150 yrs today

[fudgie]

Was the start of the Civil War. Wonder how this Country would be if the North lost or we never even went to War. Seems like a long time ago and alot has changed.

[Jabba]

The "War of Northern Aggression" would be in the history books A LOT different than it is today.  I promise.

I was just at Ft. Sumpter the week before last. 

History is written by the victors.  Do not forget that.

Jabba

[fudgie]

The "War of Northern Aggression" would be in the history books A LOT different than it is today.  I promise.

I was just at Ft. Sumpter the week before last. 

History is written by the victors.  Do not forget that.

Jabba

Good point.
I saw Sumpter from the shore line years ago. I like Charleston.

[Kaiser]

That would explain why PBS was running a Civil War special all weekend long! 

I only got to watch one part of that show - but it was incredibly disturbing.  It was about the P.O.W. camps.  They specifically focused on one in Andersonville, GA.  The pictures they showed and the way they described that place sounded exactly like the Nazi camps in WWII.  Starvation, executions, mass graves, etc...  I never knew about this dark spot in our nation's history until yesterday.

Truly sickening and sad. 

[Bobbo]

The "War of Northern Aggression" would be in the history books A LOT different than it is today.  I promise.

I was just at Ft. Sumpter the week before last. 

History is written by the victors.  Do not forget that.

Jabba

History records the war's start with the Confederate artillery shelling of Ft. Sumter on April 12th, 1861.  How would the Confederate States record the war's start if they had won?

[old2soon]

Somebody may know a lot more about this than me-but weren't there some bad civil war p o w camps around chicago?? Not real sure but something naggin in the backround. Which is exactly why this is a question and not a statement. Don't wanna get b b qd iffin i am way wrong.

[Bobbo]

Somebody may know a lot more about this than me-but weren't there some bad civil war p o w camps around chicago?? Not real sure but something naggin in the backround. Which is exactly why this is a question and not a statement. Don't wanna get b b qd iffin i am way wrong.

I'm not a Civil War buff, but a neighbor is.  Does the reenactment stuff and has a HUGE collection of authentic war materials.

Here's what I found about Camp Douglas in Chicago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Douglas_%28Chicago%29

[fudgie]

I think that was the worse camp up here in yankeeland.

[old2soon]

Thanks for the memory jog. Like i said-kinda in the backround not 100% sure. But yeah-thats it. Just proof that victor or vanquished no one is or ever will be perfect. Mans inhumanity to one another seems to boil up on the bad side in conflicts. We do have to remember-it was stated earlier-the victor writes the history books. RIDE SAFE.

[Sludge]

Well, all that said, sanitation conditions at the time contributed to many prison camp deaths no matter the side it was on.  Sanitation wasnt seen as important at the time.  That concept was just starting to take hold.  Also, with the South struggling to get food and supplies to their army and not being prepared for large numbers of prisoners...

Well, in a bad situation, your food is going to go to your own ppl first.  

The South was doomed from the start to lose no matter how well they fought.  The logistics manpower numbers and supplies were simply on the side of the North.  Man for man the South did very well.  That said, defenders often take a heavy toll on an attacking army.  

[hubcapsc]

Somebody may know a lot more about this than me-but weren't there some bad civil war p o w camps around chicago?? Not real sure but something naggin in the backround. Which is exactly why this is a question and not a statement. Don't wanna get b b qd iffin i am way wrong.

You're probably thinking of Camp Douglas...

On December 5, 1864, prisoners from Confederate General John Bell Hood's army, which had been shattered at the Battle of Franklin, began to arrive at Camp Douglas.[193] These "weak and destitute" prisoners[194] were made to undress and stand outside for a long period of time in ice and snow while guards robbed them of any valuables

None of the prison camps were very nice, another notorious Union prison camp was Elmira:

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

The prisoners at Andersonville were starved and gaunt because they had to survive on rations similar to what
Confederate soldiers ate. A rancid cube of bacon fat and some moldy corn glop is not a healthy meal. Of course the Confederate
Soldiers ate better than that when they were eating from the Union commissaries  , the Andersonville prisoners never
got that respite...

When the war began, there was not much need for long term prison camps, prisoners were exchanged - paroled prisoners were not
supposed to rejoin the fight... after the Yankees began to arm escaped slaves, they demanded that they be exchanged as well, the
Confederates would not do it, so the Yankees stopped the exchange, and prisons had to be set up. It is probably inherently bad to be an invading
soldier held prisoner in a land where rich people are substituting the juice you get from boiling acorns for coffee. Not sure what lead
the Yankees to mistreat their prisoners so badly, I guess war is hell, I'm glad I don't know first hand.

