain. The Borbon candidate, Philip of Anjou, was supported by France, while Archduke Charles of Habsburg had his future states (the Sacred Empire) and the British to support him. Philip V got the throne of Spain but had to give many territories to his enemies, and renounce forever, in his name and his descendants', to the Crown of France.

War of Secession=U.S. American Civil War
War of Succession=The one above

There were other "Wars of Succession" (like when August III got to the throne of Poland), but the above is the best known. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok,, the american War of Secession.

[roybaty]

You mean ONLY 130 years! Damn Johnny Rebs!

(I'm not serious, even though I'm from Massachusetts )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Massachusetts_Civil_War_Units

[jadger]

That is a bit too zynical a stance I'd say. I can imagine the northern industrial giants would have liked to have some cheap labor, but for that they didn't need the slaves. During these times huge waves of immigrants came into the country, the perfect workforce there right at hand.

What's even cheaper than immigrant labour though? freed slave labour, people who used to work for free. Capitalism at its best.

And I highly doubt that millions of white men would have fought and died to free thousands of black people from servitude. They still thought them inferior to them selves. Men, for the most part, don't die for ideas, they die because they are told there is a threat to their way of life.


But to answer your question, economic idelogy in this regard was ment to be free trade and capitalism, put free men and the industry together and the market will regulate itself.

And that would have ruined the South, whose economy was very much more protectionist, and needed it before a time of change. This still happens around the world today, the USA placing tariffs on her fellow members of NAFTA, despite it being against international laws and treaties. Or the countless things that Venezuelan PM Hugo Chavez has done, nationalizing foreign companies for instance. You don't see the USA going to war with itself or Venezuela over this now do you?

[Von_Rat]

What's even cheaper than immigrant labour though? freed slave labour, people who used to work for free. Capitalism at its best.


but it never happened, not even after the war.

all we have is your say so, with not a shred of proof, that there was a northern capital conspiracy to free the slaves so they could have cheap labour.

its sounds very "JFK" to me.

[sakai2005]

the norths almost complete domination of the railroads won them the war.move a entire army at 30 miles an hour by train verses 5-6 miles an hour on foot at best probly more like 3 miles.never before could a army pick up and move hundreds of miles overnight.the iron horse won the war for the union.

[sakai2005]

just a few vets left at the 1938 reunion.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=civil%20war...ell&resnum=0&spell=1 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=civil%20war%2075th%20annivers ary&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1)

[Stiletto-]

Stiletto, it's all in how you stated it. you inferred that HK was wrong and that some made up TV show was right. You take maybe 20 minutes to google the guy and then believe everything you read on him, it takes a little longer than that. You can find that kind of **** about any political person of interest on the internet.

You only asked questions you liked, if they were open ended questions, why were they all geared towards getting one answer or making the guy look bad. For instance, if someone asks you "Hey Stiletto, when did you stop beating your wife?" that infers something doesn't it?

Whatever dude, I didn't say "he is this or he is that" I said I found out about X source, is this true? I am asking a question on the guy, and stating the examples I have found, I am sorry I didn't nitpick through 200 google sights to found one that suited you. And besides, you haven't defended him anyways, so how are you helping turn the rumors I found on the internet into solid facts or fact-nots? You aren't, you simply want to argue and act like you are some elitist civial war buff, which if that is what you want to do fine. But this conversation with you has been nil constructive. If Edgerton is a great American, please give the ignorant and unenlightened with some factual information on the man. If you don't want to share that with me and anyone else that wants to know then I will simply find another thread to bumble about, as I am done with this redundancy of a conversation.

[BaldieJr]

history sucks

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by BaldieJr:
history sucks


..... Be that as it may, its passage is something we experience every day.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's even cheaper than immigrant labour though? freed slave labour, people who used to work for free. Capitalism at its best.


but it never happened, not even after the war.

all we have is your say so, with not a shred of proof, that there was a northern capital conspiracy to free the slaves so they could have cheap labour.

its sounds very "JFK" to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I agree. If anything, share-cropping replaced slavery in the post-war South as a cheap labor substitute ... a step from slavery to serfdom in a sense.

[Messaschnitzel]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Geez people, settle down. The war ended over 130 years ago.

http://www.spsstore.com/Car%20Tag_Forget%20Hell!.jpg

I suspect that some of the people that I knew when I was growing up still had a stash of Confederate money hidden away somewhere, judging by the way they talked. My grandmother was born in 1880, and I remember the tone she used when she spoke of "the Yankees". My father didn't get along with her very well, and would razz her by saying, "Save your Confederate money boys, the South will rise again." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I did get a real Confederate dollar bill from her for my 8th birthday, though.

[Clipper_51]

I disagree that the matter of slavery was an ancillary to the Civil War. The South required slavery to sustain its' economy and it was part of their southern culture. If it was abolished, so would go the livelihood of the South. This feeling collapsed easily into the notion of "states rights" as well.

Many of the fire-branders in the South opposed the Missouri Compromise as it inhibited the spread of slavery to the new territories, further fanning the flames of dissent.

Once the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed (sponsored by Yankee, Stephen A. Douglas no less), the abolitionists in the North could no longer be held in check, whipping up great political and popular opposition to slavery. The two sides were on a collsion course.

The end result was obvious. War. Without slavery, there would not have been the American Civil War, IMHO.

[M_Gunz]

Forty Years of Abolitionist movements and a steady progress to end slavery by law didn't happen.
Nope, nothing to do with it.

"Only" about 60% of about FOUR MILLION PEOPLE being "physically abused" was no really big deal
since FOUR MILLION PEOPLE being kept down and robbed along with their descendants was just 10%
of the population and really NO BIG DEAL.

The Secession wasn't over keeping slavery either I suppose.

Doing just a bit of reading, it was the COPPERHEAD Democrats in the Union that worked hardest to
keep ending slavery out of the political agenda.

For someone above, Lincoln was not a Democrat. He was the first Republican President of the US.

And for the Emancipation Proclamation, it was a half-stepping measure that did not free any
slaves in the border states where the Union had control. Lincoln could not declare those
slaves free for fear of more states joining the South! As it was the proclamation did cause
defection of some of the Union Army straight into the Confederate Army but it also gained
overwhelming numbers of white Abolitionists to join plus about 200,000 blacks, most freed by
the Proclamation itself. The true aim of that was to erode the ability of the Confederation
to produce in time of war.

It shouldn't be hard to draw parallels between Grant's tactics and the bombing of Axis cities.
I wonder who-all views the firebombing of German and Japanese cities as necessary?

IIRC more Americans died in that war than even WWII.

If you want to declare that the war wasn't over keeping or ending slavery then what was it about?
Huh?

[jadger]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's even cheaper than immigrant labour though? freed slave labour, people who used to work for free. Capitalism at its best.


but it never happened, not even after the war.

all we have is your say so, with not a shred of proof, that there was a northern capital conspiracy to free the slaves so they could have cheap labour.

its sounds very "JFK" to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen. Since this is WWII games forum, I can use the example of Operation SeaLion. Just because the German invasion of Britain didn't happen, doesn't mean it wasn't planned. But certain unexpected events prevented what the politically powerful Northern Factory owners wanted from happening, they did not expect Sherman to wage Total War. The total destruction of the Southern States required the former slaves to stay there, as well as the virtual serfdom of share-cropping etc. it takes money to travel accross a country, and slaves didn't have any to begin with.

And I never said it was a conspiracy, but "capitalism" back then was not the feel-good kind of capitalism we have now, workers weren't protected, the north was not some haven.


