![]() |
||
|
We are happy to announce open registration on the KG forums has begun! Welcome everyone! |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I've been reading "The American Heritage series: A Short History of the Civil War", by Bruce Catton as an introductory to the conflict. - A long time coming I know, considering our trip to Gettysburg was almost 3 years ago now. I've been sidetracked with sci-fi books & the Pacific Theatre, among others.
Anyway, I've also been reading many posts over at the ACG general forums on various Civil war topics and I've noticed there a common "tone" (for lack of a better word) in some of the forum members point of view. Many of the members there seem to almost "root" for the South, as if they had wanted them to win the war. I can certainly understand the study of the South's military & social aspects & realize the value of it's history- much like we all appreciate & study the German military during WW2. But to blatantly be an "apologist" for succession & the support of slavery is way over the line , imo. Some will even go so far as to flip the story around & point the finger at the North for things such as how they "immorally" conducted the war against the South! An example of this would be Sherman's March. I've read Wikipedia's history on this event & find nothing wrong with what he did. He destroyed the South's will to fight & ultimately hasted the war's end. Well, I'd like to hear your comments because quite frankly I'm baffled by some peoples attitudes. Thanks. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() The strong weight of Constitutional and legal scholarship through 1860 clearly supported the right of individual states to succeed from the United States. In fact this exact topic was addressed at our February Civil War Round Table meeting. So those that support the legal right of the Southern States to succeed have a very strong case.
I don't know many modern day "fans" of the Confederacy that support slavery. But looking at any social issue through the eyes of values and beliefs of nearly 150 years later is not very instructive, often shedding more heat than light on a subject. In addition the supporters of Civil War history generally feel that the warriors and traditions of the Confederacy are under strong and unfair attack by those who look at history with only modern eyes and values (which will someday be subject to the same scrutiny). Many feel threatened and offended by modern efforts to equate and treat the Confederate flag as the Nazi Swastika. You cannot and should not attempt to erase history by banning its symbols. There is much honor, bravery and other positive qualities that are also associated with the Confederacy and its flag. My advice is: deal with it all. This is from a person who's ancestors, at least the few who had arrived, fought for the North. Sherman has been viewed by many Southerners for a very long time as a pariah. Interestingly, this view took a decade or two after the end of the Civil War to germinate. Sherman in fact fought a modern war, and wisely destroyed the ability of his enemy to make war and supply its troops. Southern critics often seem to forget the much less forgivable brutality of some of their own actions, such as at Fort Pillow and by their irregular raiders. Why has the Civil War burned so strongly and for so long? Look at the casualties. Look at how it changed the relative power between the states and the federal government. Look at the impact of reconstruction and then re-reconstruction in the southern states. Realize that some European powers believed that American could be reconquered--until the Civil War. Remember that the President felt that he had to have a former Confederate general lead our troops in Cuba during the Spanish American War (1898) to assure that we would fight together as one nation. It is very difficult to overstate the importance of the Civil War on US history.
__________________
“A government big enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson--the first Democrat President |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Its quite simple Frank. Look at the upper right hand corner of the info bar on the header on each persons post to see where they are from. All those apologists are from southern states or are once from southern states, or are from other coutries, such as Canada and Germany, just to name two, and hate the current US Administration, namely Bush. I have had to restrain myself so much over there that i havent even dared to post in the Civil War section for fear of losing my temper with some of the "Apologists".
Take for instance the one thread on Grant in the Generals contest where the two guys showed how at least percentage wise, Grant suffered less casualties in every battle he ever fought in, except Cold Harbor and he is still know as a "Butcher" to this day by many misinformed people. The conversation opened up into a hornets nest of apologistic statements and attacks on Grant by said apologists. All this behavior just goes to show you how touchy the subject is 142 years later to people who still cant get over the fact that "their side" lost the Civil War. They speak of the norths supposed immorality to cover for their own immorality, namely slavery. Its simple role reversal. It also shows how long myths can stick around and be built upon by succeeding generations. Ones like Sherman Burning Atlanta to the ground, which is total Bullshit BTW. While it is true that some of his troops got out of control and set fire to part of the city, he certainly did not order it and only 30% of the city actually burned. Thats a far cry from the whole of the city going up in flames as some southern apologists will have you belive. Another myth is that the south had all the great generals and Lee was the greatest of them all. IMHO thats boatload of beaver biscuts as well, but thats an argument for another time. Edit: The next book you shoud read on the Civil War IMHO is - "Grant Takes Command" by Bruce Catton
__________________
Last edited by KG_Panzerschreck; 04-11-2007 at 12:44 AM.. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Slavery was certainly not the only reason for the Civil War. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot. States rights under the Constitution, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery, and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors.
Not the least of these factors was the tariff policy: In 1832, Henry Clay introduced the "Tariff of 1832." President Andrew Jackson countered Clay's excessive tariffs with a more moderate but still high tariff bill he supported. Jackson's tariff bill ultimately prevailed and passed both the House and Senate by a wide margin. South Carolina, however, held out. The state called a special session of the legislature to consider its options. With the Union appearing to be breaking up and civil war seemingly looming on the horizon, Jackson ordered army and navy forces to stand ready in Virginia and Charleston. The South Carolina legislature declared Jackson's tariffs null and void and prohibited their collection within the state on November 24, 1832. Jackson introduced what came to be known as the "Force Bill," which granted the government the authority necessary to enforce tariffs. The U.S. Army began stocking ammunition in North Carolina. Under pressure, South Carolina worked out a compromise. Calhoun was elected to the Senate and therefore resigned as vice-president. Jackson had Clay introduce a new tariff bill that reduced tariffs over ten years but still greatly favored the industrial north over the agricultural south. Both the Force Bill and the new tariff passed in 1833. Here's a decent recap of the tariff and trade problems the south had with the north from Douglas Harper's website (He's a historian fron Pennsylvania). http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm Last edited by KG_Soldier; 04-11-2007 at 01:47 AM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() This thread - http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=50131 is exactly the kind of thing i refering to in my above post as to why i have to refrain from posting in a thread such as this. I belive this is what Frank was eluding to as well. I wouldnt even know where to begin with someone like this guy. His is from a whole different planet. Then you have another guy stepping up to validate his arguement and he ties the Civil War into statement like "disgusting tyranny of unconstitutional madmen like Lincoln" and "We are secure in ourselves and don't need to use any region of the de facto empire to blame for our shortcomings, or to use as a strawman for the idiot masses in the failed experiment (democracy)." He then goes on to tell us how southern pride and determination has been around since Jamestown was settled and the southerners have railed against the powers to be in Washington ever since and always will because they are tyrants.
Id love to hear what a shrink would have to say after analyzing these two guys.
__________________
|
![]() |
|
|