-Mike

[hubcapsc]

[revisionist] History records the war's start with the Confederate artillery shelling of Ft. Sumter on April 12th, 1861. 


Confederates shelled the Star of the West when it was sent to reenforce Sumter while Buchanan was still president.

Sumter itself was reduced when Lincoln tried to reenforce it.

War was probably inevitable... had the Yankees not invaded the South, they would have been faced with
Southerners claiming their share of the Western Territories, and Southern control of the Mississippi river,
and plenty of other intolerable situations...

-Mike

[hubcapsc]

The South was doomed from the start to lose no matter how well they fought.  

The South was doomed militarily if the war continued. The war was terrible, though, the North was on the verge of
"ah the he** with it" more than once. Recognition as a separate country by European powers
was a real possibility until Lincoln made it a "a war to free the slaves". Southerners raged
on with no resources for four years, and political will waned in the North on many occasions.
If Gettysburg had gone like Chancellorsville (Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg is a good read),
who knows?

-Mike

[Bobbo]

[revisionist] History records the war's start with the Confederate artillery shelling of Ft. Sumter on April 12th, 1861. 


Confederates shelled the Star of the West when it was sent to reenforce Sumter while Buchanan was still president.

Sumter itself was reduced when Lincoln tried to reenforce it.

War was probably inevitable... had the Yankees not invaded the South, they would have been faced with
Southerners claiming their share of the Western Territories, and Southern control of the Mississippi river,
and plenty of other intolerable situations...

-Mike

Here is an interesting timeline.

http://international.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

Although the resupply ship was fired upon, and turned away, it was not credited as the beginning of the war.

[ChromeDome]

What I find interesting is that 150 years later the war seems to still rage on.

[Oss]

Hello from Florida   

 thought the war ENDED on April 9th  1865

I only remember this because bonnie's birthday is April 9

this year I figured taking my wife to florida for her birthday was a good thing to do.

its almost 90 and the water is into the 80's   if only florida had curves and hills this would be a nice place to live

[Stude]

 OSS.... Florida does have curves had hills... just walk along the beach and look at the 20 year old female hard-bodies

 

Hello from Florida   

 thought the war ENDED on April 9th  1865

I only remember this because bonnie's birthday is April 9

this year I figured taking my wife to florida for her birthday was a good thing to do.

its almost 90 and the water is into the 80's   if only florida had curves and hills this would be a nice place to live

[Gear Jammer]

Hello from Florida   

 thought the war ENDED on April 9th  1865

We're just biding our time Evan 

[..]

BBC Radio 4 broadcast some documentaries and plays about the 150th Anniversary

REPEATED HERE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zzpl9/A_House_Divided_The_Poetry_of_the_American_Civil_War/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0105sz0/Americana_10_04_2011/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gqxt6/America_Empire_of_Liberty_A_New_Nation/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gqxt4/America_Empire_of_Liberty_Forever_Free/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gqxt2/America_Empire_of_Liberty_The_Killers_Take_Command/

http://www.bbcshop.com/history/the-american-civil-war-extracts-from-bbc-radio-4s-empire-of-liberty/invt/9781408468586/

[Art708]

The "War of Northern Aggression" would be in the history books A LOT different than it is today.  I promise.

I was just at Ft. Sumpter the week before last. 

History is written by the victors.  Do not forget that.

Jabba

Good point.
I saw Sumpter from the shore line years ago. I like Charleston.

No "P" in Sumter guys.

[3fan4life]

if only florida had curves and hills this would be a nice place to live

Not only does Florida have hills and curves it has MOUNTAINS!!!!!         

[Highbinder]

Actually the start of the Civil War began when Lincoln started a naval blockade of the southern ports....anticapating the build up of of arms coming in from foreign countries...also not allowing exports of cotton and anything else that could be turned into money for the south....this was done before a shot was fired and helped push the south into armed conflict...I don't know what america would be like if the south had won...but I believe the Federal government wouldn't be pushing the states around like they do at this time, the states would have more control of what happens within their own borders..the way the Constitution was written.   I know because I was there, two wheeling it thru the south....

[RP#62]

All in all, it wasn't that long ago - just a couple of generations.  My mother told us that when she was little, her grandmother used to tell her about when the yankees came through and plucked all her chickens to make a matress.  She was still pissed off about it.
-RP

[Jabba]

I believe slavery was dying on it's own accord, and that the war was about money more than ANYTHING.  We talk about states rights, and slavery... but the truth is...at least from where I sit, that the south was making a lot of $$$ on agriculture, and the North had yet to industrialize and start getting rich from that.

The north was redistributing the wealth (Note the Liberal talking point here) from the south to the north.