Whatever dude, I didn't say "he is this or he is that" I said I found out about X source, is this true? I am asking a question on the guy, and stating the examples I have found, I am sorry I didn't nitpick through 200 google sights to found one that suited you. And besides, you haven't defended him anyways, so how are you helping turn the rumors I found on the internet into solid facts or fact-nots? You aren't, you simply want to argue and act like you are some elitist civial war buff, which if that is what you want to do fine. But this conversation with you has been nil constructive. If Edgerton is a great American, please give the ignorant and unenlightened with some factual information on the man. If you don't want to share that with me and anyone else that wants to know then I will simply find another thread to bumble about, as I am done with this redundancy of a conversation.

thanks for not reading what I wrote. You may not have said that he is this or that, but you implied that he was racist because you only asked loaded questions that aimed towards that. for instance, you asked "why is he a darling of the white supremacist movement?" but you never asked less one sided questions, like "How did he get involved in this subject? what are his credentials?" No, you only asked loaded questions that were aimed at putting the answerer on the defensive and in a corner. Rather than answering a genuine question about the man, the people now had to prove that he wasn't a racist, thus hurting his credentials. Pretending that such questions that you asked are genuine and innocuous is wrong, that question I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" is the same type of question, it assumes one thing and the answerer must prove the opposite, losing all credibility in the process.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you want to declare that the war wasn't over keeping or ending slavery then what was it about?
Huh?

Preserving the Union and states' rights for the most part. Read any war speech by Lincoln prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, you won't hear anything about slavery in it, only about "preserving the union". The North did not feel the individual states had a right to self-determination, so they forcefully kept them in the United States.

[Von_Rat]

jadger wrote

because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen.


well so far you havent provided a shred of evidence that it was even planned.

[jadger]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
jadger wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen.


well so far you havent provided a shred of evidence that it was even planned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you haven't given a shred of evidence that it wasn't planned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol. I saw it first on a History Channel special, and then I had also read it in my university prep History class book in Grade 11, which was a whole year of the American Civil War.

[Copperhead311th]

There was one thing and only one thing in getteysburg that the Army of Virgina needed desperatly. SHOES. Ya caint march any army with out them. So the shoe factory there was the priciple target of the CS Army.

And no i agree Lee should have withdrawn on day 2 when it bacame apperant that things were happing beyond anyones control.

2 things i never agreed with the Conferderate Gov. on 1. not puching ahead when they were less than 60 miles from the Yankee capital with the Army of the Patomic running with tucked between thier legs like a pack of wipped dogs.

and 2. they never should have alowed the capital to be moved from Montgomery. PERIOD.
Militarily i don't understand the very idea of moving you country's capital so close to that of your enemy.

From a commanders point of view Montgomery is very defensible. Downtown where the capital is located...is on high ground....with the Alabama river to the north within a mile. wich most of near the downtown area has high to medeum bluffs along the river bank and with the lay of the land is very defensible. I can sit at a redlight on clay street and see buildings clearly identifibel in the next town over to the north (Prattvile) that are 10-12 miles away. and that's under most weather conditions.
Given my choice as a comander: defend Richmond or defend Montgomery.....i'd have taken Montgomery any day.

@ BenvZijl man if you need pictures of anything in Montgomery just let me know what & i'll be glad to go snap some for you.

[Andrewsdad]

Salute, BenvZijl !!

There are two sets of great works on "The Recent Misunderstanding" I would recommend.

"Lee's Lieutenants A Study in Command" by Douglas Southall Freeman 3 vols. This is probably the definitive work on The Army of Northern Virginia. It was first published in the mid 1940's as WW2 raged.
(As an aside, see if you can find Freemans 4 volume biography of R.E. Lee. I know that there is an abridged version out, but nothing beats the whole manuscript.)

The second set is "The Army of the Potomac" by Bruce Catton. These three volumes can be found as seperately sold books entitled:
1. Mr. Lincoln's Army
2. Glory Road
3. A Stillness at Appomattox

Salute !!!
AD

ps re. Lee taking Longstreets advice to fight a wholly defensive battle in Pennsylvania. It would have been impractable to park the AnVa for any period of time in enemy country without a good supply line and absent Jeb Stuart's cavalry.
Lee had to fight at Gettysburg once the armies collided. You know, kind of like a 109G6 cannot run away from a P51. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, the price of victory at Chancellorsville was defeat at Gettysburg.
Jackson was dead...

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
jadger wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen.


well so far you havent provided a shred of evidence that it was even planned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you haven't given a shred of evidence that it wasn't planned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol. I saw it first on a History Channel special, and then I had also read it in my university prep History class book in Grade 11, which was a whole year of the American Civil War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All pray to the allmighty Spaghetti Monster God *falls to knees*

Prove it does not exist, or feel its wrath!

[jarink]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
There was one thing and only one thing in getteysburg that the Army of Virgina needed desperatly. SHOES. Ya caint march any army with out them. So the shoe factory there was the priciple target of the CS Army.

It was a target of opportunity for Hill's Corps when they heard there was a large supply of shoes in the town. It seems a bit strange, since they had already occupied the town briefly on June 26th.


And no i agree Lee should have withdrawn on day 2 when it bacame apperant that things were happing beyond anyones control.

2 things i never agreed with the Conferderate Gov. on 1. not puching ahead when they were less than 60 miles from the Yankee capital with the Army of the Patomic running with tucked between thier legs like a pack of wipped dogs.

I'm assuming you're thinking of the first Battle of Bull Run/Manassas? Well, the Confederate leaders knew they could not win a war with the north without support from European powers like England and France. They simply didn't have the population or the manufacturing capability (even for relatively simple things like shoes). So, in order to gain support in Europe, the Confderates felt that they had to be viewed as the victims and not aggressors. That's why they adopted a defensive strategy instead of taking the fight north.

Even when they flip-flopped and let Lee invade Maryland in 1862, the idea was that it should be more of a massive raid and not an attempt to take and hold territory.


and 2. they never should have alowed the capital to be moved from Montgomery. PERIOD.
Militarily i don't understand the very idea of moving you country's capital so close to that of your enemy.

From a commanders point of view Montgomery is very defensible. Downtown where the capital is located...is on high ground....with the Alabama river to the north within a mile. wich most of near the downtown area has high to medeum bluffs along the river bank and with the lay of the land is very defensible. I can sit at a redlight on clay street and see buildings clearly identifibel in the next town over to the north (Prattvile) that are 10-12 miles away. and that's under most weather conditions.
Given my choice as a comander: defend Richmond or defend Montgomery.....i'd have taken Montgomery any day.

Well, Richmond turned out to be pretty hard to capture after all.

[jadger]

I'm assuming you're thinking of the first Battle of Bull Run/Manassas? Well, the Confederate leaders knew they could not win a war with the north without support from European powers like England and France. They simply didn't have the population or the manufacturing capability (even for relatively simple things like shoes). So, in order to gain support in Europe, the Confderates felt that they had to be viewed as the victims and not aggressors. That's why they adopted a defensive strategy instead of taking the fight north.

Even when they flip-flopped and let Lee invade Maryland in 1862, the idea was that it should be more of a massive raid and not an attempt to take and hold territory.

They went into Pennsylvania after Gettysburg not just for shoes though. If the south could prove that they could bring the fight to the north and had a hope of winning, then the Europeans would have had reason to back them. They wanted a victory on Union soil to prove to the Europeans they could survive. but of course, they didn't

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by jadger:
because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen.

Evidence? The Germans had troops and transports waiting for Seelowe and had before the BoB
diplomatic discussion telling the British to declare neutrality or be attacked.

And you have just what about "what the politically powerful Northern Factory owners wanted"?


And I never said it was a conspiracy, but "capitalism" back then was not the feel-good kind of capitalism we have now, workers weren't protected, the north was not some haven.

No, you've just slandered people and now wish to cover your back.

Funny how you won't turn the same reasoning to a bunch of slaveholders forming armed rebellion
once the end of slavery became clearly certain. Oh no, THEY were the good guys, it was the
evil Northern factory workers that.. uhhhh, did just what again? Oh yeah, the WANTED cheap
labor -- like they didn't have that, people ground down and kept in debt at below survival
wages in some cases which no you can't get any cheaper than that and still have live workers
regardless of color.

