Sherman's march to the sea

[suggs]

No, but it just means the revolutionaries werent very nice chaps.
The 2nd American war wasnt about slavery, you arse. Although several "respected" historians such as Brogan think it was, so I'll let you off.
But the US had been a slaving country since its inception. What had changed by 1860?
Could the answer be "quite a lot, but the Yanks had spread their EMPIRE all over the Continent and had run out of room....

[jecko7]

Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

Actually, I don't know about them managing to kill more people. One of their main advantages was their outnumbering the Southerners (further compounded when 200,000 slaves joined the Union Army after the Emancipation Proclamation), and one of their main strategies was to just wear the South down. I think it was Grant that would order his men to just charge straight into cannon-fire without a qualm. Not sure about that though.

I should pay more attention to details in class so I can make better Internet arguments... oh and also so I don't fail.

That's correct, Inklosed. The South mobilized 80% of their fighting age population, the North mobilized way less than that. The Southerners killed more people, it just didn't have as big an effect on the North.

Also suggs - I think you're making one mistaken assumption. If the South had won the war, we would have Northern (Union) and Southern (Confederate) countries. The South never wanted to take over the whole country, their war aim was to tire the North out until they eventually got tired enough and left them alone, the only people who would talk about the glorious Jefferson Davis would be the Confederate States of America.

[Neoteny]

I'm in AP US History class, my teacher knows what he's talking about, and he says similar things about the South. Apparently there are still Southerners that are pissed off about losing the Civil War

True in some cases, but I definitely wouldn't say they are anywhere near a respectable number. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I know who really gets worked up about Sherman's march to Savannah. Perhaps your teacher suffers from the old elitist Yankee syndrome? The idea that Sherman was destroying civilian property does a bit of heart-wrenching for me, but that has nothing to do with it being "Southern" property. I won't say the ends justify the means, but I think we, as a country, have progressed in a defensible direction since then. Plus, everyone knows southerners are more patriotic than anyone else, so what's the fuss?

My history teacher is no Yankee elitist. He went to the University of Texas just to get away from New York.

I seem to remember him saying something about Southerners making a big deal about having the Confederate flag around and whatnot. But not even he said this was all of them, or even many.

Fair enough. They're around. And the few numbers they have are way too many.

[jecko7]

jecko, the secessions started because a republican was sworn into office even though the northern states were the only ones to vote for him.

Lincoln did get elected with only Northern electoral votes, but that's not WHY they seceded. It was a contributing factor though, as they realized they couldn't protect slavery and that the North was no free to do as they wished to it (e.g. repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act).

[Napoleon Ier]

Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

In entire agreement.

As Sherman said :

"Slavery is not the Cause but the pretext."

The real causes of the Civil War lie in economic oppression of the South by mercantilists in the North, and of harsh and overbearing authority of faceless government.

[suggs]

My point really was that the North, like all victors in wars, butchered and slaughtered their way to get to the peace table. Don't get me wrong, the North were no worse than than other Imperialists, or indeed, any humans when it comes to war.
JUst don't make the mstake of thinking their was anything glorious about the Civil War-it's second only to the First WW and the Taipeng REbellion in China for bloody cock ups.
What a waste.

[Neoteny]

Yeah, Yanks are dicks.

[jecko7]

Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

In entire agreement.

As Sherman said :

"Slavery is not the Cause but the pretext."

The real causes of the Civil War lie in economic oppression of the South by mercantilists in the North, and of harsh and overbearing authority of faceless government.

OK, how can you explain the fact that Southern congressmen controlled every committe chair in Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court all the way up until 1856?

Moreover, this "states rights" argument is pure bullshit. How about the fugitive slave laws? They were federal laws, passed by a Southern-dominated Congress. It seems to me (and historians in general, you arse, cos that's just a funny word) that the South had NO PROBLEM expanding the power of the federal government when it suited their purposes - and their purpose was the preservation of slavery.

Slavery was the pretext. Without it, there is no war.

[Neoteny]

Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

In entire agreement.

As Sherman said :

"Slavery is not the Cause but the pretext."

The real causes of the Civil War lie in economic oppression of the South by mercantilists in the North, and of harsh and overbearing authority of faceless government.

OK, how can you explain the fact that Southern congressmen controlled every committe chair in Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court all the way up until 1856?