The south took issue, and decided not to play any more.  At which point the north blocaded the south and forced them into fighting.

All in all, I am not a civil war buff.  I like the Revolutionary war a lot more.  To me the civil war was a VERY sad time for us all, and we would all do well to take lessons from that.

One of which is: You can't keep taking from the haves, and give to the have nots, because eventually... the haves will fight back. 

Jabba

[Sludge]

Actually the start of the Civil War began when Lincoln started a naval blockade of the southern ports....anticapating the build up of of arms coming in from foreign countries...also not allowing exports of cotton and anything else that could be turned into money for the south....this was done before a shot was fired and helped push the south into armed conflict.

The first shots fired were at Fort Sumter werent they.  To my knowledge, Lincoln ordered the blockade on April 19th and the shots on Sumter were on April 12th.

[Jabba]

I wasn't there.

I am not a huge student of the civil war.

I'll freely admit my dates could be wrong...

it's irrelevant. 

History written by the victors.  The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about redistribution of wealth, and making war on the southern states that didn't want to be pillaged any further by the north, who had votes and not money.

(any of this sound familiar?)

We could learn from history.  We might not have the same situation geographically, like then... but we have it economically.

Jabba

[POPS 57]

If you forget history. You are doomed to repeat it. 

[Serk]

If you forget history. You are doomed to repeat it. 

Sadly, those who study history are doomed to watching it repeat...

[hubcapsc]

All in all, it wasn't that long ago - just a couple of generations.  My mother told us that when she was little, her grandmother used to tell her about when the yankees came through and plucked all her chickens to make a matress.  She was still pissed off about it.
-RP

My Great Grandfather was an artillery man in Charleston during the war... I spent plenty of time with his daughters when I was a
little boy...



-Mike

[Willow]

I wasn't there.

I am not a huge student of the civil war.

I'll freely admit my dates could be wrong...

it's irrelevant.  

History written by the victors.  The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about redistribution of wealth, and making war on the southern states that didn't want to be pillaged any further by the north, who had votes and not money.

(any of this sound familiar?)

We could learn from history.  We might not have the same situation geographically, like then... but we have it economically.

Jabba

I normally stay out of this type of discussion desiring to avoid offending or antagonizing my Southern friends, but this is much misinformation that seems to be generally accepted as fact.

"The war wasn't about slavery ..."  One needs only to read briefly South Carolina's declaration of secession to see that from the viewpoint of the South secession was indeed all about slavery.  Honestly, there were cultural differences developing that contributed to the schism between the north and the South, but the right of Southern states to hold slaves was the linchpin.  From the viewpoint of the north, it was about slavery, at least in large part, as the northerners used the motivation of freeing the slaves actively in raising volunteers for their armies.

About money?  I'm sure one would be hard pressed to defend with factual numbers that more wealth was concentrated in the South than in the north.  A little research is likely to reveal the converse.

Truly, the United States of America was changing form between 1776 and 1860.  Change was accelerated after the War Between the States and few of us would recognize the governmental concepts both stated and exercised prior to 1860. Although the words state and nation should be interchangeable, what we call states today are really much more like provinces.  Outside the State of Texas, few Americans could envision their "state" exchanging ambassadors with the sovereign governments of the world and participating on an equal basis with those in the United Nations, NATO, and such in treaties and international agreements.

"History is written by the victors."   This phrase assumes the complete subjection or even annihilation of the vanquished.  That simply wasn't the case in the conflict of 1861 - 1865.  A quick review of who has written and published history literature in the past 150 years will readily put the lie to the assumption of a distorted history based upon a northern suppression of the Southern view.

I have mixed emotions on the war that divided and united the United States of America.  I've much admiration and sympathy for many of the leaders of the South.  I have ancestors who served armies on both sides of the line.  Interestingly, my ancestors from Arkansas served in the Union armies and never traveled north of the Mason-Dixon line.  The war changed our country for a certainty.  Were it to have gone a different way, not only would our country be today unrecognizable, but the world itself would be a very different place.  In some ways things would be better, in the world and in our country, but in many, many ways we would be much worse were it not for the role of a strong United States of America.

I'm glad I'm not involved these days in a territorial war and now and then I wish some of my friends would put down their arms as well.        

[Bobbo]

Excerpt from "A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union"

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

---
An interesting insight to mid-19th century Texas beliefs.

[hubcapsc]

From the viewpoint of the north, it was about slavery, at least in large part, as the northerners used the motivation of freeing the slaves actively in raising volunteers for their armies.