Do you guys just sit around and think up new excuses? Is there some kind of contest? What's
the prize besides book deals? Oh, the North was evil so it was okay to go to war to keep slavery.
Yeah, we just HAD to keep our fine way of life, it was our right to deny the rights of others!
Oh yeah, that's right, slavery was really bad but the slaveholders were really good?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you want to declare that the war wasn't over keeping or ending slavery then what was it about?
Huh?

Preserving the Union and states' rights for the most part. Read any war speech by Lincoln prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, you won't hear anything about slavery in it, only about "preserving the union". The North did not feel the individual states had a right to self-determination, so they forcefully kept them in the United States.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln did not have the power to do that, he had to tread a very careful line. The country
was very close to coming apart which would have delighted the slaveholders and their supporters.

Just because the South went pro-active and broke the nation does not mean that the issue was
not the end of slavery, it had been coming for decades.

My little brother after wrecking his car drunk driving sat on the bed in the hospital saying
over and over "I just had an accident and all they want to do is FOCUS on this drunk driving
thing.". His denial lasted a couple more years, you guys just hang on for generations spewing
the same old BS creating and excusing the racist hate that is destroying the country.

Here, things you've probably never heard of before since they conflict with certain views
you have posted:

[QUOTE]The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery. The society ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia; it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as its first president. Benjamin Rush was another leader, as were many Quakers. John Woolman gave up most of his business in 1756 to devote himself to campaigning against slavery along with other Quakers. The first article published in the United States advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was written by Thomas Paine. Titled "African Slavery in America", it appeared on March 8, 1775 in the Postscript to the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, more popularly known as The Pennsylvania Magazine, or American Museum.

The Abolitionist Movement set in motion actions in every state to abolish slavery. This succeeded in every northern state by 1804; although the emancipation was so gradual that there were still a dozen "permanent apprentices" in the 1860 census.

The principal organized bodies to advocate this reform were the Society of Friends, the Pennsylvania Antislavery Society, and the New York Manumission Society. The latter was headed by powerful Federalist politicians, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and republican Aaron Burr. Thanks to the considerable efforts of the NYMS, New York abolished slavery (gradually) in 1799. In terms of numbers of slaves, this was the largest emancipation in American history (before 1863). New Jersey in 1804 was the last northern state to abolish slavery (again in gradual fashion). At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, agreement was reached that allowed the Federal government to abolish the international slave trade. By that time, all the states had passed individual laws abolishing or severely limiting the trade, all but Georgia by 1798.

****
The importation of slaves into the United States was officially banned on January 1, 1808.
****

Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow the mails to carry abolition pamphlets to the South. Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned. Southerners rejected the denials of Republicans that they were abolitionists, and pointed to John Brown's attempt in 1859 to start a slave uprising as proof that multiple Northern conspiracies were afoot to ignite bloody slave rebellions. Although some abolitionists did call for slave revolts, no evidence of any other actual Brown-like conspiracy has been discovered. The North felt threatened as well, for as Eric Foner concludes, "Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests". However, many conservative Northerners were uneasy at the prospect of the sudden addition to the labor pool of a huge number of freed laborers who were used to working for very little, and thus seen as being willing to undercut prevailing wages.
The famous, "fiery" Abolitionist, Abby Kelley Foster, from Massachusetts, was considered an "ultra" abolitionist who believed in full civil rights for all blacks. She held to the views that the freed slaves would colonize Liberia. Parts of the anti-slavery movement became known as "Abby Kellyism". She recruited Susan B Anthony to the movement.


A radical shift came in the 1830s, led by William Lloyd Garrison, who demanded "immediate emancipation, gradually achieved." That is, he demanded that slave-owners repent immediately, and set up a system of emancipation. Theodore Weld, an evangelical minister, joined Garrison in 1833 to form the Anti-Slavery Society (Faragher 381), in the following year Weld encouraged a group of students at Lane Theological Seminary to form an anti-slavery society. After the president, Lyman Beecher, attempted to suppress it the students moved to Oberlin College which soon became one of the most liberal colleges due to their antislavery stance and acceptance of African American students. After 1840 "abolition" usually referred to positions like Garrison's; it was largely an ideological movement led by about 3000 people, including freed blacks. Abolitionism had a strong religious base including Quakers, and people converted by the revivalist fervor of the Second Great Awakening, led by Charles Finney in the North in the 1830s. Belief in abolition contributed to the breaking away of some small denominations, such as the Free Methodist Church.

Evangelical abolitionists founded some colleges, most notably Bates College in Maine and Oberlin College in Ohio. The well established colleges, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, generally opposed abolition, although the movement did attract such figures as Yale president Noah Porter and Harvard president Thomas Hill.

*******************************

Are those people throat cutting industrialists? THEY had no qualms about conspiring.

I get a REAL KICK out of how back then Lincoln and the Republicans were accused of being
Abolitionists and yet since Lincoln really didn't want slavery to end. Flavor of the Month.

How to get over the shame of supporting slavery: Blame the North.

[jadger]

Wow, you lose the argument so you go ahead and call people racists, good one!

And I never said that it was ONLY rich northern industrialists, I only said they were a major lobbying group that wanted the end of slavery for their own purposes rather than some feel good movement as you pretend.

I never said the slave owners were the good guys, I simply said that the north wasn't some hippy wonderland were everyone was free and wanting the freedom of others for the sake of the other person's freedom. And it wasn't just slaveholders that fought for the south, it was the common people.


the same old BS creating and excusing the racist hate that is destroying the country.

I don't even live in your country, nor am I a racist. stop libeling people.


Here, things you've probably never heard of before since they conflict with certain views
you have posted:

I already knew all that, if you will remember, I said I took a year studying the american civil war in high school, as well as a year in college.

<span class="ev_code_RED">If we're going to have a debate, you should not assume the worst of your opponent, and just because they don't hold the same viewpoint as you does NOT mean it is perfectly valid to call them a racist, that is pure ad hominem logical fallacy.</span>

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by jadger:
Wow, you lose the argument so you go ahead and call people racists, good one!

And I never said that it was ONLY rich northern industrialists, I only said they were a major lobbying group that wanted the end of slavery for their own purposes rather than some feel good movement as you pretend.

Just giving you back some of your "prove it's not" logic.

Hope ya like it but it don't seem so.


I don't even live in your country, nor am I a racist. stop libeling people.

Pot to Kettle..... you black.

[MrMojok]

Copperhead do you have any pics of that Confederate White House there?

[Bewolf]

Gotta say, everything I ever reseached about the Civil War falls in line with M_Gunz notions. And as a non american I certainly do not have preferences to either side. Accusing the north of capitalistic intentions to use the slaves as cheap labor and thus provoiking this whole crisis kinda falls in one catergory with the whole Area 51 and JFK assasination theories.

Kinda reminds me of some folks over here denying the holocaust and still blame the rest of Europe for the war.

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
jadger wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">because it never happened, doesn't mean it wasn't planned to happen.


well so far you havent provided a shred of evidence that it was even planned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you haven't given a shred of evidence that it wasn't planned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol. I saw it first on a History Channel special, and then I had also read it in my university prep History class book in Grade 11, which was a whole year of the American Civil War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you know how it works around here. you make the claim you provide some evidence.

history channel is not evidence btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif.
do you remember the name of the book.

[Von_Rat]

i gotta agree with gunz also.


i think it all boils down to this.

the south of the civil war is remembered and revered today, both north and south, as fighting with great courage, skill, and honor.

alot of people don't want to admit that the south, despite the great honor and courage of its people, was essentally fighting to sustain the evil that was slavery.

[HerrGraf]

I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.



Any political party that is older than it's oldest living member should be disbanded and its' leadership should be jailed for corruption!

[jadger]

Just giving you back some of your "prove it's not" logic.