Moreover, this "states rights" argument is pure bullshit. How about the fugitive slave laws? They were federal laws, passed by a Southern-dominated Congress. It seems to me (and historians in general, you arse, cos that's just a funny word) that the South had NO PROBLEM expanding the power of the federal government when it suited their purposes - and their purpose was the preservation of slavery.

Wherever he goes, Nappy makes an impact. Coincidence? Or perhaps something Nappy should look into?

[jecko7]

And I'm pretty sure that mercantalism had nothing to do with the Civil War. Is that the word you were looking for?

[jecko7]

My point really was that the North, like all victors in wars, butchered and slaughtered their way to get to the peace table. Don't get me wrong, the North were no worse than than other Imperialists, or indeed, any humans when it comes to war.
JUst don't make the mstake of thinking their was anything glorious about the Civil War-it's second only to the First WW and the Taipeng REbellion in China for bloody cock ups.
What a waste.

I've never claimed that the Civil War was "glorious". This started as a thread about differences in Southern and Northern schools and has turned into an argument about who is to blame more for the war. I just happen to be on the side of the North, I'd be perfectly happy if the war never happened, but I think the South seceding was too high a price to pay for peace.

[got tonkaed]

i dont think nappy is all that wrong there....the war probably does start without the slavery issue. At least every course ive ever taken and things ive read about it seem to suggest it had too many different causes which could have help cite the south to attempt to break away.

[suggs]

You make a valid point. The southern states wanted to hang on to the way they lived, which included slavery. (Lord North wanted to hang on to the Colonies, and his job, but you cant have everything.)
When the South lost control of Congress in 1860, there was trouble- because the North had decided that their way of life was better.
Which it MAY have been.
I question whehter it was worth sending young kids to get their heads blown off for.
Is it possible that slavery would have shrivelled away, without the North going on a murderous rampage? Hmmm...
Read some history. And don't tell me what words I am looking for, for I am the master of words, thus:
Poo to you.

[jecko7]

i dont think nappy is all that wrong there....the war probably does start without the slavery issue. At least every course ive ever taken and things ive read about it seem to suggest it had too many different causes which could have help cite the south to attempt to break away.

True, but like he said (quoting Sherman), slavery is the pretext. Without the slavery issue there is no Kansas-Nebraska act, there is no fugitive slave law, there is no Northern backlash against the fugitive slave law, there is no congressional debate over slavery expanding into the territories.

Without slavery, the South has no reason to secede, since the Republican party's platform was to work against the "slaveocracy".

[got tonkaed]

i dont think nappy is all that wrong there....the war probably does start without the slavery issue. At least every course ive ever taken and things ive read about it seem to suggest it had too many different causes which could have help cite the south to attempt to break away.

True, but like he said (quoting Sherman), slavery is the pretext. Without the slavery issue there is no Kansas-Nebraska act, there is no fugitive slave law, there is no Northern backlash against the fugitive slave law, there is no congressional debate over slavery expanding into the territories.

Without slavery, the South has no reason to secede, since the Republican party's platform was to work against the "slaveocracy".

i think its a bit of a fallacy to assume that no other issue would have arisen, to help voice the concerns the south had that were expressed by slavery. Slavery gets alot of the play because its seen as a pretty big evil these days, whereas something like states rights isnt going to really make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

I find it pretty unlikely that given the way the country was developing, that there did not have to be at least one major conflict at somepoint around that time in history if not exactly when it did. Slavery is convient because it existed and got a lot of public attention both then and now, but it certainly wasnt the end all be all, and to assume that nothing else could have arisen seems rather shortsighted.

[jecko7]

You make a valid point. The southern states wanted to hang on to the way they lived, which included slavery. (Lord North wanted to hang on to the Colonies, and his job, but you cant have everything.)
When the South lost control of Congress in 1860, there was trouble- because the North had decided that their way of life was better.
Which it MAY have been.
I question whehter it was worth sending young kids to get their heads blown off for.
Is it possible that slavery would have shrivelled away, without the North going on a murderous rampage? Hmmm...
Read some history. And don't tell me what words I am looking for, for I am the master of words, thus:
Poo to you.

Ah, but poo to you.

Southerners passed legislation protecting slavery since the Stono rebellion (giant slave rebellion that almost worked). The South was growing paranoid about the North, thinking that they were all a bunch of crazy abolitionists. So they kept pushing, and pushing, for new legislation (including the KS-Nebraska act, the fugitive slave laws, the Lecompton Constitution) protecting slavery. And then the North pushed back.