Many, however, were against the emancipation proclamation and sided with the northern Democrats. A particular reason men avoided the draft was due to the Confederate Army’s increase in strength brought on by the emancipation proclamation. It “steeled resolve in the Confederate Army by providing soldiers like James Harrison with fresh reminders of precisely why they must keep up the fight” Conversely, the emancipation changed what Union soldiers were fighting for dramatically. They thought they were fighting to preserve the Union, but the emancipation changed soldiers’ views on the war. Many Unionists agreed that slavery should not be abolished and left the ranks of the Union Army. However, the emancipation did not change the victor of the war.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_American_Civil_War:_The_Peace_Movement_and_Draft_Opposition




but the right of Southern states to hold slaves was the linchpin.

On the 4th day of March next, [The Yankees] will take possession of the
Government.  It has announced that the South shall be excluded from
the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made
sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall
cease throughout the United States.


South Carolina's Declaration of Cause

The government is not, and had never before been, something that should be controlled
by one section at the expense of another, government had been a series of compromises - The Missouri Compromise,
The Wilmot Proviso, The Compromise of 1850, Popular sovereignty.  Slavery had split the nation. It is fallacious
for my friends to say that the war had nothing to do with slavery. But... the right of Southern
Men not to be dictated to by Yankees was the linchpin of the secession.  When all of one side takes
full control and says F-you to all of the the other side, that's when stuff hits the fan.

-Mike

[Willow]

  But... the right of Southern Men not to be dictated to by Yankees was the linchpin of the secession. 

Mike, I think we're in agreement, assuming that you've read the document whose link you posted and you understand that the "right" in question, the only one mentioned in that document, was the right to own slaves and to have western territories added that would include the "right" to own slaves.

Incidentally, I felt the same way about the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit, but I just couldn't get enough people worked up enough to go to war over it.    

On a separate note, how does one idealogically defend one's "right" to deprive another human being of any "rights'.  Never mind.  I'll withdraw the question.      

[hubcapsc]

On a separate note, how does one idealogically defend one's "right" to deprive another human being of any "rights'.  Never mind.  I'll withdraw the question.       [/i]

It is a good question...

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day...

     Robert E. Lee, 1856

-Mike "and the final abolition of human slavery is still onward in 2011"

[Bobbo]

"Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

     Robert E. Lee, 1856

It appears Mr. Lee was wrong.  Slavery was ended after a fierce and deadly war, not by gentle Christianity.  The Texas declaration even sites "Divine Law" as a reason to continue slavery.

[Willow]

-Mike "and the final abolition of human slavery is still onward in 2011"

I guess that answers the argument of those who say the institution would have gone away on its own without the War.    

Ever wonder why the colonial settlers up north didn't build large plantations and adopt the practice of slavery.  They were, after all, emigrants from the same places.  Some turned north and some turned south.  Why the deep cultural divergence?  Do you think there may have been at one time a virus that ran through the southern colonies and didn't make it into the wintry north?  Was it the proximity of the southern colonies to the Spanish and Portuguese influence?  Why didn't the northerners develop a liking for hominy?  Why did the South give birth to the majority of the brilliant military strategists and yet not the necessary cannon fodder to prevail?   Why were seven of the first fifteen presidents from Virginia?  Why have there been none since then?

I have never really understood history.      

[Willow]

The Texas declaration even sites "Divine Law" as a reason to continue slavery.

But then, as I'm sure you well know, the Texans were not Christian, but Diests.    

[hubcapsc]

Ever wonder why the colonial settlers up north didn't build large plantations and adopt the practice of slavery.  


There were plenty of big farms in the north, but my guess about slavery has to do with where one might grow tobacco, coffee,
cotton, sugar and rice...



The rice culture pretty much died in South Carolina after the war... about the only way to get someone to spend their days
toiling up to their waist in  pluff mud when it is 100 degrees out is to make them.

I wonder about this sometimes... why were there almost no black people at all in the North before the war?

20 million whites, 200,000+ blacks, mostly concentrated in a few places... the census shows that black populations
significantly rose each decade in Pennsylvania before the war... because of the Christian values of the Quakers?

In 1860 there were 6 million whites in the South, 4 million blacks... the census shows that there were more free blacks
in South Carolina at each census before the war than there were free blacks in Massachusetts...

-Mike

[Bobbo]

The Texas declaration even sites "Divine Law" as a reason to continue slavery.

But then, as I'm sure you well know, the Texans were not Christian, but Diests.    

Well, they certainly couldn't site Jesus' own words to justify it!    

[Willow]

But then, as I'm sure you well know, the Texans were not Christian, but Diests.    

Well, they certainly couldn't site Jesus' own words to justify it!    

Mayhaps they could have cited His words from one of the Gnostic gospels.