Hope ya like it but it don't seem so.

you know how it works around here. you make the claim you provide some evidence.

I was being sarcastic in that first part of the remark, then I cited my sources. And calling other people racist is not "prove it's not logic" it's an outright insult, and highly illogical seeing as I'm Amerindian and German/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.


Pot to Kettle..... you black.


non-sequitur to what you were responding to. How does my not living in your country make me a hypocrite?

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">You guys have taken a serious discussion and turned it into a flaming war by randomly calling people racist.</span>

[M_Gunz]

Our original leaders had some very high-minded individuals among them but also some power freaks
and some outright near-horse-thieves. The first ones crafted the Declaration of Independence,
taking a great opportunity to break from old-old traditions and follow the new wave of philosophy
sweeping Europe. There were enough of them even not among the well-knowns to insist at the writing
of the Constitution to force in the Bill of Rights to insure the freedoms that the power freaks
were already at work taking away and still their kind actively limit today.

That is not feel-good or pollyanna BS. It is true equality and respect as a basic right.

Anyone programming students in "correctness" rather than teaching them to learn for themselves,
to improve themselves outside the box will sure as H not like the basic ideals underlying our law.
That includes teachers, parents and politicos right here so sure in any control-the-people state
the students are going to get even worse "look how bad that system is" progra... uhh, teaching.

I note that since the early 80's at least though that the US is not the leader in teaching the
freedom of thought and tolerance, the societal average has slumped badly and we suffer more for
it every year. At the height though we were taught to question authority by the more progressive
teachers. That's not fairy feel-good, it's getting up on your own hind legs and thinking instead
of being slogan-driven drones and it is allowing others to do the same. Without that progress is
limited at best, halted and/or lost as the creative inputs of the majority become wasted. Just
say baaa-aaaaa and do as you're told.

It's NEVER been perfect here, the struggle has gone on from the start between democracy of
individuals and the rule of chosen elite over those considered unfit to make good choices.
We've been losing, the educational cuts of the 80's have ensured it and the increasing police
state is only one of the signs. I envy Holland in particular as having a society more minded
and practicing of the basic principles of what we were supposed to be, are they just feel-good
fairies? Can you treat others fairly without being feel-good, without giving your life away?

I know one thing, you can't have slavery of chains or economic repression and be principled in
freedom at the same time. J.P. Morgan and his ilk do still exist today and have gotten around
the laws, the regulations put up to limit their power but only to limited extent so far. That
does not make everyone running a company evil but it does make it hard for the fair minded to
succeed due to competition with the bleeders and crooks.

Westinghouse built a manufacturing empire here without treating employees as resources to exploit.
When the different groups of workers all had their own clubs to go to except for the blacks,
George Westinghouse bought them the WHEMCO Club that still exists today. But then he was only
most notable exception to the human-exploitation types that are used by some as examples to
portray our way of life by. You have to ask yourself what goals the ones that only present
the worst are pursuing since your mind is also part of them.

Self-determination is more than just feel-good BS.

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Just giving you back some of your "prove it's not" logic.

Hope ya like it but it don't seem so.

you know how it works around here. you make the claim you provide some evidence.

I was being sarcastic in that first part of the remark, then I cited my sources. And calling other people racist is not "prove it's not logic" it's an outright insult, and highly illogical seeing as I'm Amerindian and German/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.


Pot to Kettle..... you black.


non-sequitur to what you were responding to. How does my not living in your country make me a hypocrite?

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">You guys have taken a serious discussion and turned it into a flaming war by randomly calling people racist.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still don't see? You brush and tar others on the basis of nothing real yet scream when
the same is done to you and yet you are not a hypocrite?

You certainly did call people racist with no basis of evidence although not randomly at all,
that is what is objected to and that is what you hang on to. I expect that you will ditch
that BS next while crying bitterly that have been made a victim! Just for the record, you
have not been picked at random but rather to show you how poorly your own methods work.

I doubt that you are what you say at all but rather just building your argument of words
calculated to steer your six out of the trap you set yourself.

I really like the idea that "not from the US" equates to "can't be racist". That's crass
ignorance at best. Where else do they teach such thinking?

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by HerrGraf:
I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.

Any political party that is older than it's oldest living member should be disbanded and its' leadership should be jailed for corruption!


Undoubtly they would say that. And I think that is actually the trutz. The civil war was fought over state rights after all.
But ppl just mustn't forget that this question came up over slave ownership in the first place.
If you take a look as the history prior to the war, everything was about slavery, how states are allowed or not allowed to keep it, lots of compromises to make both sides happy, quarrels of how the territories and subsequently new states would deal with it and so on.

That said, almost all civil war movies of the last 30 years I have seen show both sides in a decent light. Honorable men fighting for ideals. Most of the times both sides were shown very uncriticly. Hardly ever came the question of slavery up, or the burned land policy of Sherman and Grant. Seen in this light I do not wonder the morale questions were softend up quite a bit nowadays.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HerrGraf:
I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.

Any political party that is older than it's oldest living member should be disbanded and its' leadership should be jailed for corruption!


Undoubtly they would say that. And I think that is actually the trutz. The civil war was fought over state rights after all.
But ppl just mustn't forget that this question came up over slave ownership in the first place.
If you take a look as the history prior to the war, everything was about slavery, how states are allowed or not allowed to keep it, lots of compromises to make both sides happy, quarrels of how the territories and subsequently new states would deal with it and so on.

That said, almost all civil war movies of the last 30 years I have seen show both sides in a decent light. Honorable men fighting for ideals. Most of the times both sides were shown very uncriticly. Hardly ever came the question of slavery up, or the burned land policy of Sherman and Grant. Seen in this light I do not wonder the morale questions were softend up quite a bit nowadays. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Here are some points which I think were important factors in the South's political calculus (no one goes to war lightly).

By 1860 the Southern states were absolutely dominant in the production of cotton, accounting for something like 75 pct of the total world output of high quality raw cotton, In those days textile manufacturing was one of the most important industries in the world economy and the economy of the Southern states was utterly reliant upon cotton. "King Cotton" was no idle appellation. In the late 1850's, Southern cotton represented the majority of US exports in terms of dollar value.

The problem was that cultivation of cotton under early 19th century agricultural practices was extremely labor-intensive, requiring massive amounts of cheap labor to perform difficult and menial labor. That is why the South clung to the institution of slavery.

The slaves themselves represented an extremely large and valuable economic asset on the books of any plantation owner. Therefore, abolition of slavery implied a truly massive and uncompensated economic loss to such people.

The raising of cotton severely depleted the land, required more and more new land to be put under the plow to increase production levels. This is one reason why the South was so adamant about establishing a right to own slaves in the new territories entering into statehood.

Lastly, by virtue of the "3/5ths Rule" (that one slave was counted as 3/5ths of a free citizen for census purposes), their huge slave populations afforded the Southern states a degree of political power at the Federal level all out of proportion to their actual populations. Abolition of slavery would throw this situation into a matter of complete and uncomfortable uncertainty.

The Southern states had some very compelling economic and political reasons to cling to slavery. The irony is that mechanization of agriculture by the late 19th century eliminated the need for slave labor in the cultivation of cotton. By the late 1870's, the South had regained it world leadership position as a producer of raw cotton. A matter of a few decades.


A fascinating period of American history.

[jarink]

Originally posted by HerrGraf:
I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.

The answer would most likely be the same if the question was asked of Union troops.


Originally posted by Bewolf:
Undoubtly they would say that. And I think that is actually the trutz. The civil war was fought over state rights after all.

The most important of the state's rights in question being the one of slavery.

[JG53Frankyboy]

as a non american, may i ask what would had happend if the "south" would have won ??

would there be two independent states nowadays or at least for some years after the war ended? or even more ?

as far as i understood the north was fighting for more rights of the union, the south for more rights of the single state - propably im totaly wrong in that...............

