Polite Discussion on the American Civil War

[heychadwick 11,357]

Actually, there were large sections of the south that couldn't sustain a large plantation.  Only the eastern 1/3 of North Carolina could grow cotton and the rest had small yeoman farmers.  It was a very middle class or lower class state.  It was also the last state to secede...after all states surrounding it did so.  There were other sections where this was the case.  Still, you are correct with the majority, though.  

[RogueCorona 1,043]

Licoln was a genius but he was also IMO one of, if not the most tyrannical presidents the US ever had including following the Andrew Jackson's example of ignoring court rulings that told him he couldn't legally do things he was doing like suspending habeas corpus (Though in all fairness the writers of constitution screwed up by including an option for such a suspension which IMO can never be justified)

 

And how he was able to manipulate the attack on Fort Sumter  where there were no fatalities for either side (Two Union soldiers died of injuries sustained when a Union cannon exploded during the surrender ceremonies but no one died of combat injuries) into a justification for a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives was an act of horrific brilliance, though I concede that he probably had no clue just how many people would die when the war started. At least he managed to set in motion the final death knell of slavery in the US though I personally believe that there were much less bloody means to accomplish that goal available, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was a means to the end of preserving the Federal Government's power rather then a objective of the war.

 

As for the South being on an aggressive stance early in the war First Bull Run/Manassas and the gathering of southern armies near DC didn't begin until Lincoln had established that he intended to use force to keep the Confederate territories under Union control. In fact four states only seceded in response to Lincoln calling for troops to surpress those that already had.

[YwingAce 2,546]

     I don't really care what or who started the war, but lets face it: Both sides of the war were wrong and right on some points. There were no good guys. After the war with the instant emancipation of slaves, the South plunged into depression and the north simply sat there on there fat behinds laughing at them (not to mention that idiot Sherman burned down half the South). And while slavery is a horrible wrong, we must also realize most factory workers in the north were treated worse then slaves. I think a more subtle freeing of slaves should have happened: e.g. You must pay your slaves wages for a full year, and then they are free to continue on as a hired hand or leave if they want. This would be kind of like indentured servitude, that way, the slaves aren't really slaves anymore, and there won't be a massive population shift off the bat, so the south can rebuild their economy a bit, and then after tasting a year as working as a hired hand, the ex-slaves themselves could decide whether they wanted to move on, or continue working, maybe for more money than before.

[Kyrios Mirage 588]

     Both sides of the war were wrong and right on some points. There were no good guys.

Pretty typical for any war, really.

[YwingAce 2,546]

Both sides of the war were wrong and right on some points. There were no good guys.

Pretty typical for any war, really.

Yup, WW-1 was the same way. But since the Union won the war, we are taught in schools that the South were all racist redneck radicals and horrible people, when there were people just as bad (and indeed worse) in the north as well.

[Kyrios Mirage 588]

As the saying goes, "History is written by the winners."

[YwingAce 2,546]

As the saying goes, "History is written by the winners."

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

 

I just wish Texas didn't get to dictate the national curriculum.

[YwingAce 2,546]

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

 

I just wish Texas didn't get to dictate the national curriculum.

:lol:

Thought it was Obama doing that?

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

 

As the saying goes, "History is written by the winners."

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

 

 

I don't think you can be so sure.  Neville Chamberlain did concede land but that didn't prevent war.

[YwingAce 2,546]

As the saying goes, "History is written by the winners."

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

 

I don't think you can be so sure.  Neville Chamberlain did concede land but that didn't prevent war.

I was referring to peace offers after a war had been started.

[PewPewPew 1,083]

As the saying goes, "History is written by the winners."

I just wish that they would teach unbiased history in schools. e.g. most people probably don't realize that WW-1 would have ended really soon if the Allies' leaders had been willing to negotiate. (Franz Charles made several attempts to make peace after he came into power in 1916) He was even willing to give land away, but the Allies' were to stubborn on beating the Germans to pay attention.

 

I don't think you can be so sure.  Neville Chamberlain did concede land but that didn't prevent war.

It did too prevent war until he stopped doing it.