Civil War

[Kissfan113]

I just got back from Marietta Ohio from a reenactment i was attending. I saw several good looking cummins trucks, but never got to talk to the owners. It was a great weekend, guys by the fire, and guns, no cell phones, and no modern crap to put up with. It was great. I love it.

 

[fkovalski]

I just got finished watching Ken Burns' documentary of The Civil War this weekend. It brought out facts that I never knew before. What a hellish conflict that many men went through to keep our country together!

 

[Carlsummers]

I just got finished watching Ken Burns' documentary of The Civil War this weekend. It brought out facts that I never knew before. What a hellish conflict that many men went through to keep our country together!

If the greedy northern people would have been less greedy and less controling(i. e. the tarriffs were a crock), then we would not have had men who felt it necessary to create such a hellish confiict. SC, FLA, ALA, and the rest were just tired of getting the same garbage that the colonials had fought against England about just 80 years prior. The Ken Burns doc. is problably the best ever done, but even it was lacking when it comes to the why's and wherefores.....

 

[biggieou]

I was in Marietta saturday night while they were shooting off the cannons across the river. I wasnt there for that, but I knew some sort of reenactment was going on when some guy came into the bar dressed up circa 1860's. It was pretty funny seeing this guy come into the bar dressed like that to watch Jello wrestling.

 

[DJW]

Beware of History, generally recorded by the conflict winner for popular consumption. Scrum Down

 

[mcoleman]

Sounds like there are some folks on here who know the real reason for the War for Southron Independence. I have to give anyone kudos for taking the time to read and learn the truth that 160,000 men, women and children died for.

 

[Digger-Bear]

Ahh, having lived in the Florida parishes for the last 15 years, it took a moment for me to realize you were talking about the War of Northern Aggression Against the Pure and Sovereign Southern States….



;-)







Still southern by grace of God.

 

[Boomer II]

Ahh, having lived in the Florida parishes for the last 15 years, it took a moment for me to realize you were talking about the War of Northern Aggression Against the Pure and Sovereign Southern States….



;-)







Still southern by grace of God.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[fkovalski]

... War of Northern Aggression Against the Pure and Sovereign Southern States…. .

I would have to agree with you. One item that I learned from the documentary was that the War was primarily an issue over State's rights! I would reckon that most people today believe that the War was fought over slavery. Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation was handed down some 3/4 of the way through the conflict!

 

[RustyJC]

Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation was handed down some 3/4 of the way through the conflict!

... . and covered only territory "in rebellion" - it did not apply to the Union states or to certain parts of the Confederate states.



Rusty

 

[ndurbin]

What State's right did they want tho? Other than the ability to govern themselves.



And besides it'd already been proven strong state governments wouldn't work under the Articles of Confederation I believe it was.



If it was a "War of Northern Aggression Against the Pure and Sovereign Southern States", please explain why did the south fire first? Pure and Sovereign? Please point to me in the Constitution of the United States of America it says any one state can leave the Union?



Nathan

 

[Tee]

Please point to me in the Constitution of the United States of America it says any one state can leave the Union?



Nathan

I believe TX still has the right to remove itself from the Union. Condition of becoming a state if memory serves!

 

[Kissfan113]

I will go ahead and enlighten a few of the members already posting. The north raised a force of 75,000 troops to proceed down south and quell the "rebellion" even before Virginia succeded from the union. Southern troops fired on fort sumpter to remove northern troops from southern soil after the US government refused to do so. 98% of all the men fighting had no slaves, nor did they have relatives who owned slaves. Numerous men in the Confederate ranks freed the slaves they had (Robert E. Lee for instance), The states wanted the rights to trade with whom they saw fit, self government, and the right to decide what taxes were appropriate for themselves among other various smaller requests. The north provoked the situation in numerous ways. It has been recorded that many states claimed that if Lincoln got elected they would leave the union, he did and they did exactly what they said they would. It was a war of northern agression, pure and simple, the confederacy would have ultimately fallen apart after some time and rejoined the union given that they didn't sure up the foundation of their government. however it was the union who raised troops to invade the southern states and "quell the rebellion" Had they not raised the men to go south, and let the issue resolve itself the civil war would have most likely been nonexistent. Plain and simple. For those of you wondering I am the man in the dark gray/black vest over the white shirt with long hair.

Pvt. Kevin Weimer

Company G, 26th Virginia Infantry Battalion, Army of Northern Virginia

 

[Kissfan113]

I also forgot to mention, the south did not go through the war as the north did. most infamously Sherman's march to the sea. Burning houses and towns, taking the last of the food left for families, and looting at their discretion. It did happen but was not a full habit, the southern troops took what they needed for the majority but never took all there was to be had.

 

[ndurbin]

I can think of a few places the Constitution mentions acts of the individual states that applies to what happened. Art. 1 Sec. 10 Clause 3, Art. 4 Sec. 3 Clause 2, and Art. 4 Sec. 4.



As for the Texas Consitution it says in Sections 1 and 2 under Article 1 The Bill of rights that, (Section1) Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States. (Section 2) All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. Those two sections seem to be pretty clear on adhereing to the US consititution and the ability to change the TX gov't. Is Section 1 what you are refering to as conditions of becoming a state, at the end where it says "and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States. "? Still looking for anything about Conditions of becoming a state tho in either the TX or US constitutions.