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by jarink:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Undoubtly they would say that. And I think that is actually the trutz. The civil war was fought over state rights after all.

The most important of the state's rights in question being the one of slavery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which, if you read my posts completly, is exactly what I was saying.

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as a non american, may i ask what would had happend if the "south" would have won ??

would there be two independent states nowadays or at least for some years after the war ended? or even more ?

as far as i understood the north was fighting for more rights of the union, the south for more rights of the single state - propably im totaly wrong in that...............

to make it short, the north fought for the "preservation" of the Union, not for getting more rights. Lincoln himself stated that he would have not abolished slavery if that ment secession. It's just the south seceeded the moment Lincoln got elected.

A famous quote of his here:

"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."

Only later in the war the abolition became part of the actual war effort.

So to make this clear, though the abolishment of slavery was an important goal for the northern states, they themselves would have not gone to war about it.

The south basicly fought for slavery, with the question of state rights put up front for that.
They did not think the Union had the power to dictate the matter of slavery to states. Up until the republicans victory in the 1860s election they also held the power in Washington with pro southern parties, namely the democrats.
So it was also a power question. The north with its ever raising population and industrial capacity was soon to take over power in the union.

IMHO the southern secession was a short fuse reaction mainly born out of fear and indeed, preservation of the southern american way of life, who differed greately from the north. One could say those two regions were growing apart rapidly, the north becoming ever mor emodern, the south staying by its old ways.

The whole matter is much more complicated and not as black and white, certainly, but that it what it comes down too.

[Worf101]

I'm just amazed that this thread is still unlocked.

Da Worfster

[jadger]

I really like the idea that "not from the US" equates to "can't be racist". That's crass
ignorance at best. Where else do they teach such thinking?


I never said that, I said that my not being from the USA means I don't have a vested interest in the topic and I'm not some hillbilly southern racist revisionist as you claim.

The part where I stated I can't be racist is because I'm from multiple ethnic backgrounds. how can someone of American Indian/Scottish/German/Irish/Welsh ancestry actually talk about the purity of the races when I'm not even one single race? let alone just the separate European races. Race is after all just a mental construct, that you obviously are a victim of.

please, do me a favour: before randomly shouting racist at me again, actually read my posts, not just half a line that fits what you want to hear.<span class="ev_code_BLUE"> When you see a guy wearing a confederate flag in a mall, you don't walk behind him and start shouting "Racist!! Racist!! look everyone this guy is racist!!"</span>

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by HerrGraf:
I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.



!

agreed they were fighting for their state, and the union boys would say they were fighting to preserve the union. probaly next to no one in the beginning would say they were fighting over slavery.


however slavery was the root cause of why those poor boys found themselves on the battlefield killing each other. without slavery there never would of been a civil war.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HerrGraf:
I believe if you were to ask most Southern troops why they were fighting back then, most would probably reply "For my state.". Loyalty to ones personal state was much more important back then than now. I don't think States Rights or Slavery would have been on thier minds.



!

agreed they were fighting for their state, and the union boys would say they were fighting to preserve the union. probaly next to no one in the beginning would say they were fighting over slavery.


however slavery was the root cause of why those poor boys found themselves on the battlefield killing each other. without slavery there never would of been a civil war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If I'm not mistaken, Robert E Lee was actually ofered command of the United States Army by Lincoln at the outbreak of war. But Lee declined on the grounds that he could not bear arms against that his home state of Virginia.

[Snoball7614]

hillbilly southern racist revisionist

Jadger... I am a Hillbilly Southern man and thats how I support my sister and myself (I own a cattle ranch). To be honest, sir, I think using sterotypes makes a person look ignorant and foolish... I don't mean to be rude but maybe you should think before you speak.

[jarink]

Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as a non american, may i ask what would had happend if the "south" would have won ??

would there be two independent states nowadays or at least for some years after the war ended? or even more ?

Harry Turtledove did some good 'alternate reality' books about that scenario.

[jarink]

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... If I'm not mistaken, Robert E Lee was actually ofered command of the United States Army by Lincoln at the outbreak of war. But Lee declined on the grounds that he could not bear arms against that his home state of Virginia.

What I find strange about that is that Lincoln saw some promise in Lee (even though it the offer was made more for political reasons than military ones). He instead took a position as Jeff Davis' senior military advisor after some less-than-stellar performances in the early days of the war. His original nickname in the South was "Granny Lee" because he was perceived as too old and timid for command. Obviously, he was never called that again after the "7 Days Battles"!

Some other interesting Lee trivia:

Lee was in command of the Union forces that put down John Brown's uprising at Harper's Ferry in 1859.

He was a son of Revolutionary War hero "Light Horse Harry" Lee.

Lee's plantation in Alexandria, Virginia (actually owned by his wife's family) was seized by the Union during the war and later became part of Arlington National Cemetery.

After the war he served as president of Washington College in Virginia. He presided with such distinction that the college later was renamed "Washington and Lee College".

[BaldieJr]

Originally posted by Worf101:
I'm just amazed that this thread is still unlocked.

Da Worfster

agreed.

of course it would get labeled "an act of moderator aggression"

i bought into southern ideals until i read SC's Declarations of Causes of Seceding States. this document makes southern intent very clear.

in the end i decided to hate both sides based on the following truths:

1. slavery is bad
2. politics are bad
3. war is bad

the whole country, at the time, was bad. very bad.

[Messaschnitzel]

Originally posted by jarink:

Some other interesting Lee trivia:

Lee was in command of the Union forces that put down John Brown's uprising at Harper's Ferry in 1859.

He was a son of Revolutionary War hero "Light Horse Harry" Lee.

Lee's plantation in Alexandria, Virginia (actually owned by his wife's family) was seized by the Union during the war and later became part of Arlington National Cemetery.

After the war he served as president of Washington College in Virginia. He presided with such distinction that the college later was renamed "Washington and Lee College".

Another bit of trivia is that Lee was a 1829 West Point graduate, and later became Commandant of West Point from 1852-1855.

Yet another is that Jefferson Davis was an 1828 West Point graduate as well.

I suppose that I am preaching to this particular topic choir here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

[Zeus-cat]

Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as a non american, may i ask what would had happend if the "south" would have won ??

would there be two independent states nowadays or at least for some years after the war ended? or even more ?

as far as i understood the north was fighting for more rights of the union, the south for more rights of the single state - propably im totaly wrong in that...............

I think most people who have studied the conflict agree that the South could not have won the war the way the North did. I don't think that was ever their intention. They wanted to seperate from the Union, so conquest of the North was not a goal. They would have sought a truce with the South being a seperate country from the North.

What would the future have brought? That is very hard to speculate, but I think there was enough anti-slavery feelings combined with anti-secessionist feelings that the North would have broken the truce after a period. But who knows.

[jadger]

Originally posted by Snoball7614:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hillbilly southern racist revisionist

Jadger... I am a Hillbilly Southern man and thats how I support my sister and myself (I own a cattle ranch). To be honest, sir, I think using sterotypes makes a person look ignorant and foolish... I don't mean to be rude but maybe you should think before you speak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both my grandfather's are farmers, one beef cattle, the other cash crop, how many head of cattle do you have?

And if you would read, I was not the one using stereotypes, I was the one being stereotyped. I was speaking out against the stereotyping of people. I'm sorry if you felt I was the one that was calling people hillbilly southern racist revisionists, but I was not.

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by MrMojok:
Copperhead do you have any pics of that Confederate White House there?


No but i can get ya some. ya want inside or outside? I can run down there sat. morning.

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by Worf101:
I'm just amazed that this thread is still unlocked.

Da Worfster
well so far....

[Copperhead311th]

look people. damn it for the last time the primary issue of the was not slavery. period. it was a great many reasons but that one issue was not cheif among them. ya wanna ***** about the slavery issue? the get off yer damn asses and do something about it. becuase behind all your pretty lil worlds in you nice neat perfect lil live there is one simple truth. SLAVERY STILL EXISTS. Been to Eastern Europe or Central Africa latley? here's a F*cking news flash for ya...........

<span class="ev_code_RED">There are an estimated 12.3 million* enslaved people in the world today.</span>
and no their not all from one contenant.
This has been around since biblical times and the sad thing is that unless we all do something about it's not goiung to go away. and it was/ isn't about a race of people. slavery don't give a flying hell what color you are. just ask some poor lil 13 year old Craotion girl who's now the person sex toy of some Sheik in Saudi Arabia. i'm sure she could tell you it's not.

So get pro-f*cking-active do some thing. damn

and for the last time the war wan't just about slavery. and you damn yankees just use that peice of propagandal bullsh*t to justify the war crimes and your contenued oprresstion of ALL southern people with your Reclimation bull sh*t. which is why an Electican in Alabama will only make 14 bucks a damn hour and one in Boston will make almost 3 times that. isn't it really conveant that ya'l yankees seem to forget that the were brought here by Dutch slave ships...to where? what harbour? BOSTON F*CKING HARBOUR.
gdamnd yankees. get over your selvs with all your self rightuos bullsh*t.

[joeap]

Calm down and get over yourself Copperhead.

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
look people. damn it for the last time the primary issue of the was not slavery. period. it was a great many reasons but that one issue was not cheif among them. ya wanna ***** about the slavery issue? the get off yer damn asses and do something about it. becuase behind all your pretty lil worlds in you nice neat perfect lil live there is one simple truth. SLAVERY STILL EXISTS. Been to Eastern Europe or Central Africa latley? here's a F*cking news flash for ya...........

<span class="ev_code_RED">There are an estimated 12.3 million* enslaved people in the world today.</span>
and no their not all from one contenant.
This has been around since biblical times and the sad thing is that unless we all do something about it's not goiung to go away. and it was/ isn't about a race of people. slavery don't give a flying hell what color you are. just ask some poor lil 13 year old Craotion girl who's now the person sex toy of some Sheik in Saudi Arabia. i'm sure she could tell you it's not.

So get pro-f*cking-active do some thing. damn

and for the last time the war wan't just about slavery. and you damn yankees just use that peice of propagandal bullsh*t to justify the war crimes and your contenued oprresstion of ALL southern people with your Reclimation bull sh*t. which is why an Electican in Alabama will only make 14 bucks a damn hour and one in Boston will make almost 3 times that. isn't it really conveant that ya'l yankees seem to forget that the were brought here by Dutch slave ships...to where? what harbour? BOSTON F*CKING HARBOUR.
gdamnd yankees. get over your selvs with all your self rightuos bullsh*t.

It's just amazing how sensitive usually very judgemental ppl react when suddenly their own house is cleaned out.

[MrMojok]

I'd like to look at anything you have, Copperhead, but don't make a trip there just for me, it is not a big deal.

[Snoball7614]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snoball7614:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hillbilly southern racist revisionist

Jadger... I am a Hillbilly Southern man and thats how I support my sister and myself (I own a cattle ranch). To be honest, sir, I think using sterotypes makes a person look ignorant and foolish... I don't mean to be rude but maybe you should think before you speak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both my grandfather's are farmers, one beef cattle, the other cash crop, how many head of cattle do you have?

And if you would read, I was not the one using stereotypes, I was the one being stereotyped. I was speaking out against the stereotyping of people. I'm sorry if you felt I was the one that was calling people hillbilly southern racist revisionists, but I was not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have 126 head of Brangus cattle... I did read all of the posts maybe I just interpreted yours wrong. Glad you corrected me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif BTW, what area are your grandfathers in? How many acres?

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
look people. damn it for the last time the primary issue of the was not slavery. period. it was a great many reasons but that one issue was not cheif among them. ya wanna ***** about the slavery issue? the get off yer damn asses and do something about it. becuase behind all your pretty lil worlds in you nice neat perfect lil live there is one simple truth. SLAVERY STILL EXISTS. Been to Eastern Europe or Central Africa latley? here's a F*cking news flash for ya...........

<span class="ev_code_RED">There are an estimated 12.3 million* enslaved people in the world today.</span>
and no their not all from one contenant.
This has been around since biblical times and the sad thing is that unless we all do something about it's not goiung to go away. and it was/ isn't about a race of people. slavery don't give a flying hell what color you are. just ask some poor lil 13 year old Craotion girl who's now the person sex toy of some Sheik in Saudi Arabia. i'm sure she could tell you it's not.

So get pro-f*cking-active do some thing. damn

and for the last time the war wan't just about slavery. and you damn yankees just use that peice of propagandal bullsh*t to justify the war crimes and your contenued oprresstion of ALL southern people with your Reclimation bull sh*t. which is why an Electican in Alabama will only make 14 bucks a damn hour and one in Boston will make almost 3 times that. isn't it really conveant that ya'l yankees seem to forget that the were brought here by Dutch slave ships...to where? what harbour? BOSTON F*CKING HARBOUR.
gdamnd yankees. get over your selvs with all your self rightuos bullsh*t.


slavery still exists and war still exists, so what. i don't see how any of that has to do with the discussion of how slavery was the cause of the civil war.


i find it hard to believe the south would ever have secceded if slavery never existed. no seccesstion, no civil war. its that simple.

it has nothing to do with rightousness, the north as a whole didnt give a dam about slaves, that has been stated. and it didnt fight to end slavery, it fought for the union. the south fought because they wanted to seccede. now you gotta ask yourself, would the south have ever wanted to seccede if slavery never existed.



as for pay scales, you ever hear of unions. boston is a big union town which drives up pay scales for even non union people in a particular field. most of the south is pretty anti union from what i can recall. heck they even have open shop laws in some, if not most southern states dont they?

[jadger]

Originally posted by Bewolf:
It's just amazing how sensitive usually very judgemental ppl react when suddenly their own house is cleaned out.

Wow! if that wasn't solely meant to piss Copperhead off and instigate something, what other purpose did it have? I dont see any enlightening information that added anything to the discussion. same with you joeap

[Bewolf]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
It's just amazing how sensitive usually very judgemental ppl react when suddenly their own house is cleaned out.

Wow! if that wasn't solely meant to piss Copperhead off and instigate something, what other purpose did it have? I dont see any enlightening information that added anything to the discussion. same with you joeap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, now Copperhead got himself a Nanny. I doubt he needs one.

[jarink]

Originally posted by BaldieJr:
i bought into southern ideals until i read SC's Declarations of Causes of Seceding States. this document makes southern intent very clear.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html

Wow. Roughly half of that document lists greivances based on anti-slavery laws and practices adopted by other states and the Federal Government.


Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
look people. damn it for the last time the primary issue of the was not slavery. period. it was a great many reasons but that one issue was not cheif among them.

You may want to read this and some of the other "Declarations of Causes of Seceeding States".

Mississippi (http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html)
Right off the bat (first sentence of the second paragraph) they talk about slavery. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Georgia (http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html)
Even faster! The first sentence is this:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Texas (http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html)
Naturally, they first mention that Texas was once an independent nation. Buth then, middle of the third paragaph -
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Copperhead, the fact that slavery has existed and still exists is immaterial to this discussion. What is relevant is that individuals, groups, organizations and even some politial parties in the North sought to abolish slavery as a wrongful and immoral practice. Many in power in the South saw these efforts as a direct assault on their "peculiar institution"; their way of life. They decided to fight for their beliefs (slavery chief amongst them) and lost the war which resulted.

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I really like the idea that "not from the US" equates to "can't be racist". That's crass
ignorance at best. Where else do they teach such thinking?


I never said that, I said that my not being from the USA means I don't have a vested interest in the topic and I'm not some hillbilly southern racist revisionist as you claim.