Ft. Sumpter was more a failure of communication than the US Gov't. refusing to remove them. Infact there was an agreement b/w the SC congress/outgoing govenor Gist and the Linclon that the military institutions inplace would not be attacked or seized until negtiations for cession was resolved, provided the institutions were not reinforced and status remained at the same levels they were at on early Dec. 1860. Maj. Anderson (commander of the Union forces around Charleston) moved his command from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumpter not knowing of this agreement. That move complicated the whole situtation and lead to what happened later on in April of '61. Which was another big communication blunder in itself. As the Union troops were set to leave Ft. Sumpter on April 15th, but the Navy sent resupply ships down the night and morning of April 11th and 12th.



Yes yes, Total War was practiced by SOME Union officers. Most infamously Sherman and his March to the Sea. Neither side was perfect. Quantrill and others like him and Prices Raid of MO and KS come to mind where CSA forces took whatever they could regardless.



Nathan

 

[Carlsummers]

Nathan, you make some really good points, but the fact remains that Northern Banking and Business (through their "ties" with the government) had a choke hold on Southern plantations, and ultimately the Southern States, with the tariffs placed by the fed. gov. If an animal is hemmed up in a corner, it will come out fighting. This is what the South did... they got tired of the oppression being imposed by business means, so they came out fighting (Ft. Sumpter). The main point of this being (as previously mentioned), that it was NOT a war for or againest slaverey, but a war for and againest States Rights, and the ability to leave said Union.



As far as "war of Northern Aggression" is concerned, remember, it was Pres. Lincoln that INVADED his own country. The state legislature of Maryland was meeting to discuss the possibility of seccession. Federal troops were dispatched by Lincoln and the Governor and almost the entire legislature of Maryland were arrested and imprisoned; military law was implimented, thus, Maryland remained a Union State. There is no getting around it... . that was an INVASION by the Union government.

I also agree that the South took the brunt of the war. Most of the battles were fought on Southern soil. Looks to me like the North invaded the South.



Now, one last thing I would like to say... . the problem with the secession was that the States turned around and formed another centralized government. it was doomed to fail before it started. The very thing the individual states wanted (ability to self rule), they were giving up, by forming the Confederacy. Governor Joseph E. Brown of Georgia was probably the most distrustful of that new government... . he understood that they were trading one evil, for another, and that self rule was once again threatened.



I am by no means an expert historian of the Civil War, but, I do find it facinating reading, that allows me to have some "connection" with my ancestors that were part of that conflict (as you can probably tell, mostly on the Confederate side). I only wish we would have been taught the "whole" truth, back in school. The victor truely does write the history.....



Carl.....

 

[Carlsummers]

I would have to agree with you. One item that I learned from the documentary was that the War was primarily an issue over State's rights! I would reckon that most people today believe that the War was fought over slavery. Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation was handed down some 3/4 of the way through the conflict!

The only reason the EP was even enacted was because Lincoln knew that without it he would not get re-elected ( he used it as a rallying point ), and if there was a new president, in the middle of the war, then the Union would very likely lose the war. Lincoln had no great love for the slave. He even wrote that if he could keep the Union together by allowing slavery, then he would. At one point he even said that the slave should never be concidered the equal of the white person. He believed that they did not have the intelligence to hold political office, and that they should not even have the right to vote... . so much for the "Great Emancipator".....

 

[ndurbin]

Carl, I think there is a difference in how people back east view the war compaired to what we see here in KS and MO. Out here it wasn't about State's Rights as much as it was about getting KS admitted to the Union as a slave state. I am by no means saying State's Rights wasn't an issue there just are more involved than that.



I am by no means an expert either but if you step back and look at why Linclon imprisoned the Maryland Legislature it makes pretty good sense why it was done. DC would have been completely surrounded in CSA territory. Or even the suspension of Habous Corpus (sp?) made sense why he did it. Were either legal for him to do? No I don't believe so. But what would you have done in his situtation to save your neck?



Nathan

 

[mcoleman]

http://www.rulen.com/history/

Lincoln stated in his own writings that he didn't consider the blacks and whites to be equal and that if he could have ended the war without ending slavery he would have done so. He wanted the union preserved purely to save the almight tax dollar and tariff moneys. The Southern states had the Consitutional right to succeed. It was put in our Constitution because of our experiences with unfair goverments. aka: England

Habous corpus was just the tip of the iceberg for what crimes Lincoln commited against humanity.

 

[loncray]

I'm reading the Shelby Foote history - and I just got to the initial discussions of the Emancipation Proclamation. It only applied to the states in rebellion because Lincoln didn't believe he had the legal standing to issue it to all America as President, but as military Commander in Chief he COULD issue it as a military matter.

As to 'the South didn't burn everything like Sherman did', they didn't get into the north very much so didn't have the opportunity to practice total war. Sherman did the right thing IMHO - he needed to cut the Confederacy up and destroy their military in detail.

I don't have the emotions about the Civil War that so many southerner's do - I'm really a Wyomingite and the Civil War was an Eastern thing! :-laf