The part where I stated I can't be racist is because I'm from multiple ethnic backgrounds. how can someone of American Indian/Scottish/German/Irish/Welsh ancestry actually talk about the purity of the races when I'm not even one single race? let alone just the separate European races. Race is after all just a mental construct, that you obviously are a victim of.

please, do me a favour: before randomly shouting racist at me again, actually read my posts, not just half a line that fits what you want to hear.<span class="ev_code_BLUE"> When you see a guy wearing a confederate flag in a mall, you don't walk behind him and start shouting "Racist!! Racist!! look everyone this guy is racist!!"</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not just half a line that fits what you want to hear

-cough- no, you haven't been doing that at all............

You're full of it. You take one line and convert it into something else again then take THAT
and turn it some more. Turn-turn-turn and backpedal like crazy spin-boy. Oh wait, now you
will claim to be older than me as well.

Your sources for claiming that northern industrialists wanted the slaves freed for cheap
factory labor -- a HISTORY CHANNEL PROGRAM (normally something seen in the US, no?) and
what you learned during year 11 for school. Oh yeah, REAL SOLID.

How can you defend racial slavery and say you're not --- what? Oh, the Southern economy
would have been hurt! THAT'S what's important! But that view is definitely not racist!

[M_Gunz]

I do have to admit that the Union did not enter the conflict to end slavery. That is true.

However the conflict was started when Dixie broke off politics and seceded, precipitating war.

So the reason was not to end slavery, the reason was to perpetuate slavery and that is very
different isn't it?

And of course it's all the fault of Northern industrialists who wanted cheap labor.

[joeap]

Originally posted by jadger:

Wow! if that wasn't solely meant to piss Copperhead off and instigate something, what other purpose did it have? I dont see any enlightening information that added anything to the discussion. same with you joeap

Yea well ask him how he referred to family members (like my 5 year old neice) as "yankees" even though they are all recent immigrants (Greek and Hungarian) ... what should people from Alaska or Asian Americans from Seattle care about some people who think the war is still going on. I'm Canadian btw sis married a Hungarian yankee from Queens.

I am not anti-Southern actually, I am sympathetic to certain issues (generally think decentralised government is better) and find Southern people to be truly hospitable and friendly. FWIW, some of my favourite American figures, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and Mark Twain to name three were from the South. (Do like some of the Yankees like Ben Franklin as well). My sis' first roommates in NY when she went to study many years ago were 2 hot ladies (Alabama and Tennesee).

I just hate when folks do the "but you did too argument."

[Von_Rat]

in my part of the country a yankee is someone from new england. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

[joeap]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in my part of the country a yankee is someone from new england. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Err well I don't use those terms myself.

[RepublicofTexas]

Get 'em Copper! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by joeap:
My sis' first roommates in NY when she went to study many years ago were 2 hot ladies (Alabama and Tennesee).


..... I still recall the time I met my first Southern girl. She stole my heart when she told me she was from - "Kentucky - the land of fast women and beautiful horses".

[Stiletto-]

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... I still recall the time I met my first Southern girl. She stole my heart when she told me she was from - "Kentucky - the land of fast women and beautiful horses".

I thought that it was for horse-women and fast beauty.. Err, maybe not.

[Stiletto-]

It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

[jarink]

Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

I've lived in both parts of the country and I would have to say that the Civil War is much more 'alive' in the South than in the North. West of Texas, no one cares one way or the other. I don't know why this is the case. My former father-in-law (from Chattanooga) thought it was a combination of the majority of the battlefields being in the South combined with "plain ol' bull-headedness" (his words).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[LW_lcarp]

A southern boy says to his paw "Paw whats a Yankee"? The southern gentleman replies "well son Its like a quickie but ya do it yourself".

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

I've lived in both parts of the country and I would have to say that the Civil War is much more 'alive' in the South than in the North. West of Texas, no one cares one way or the other. I don't know why this is the case. My former father-in-law (from Chattanooga) thought it was a combination of the majority of the battlefields being in the South combined with "plain ol' bull-headedness" (his words).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

and just so everyone knows my def. of YANKEE is anyone BORN of the South of the Canadian border and north of the Mason-Dixon. Some here will add to that anyone west of Texas, but having lived out there most ppl can't even find thier own states on a map much less tell you where Alabama is. And about all they can tell you about it that that's where Forest Gump lives. lol rofl. (refering mailny to comie-fornia)

As to why it's still so important to southerners.....like paw-paw used to say "if a plow mule kicks you in the nuts one time ...you don't soon forget it!" and after the "reformation" we got kicked so hard if you listen on a quite night ya can still hear Jeff Davis screaming.
But that's ok every dog does have his day.

[jadger]

Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

I've lived in both parts of the country and I would have to say that the Civil War is much more 'alive' in the South than in the North. West of Texas, no one cares one way or the other. I don't know why this is the case. My former father-in-law (from Chattanooga) thought it was a combination of the majority of the battlefields being in the South combined with "plain ol' bull-headedness" (his words).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's "alive" in the South for the same reason why Canadian history is only learnt north of the 49th Parallel...

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

ive found the vast majority of people, especially the young, could care less about the civil war.

heck they probaly dont know who won.

i dont think copper does either,,,,
(runs for cover).

[jadger]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

ive found the vast majority of people, especially the young, could care less about the civil war. heck they probaly dont know who won.

i dont think copper does either,,,,
(runs for cover). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, everyone knows the Russians won it!!!

[Von_Rat]

on a quite night ya can still hear Jeff Davis screaming.


i knew we should of "hanged him from a sour apple tree".

maybe that would of shut him up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
,,,,(runs some more looking for better cover)

[DuxCorvan]

Originally posted by joeap:
I'd love to see you call a 6 foot Puerto Rican born in Brooklyn a "Damn Yankee"

If he's born in Brooklyn, then he's not Puerto Rican. No more than you are British, Irish, Polish, or whatever your ancestors were. I think you have to be born in Puerto Rico or have that nationality to be one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[joeap]

Well Dux my point is simply that no one should be labelled or have the crimes/prejuidices of their ancestors hung on them. I give up and will leave this thread now.

[Blutarski2004]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">on a quite night ya can still hear Jeff Davis screaming.


i knew we should of "hanged him from a sour apple tree".

maybe that would of shut him up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
,,,,(runs some more looking for better cover) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... A bomb shelter might be more suitable.


On another note, an ACW re-enacting friend of mine tells me that if war were to be re-fought on the basis of respective numbers of re-enacters in attendance, the South would win handily.

[Clipper_51]

Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

I've lived in both parts of the country and I would have to say that the Civil War is much more 'alive' in the South than in the North. West of Texas, no one cares one way or the other. I don't know why this is the case. My former father-in-law (from Chattanooga) thought it was a combination of the majority of the battlefields being in the South combined with "plain ol' bull-headedness" (his words).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? You have to ask why? It's because some lug heads south of the Mason-Dixon line still carry this grudge because they are pissed they lost!! They are mad because they couldn't fufill their traitorist dream of breaking the Union and keeping their slaves. Simple as that. Lincoln was our greatest President because he knew our strength came from holding our Union together, and, thank God, he did.

From where I sit, the Confederates were and will always be remembered as traitors and seditionists to our nation and "their" battle flag should not be flown anywhere, anyplace, anytime in this country of OURS.

[Von_Rat]

you really don't know southerners very well do you.

heck im a northerner and i love baiting southerners, especially copperhead, but even i understand where he's coming from.

i let him explain it to you.

[Von_Rat]

Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I'd love to see you call a 6 foot Puerto Rican born in Brooklyn a "Damn Yankee"

If he's born in Brooklyn, then he's not Puerto Rican. No more than you are British, Irish, Polish, or whatever your ancestors were. I think you have to be born in Puerto Rico or have that nationality to be one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you know of course that puerto rico is part of the u.s and are u.s citizens.

as far as having to be born there. my sister inlaw considers herself puerto rican, even though she was born in chicago. she also considers herself 100 percent american. as do her sisters who were actually born in puerto rico.

sorry if thats more than you wished to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

[Badsight-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7B8lJyOEFQ

its 1938 . the world is about to kick into gear big time , but these guys are still alive after having been in the civil war

i find that amazing . sure it was the depression , but modernisation was trucking along - those guys were witnesses to a huge change in lifestyle

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you really don't know southerners very well do you.

heck im a northerner and i love baiting southerners, especially copperhead, but even i understand where he's coming from.

i let him explain it to you.

Ya know bro i really want to.... i mean REALLY REALLY want to explain it to this guy cause he's clueless....but i'm afraid if i do BC or Ivan will perma ban me for what i'm likly to post. soooo....i'll pass this time.

Rat your allowed a lil good natured ribbing with me cause i know you. This asshat is still has that fresh out of the package noobie smell all over him. So this is his get outa jail free card with me. Besides....i think the guy may actually belive that bullsh*t he posted...so i kinda feel sorry for him. i belive he might be just a little...umm well...ya know>>>>> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

In any case men are apt to mistake the strength of thier feelings for te stength of their argument. The heated mind often resents the cool relentles touch of logic. So i'm gonna let this one go.

[brewens]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
A minor corrction it is offically known as the "War of Southern Independance" not the American Civil War. that what they call it up north. i disagree. there's absolutly nothing "Civil" about war.

As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.

Interesting then that correspondence between Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee usually refered to it as the "Civil War"?

[jadger]

Originally posted by brewens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
A minor corrction it is offically known as the "War of Southern Independance" not the American Civil War. that what they call it up north. i disagree. there's absolutly nothing "Civil" about war.

As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.

Interesting then that correspondence between Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee usually refered to it as the "Civil War"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that was in reference to the rivalry there wives had built up in the backroom jello-wrestling competitions held in the confederate white house every Thursday at around 8pm. If you don't believe me, go there yourself, the room is preserved as it was.

[Copperhead311th]

Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by brewens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
A minor corrction it is offically known as the "War of Southern Independance" not the American Civil War. that what they call it up north. i disagree. there's absolutly nothing "Civil" about war.

As for that bearded basterd from Illinois....
if he and Sherman were alive to day they could both be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. And that's a fact.

Interesting then that correspondence between Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee usually refered to it as the "Civil War"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that was in reference to the rivalry there wives had built up in the backroom jello-wrestling competitions held in the confederate white house every Thursday at around 8pm. If you don't believe me, go there yourself, the room is preserved as it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

God what damn a moron. how old are you? 14?
and btw...if i want to go to the 1st white house of the Confederacy...it's only 5 miles away. So is the bus stop where miss Rosa started the civil rights movemnent. So is the Hank Williams Sr. Museum. and i've been to every historical monument in Central Alabama many times.
and the last time i was at the 1st white house....it looked perfectly normal. If that stuff you described is in there ya better go get your sister to help you clean up the mess you two made before the cops come. that if you can pry her from the stripper pole long enough.

[luftluuver]

jadger, you sure suckered C'head for he took the whole hook, line and sinker you were fishing with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[R_Target]

When I lived in Richmond, a favorite ploy of the local frat boy types was to put a beer in the outstretched hand of Jefferson Davis.

http://i7.tinypic.com/6oxyofk.jpg

http://i11.tinypic.com/8fxmvle.jpg

[jadger]

Copperhead, I was just trying to lighten up this thread as some people were getting mighty hostile earlier, remember, I have agreed with you the whole way through.

P.S. I'm 21, and was not drunk when posting

[DuxCorvan]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you know of course that puerto rico is part of the u.s and are u.s citizens.

Yes, I know. They were 'freed' in the 1898 war. This is, they never got what they wanted. (But got what they needed). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

My point is, out of the USA, a "yankee" (in Spain a "yanqui"), is just a colloquial way to refer to US citizens. Southerners, Puerto Rican or whatever. It's quite similar to the "gringo" that the Mexicans use.

It's usually not pejorative -most of cases- but sometimes it is (as in the aforementioned 1898 war: the term "yanqui" was used in a pejorative way, accompanied by lots of Uncle Sam comic strips, in the Spanish press of the time).

It really feels weird, being fond of US culture and people, to read reports of a time when Spain and the USA were at war. It almost seems fictional.

I guess that's the way many people there feel about US Civil War, except those who have been fed with it at home since childhood.

[Von_Rat]

This is, they never got what they wanted. (But got what they needed).


every few years they get to vote what they want, regarding indepedence, statehood, or stay a commonwealth.

they always vote to stay a commonwealth, usually overwhemling so. i understand there are certain perks to keeping their commonwealth status.

[DuxCorvan]

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they always vote to stay a commonwealth, usually overwhemling so.

We call that "Nadar y guardar la ropa" ("Swimming while keeping the clothes safe"). It's nice to play independence in the arms of mommy. Cunning people. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[RAF74_Raptor]

Originally posted by Clipper_51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It amazes me that this thread has turned somewhat into a my region vs your region, North vs South thread.. It just shows that peoples feelings and respects for their area havent changed much in 150 years, if it wasn't for mass social devices such as tv and the
internet, this thread would show people to be even closer to their respected heritage, a century and half on (not that this thread would exist without the internet).

I've lived in both parts of the country and I would have to say that the Civil War is much more 'alive' in the South than in the North. West of Texas, no one cares one way or the other. I don't know why this is the case. My former father-in-law (from Chattanooga) thought it was a combination of the majority of the battlefields being in the South combined with "plain ol' bull-headedness" (his words).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? You have to ask why? It's because some lug heads south of the Mason-Dixon line still carry this grudge because they are pissed they lost!! They are mad because they couldn't fufill their traitorist dream of breaking the Union and keeping their slaves. Simple as that. Lincoln was our greatest President because he knew our strength came from holding our Union together, and, thank God, he did.

From where I sit, the Confederates were and will always be remembered as traitors and seditionists to our nation and "their" battle flag should not be flown anywhere, anyplace, anytime in this country of OURS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Because I am a Southern man I am a Traitor but prehaps I am reading this wrong. In my opinion every contry needs a little revoloution every now and the. Its what this country was founded on in 1776 and for the last time the war was not about slaverly it was about states rights the southern states wanted the right to freely govern there own soverign states IE Tennesee wanted to be goverend by tennessee And so on and so on but slavery was not the main issue. Now I dont agree with that policy and I agree that keeping the union together was the best thing that could have happened but you have to admit that the south almost did win the war the north just had more people.

Alright Im getting off my soapbox now
Flame On

[BenvZijl]

hi all sorry that i haven't reported in yet but had alot of PC problems etc .
Thnx for the links to shops and info centers etc.

I'm sorry if this topic has offended some people(looking @ some responses)

[Clipper_51]

Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you really don't know southerners very well do you.

heck im a northerner and i love baiting southerners, especially copperhead, but even i understand where he's coming from.

i let him explain it to you.

Ya know bro i really want to.... i mean REALLY REALLY want to explain it to this guy cause he's clueless....but i'm afraid if i do BC or Ivan will perma ban me for what i'm likly to post. soooo....i'll pass this time.

Rat your allowed a lil good natured ribbing with me cause i know you. This asshat is still has that fresh out of the package noobie smell all over him. So this is his get outa jail free card with me. Besides....i think the guy may actually belive that bullsh*t he posted...so i kinda feel sorry for him. i belive he might be just a little...umm well...ya know>>>>> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

In any case men are apt to mistake the strength of thier feelings for te stength of their argument. The heated mind often resents the cool relentles touch of logic. So i'm gonna let this one go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm waiting for the "splanation." Look, the South had their cause, fought for it and lost. The Union was preserved. Some of you rednecks should just except it (like blue fliers
can actually shoot you down, oh mighty Copperhead, without cheating).