The major issue was that slavery WASN'T shrivelling off and dying. The slave population in the US was growing, depsite the fact that the slave trade had been outlawed since the 1830s. And then, the South kept pushing for slavery to spread out West. The West - if it spread out there, the country would be absolutely dominated by slaveholders.

And then the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision - Congress has no power to ban slavery. Period.

Can you see why slavery wasn't just going to shrivel up and die?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm not saying the South was completely blameless either.
However based on the legislations in place rather than who actually dominated the congress in 1850, I'd say the case for Northern interference in the South's rights is very strong. I don't think you can explain to me (if you are indeed trying to say the North were the good guys fighting exclusively against slavery) why the South was able to mobilize its population to fight, only a small section of its society owned slaves.

[Napoleon Ier]

Concerning Northern mercantilism, South Carolina almost seceded over import tariffs in 1832. That gives you an idea of just how heavily the South was impacted y reckless economic policy led by the North.

[jecko7]

I'm not saying the South was completely blameless either.
However based on the legislations in place rather than who actually dominated the congress in 1850, I'd say the case for Northern interference in the South's rights is very strong. I don't think you can explain to me (if you are indeed trying to say the North were the good guys fighting exclusively against slavery) why the South was able to mobilize its population to fight, only a small section of its society owned slaves.

Well like I just said, the Dred Scott decision legalized slavery everywhere in the Union. The North wasn't "messing with the South's rights" until they went to war. Sure, they tried to prevent slavery from spreading. The South tried to spread it. They were both infringing on each others "rights".

Also, above the 36-30 line was supposed to be free (eg no slaves) territory. This was made as part of a compromise where the North granted the South some slave territory and the fugitive slave laws. The South actually repealed that part of the compromise and made slavery legal above 36-30. A strong case could and has been made that the South were the ones stepping all over Northern "rights".

And I have no clue how the South could mobilize that many people. I also have no clue how that's relevant.

[suggs]

I didn't realise slavery was invented in the 1850's....
Or had it been there since the beginning? Hmm...
THINK: why did they pass all that legislation?

My point really is that, like the rebellious colonists in 1776, the North changed the rules of the game in 1860. Now, maybe sometimes the rules do need to be changed (and rules should always be questioned).
But was a butchery and murder on an unprecedented scale the best way to change the game?

[jecko7]

Concerning Northern mercantilism, South Carolina almost seceded over import tariffs in 1832. That gives you an idea of just how heavily the South was impacted y reckless economic policy led by the North.

Actually, South Carolina was an oddball Southern state. No other state stood with them during the tariff crisis. They also didn't actually try to secede, they nullifed the law (pissing off Andrew Jackson). But the tariffs were only passed with a compromise - other goods like cotton were taxed as well, helping out the Southern economy.

Like I said, SC is just weird. They're the radical radical radical radicals. Radically.

[jecko7]

I didn't realise slavery was invented in the 1850's....
Or had it been there since the beginning? Hmm...
THINK: why did they pass all that legislation?

My point really is that, like the rebellious colonists in 1776, the North changed the rules of the game in 1860. Now, maybe sometimes the rules do need to be changed (and rules should always be questioned).
But was a butchery and murder on an unprecedented scale the best way to change the game?

Well, slavery is bad. Fine.

The South were the ones who seceded. The North wanted to pass laws banning slavery in the territories. Not even the South itself, the territories. The South were the ones who decided not to play by the rules. They were the ones who used the federal government to enforce slavery for decades, but when someone else takes an opposing view, the South can't work within the system anymore and quits.

To paraphrase Sherman - War is hell, and they started it.

And yes, I do think that was was worth it so that slavery wouldn't exist today. Not to make this about race, but if you were black I think you'd be a little less harsh on the North for their part in the war.

[Napoleon Ier]

Concerning Northern mercantilism, South Carolina almost seceded over import tariffs in 1832. That gives you an idea of just how heavily the South was impacted y reckless economic policy led by the North.

Actually, South Carolina was an oddball Southern state. No other state stood with them during the tariff crisis. They also didn't actually try to secede, they nullifed the law (pissing off Andrew Jackson). But the tariffs were only passed with a compromise - other goods like cotton were taxed as well, helping out the Southern economy.

Like I said, SC is just weird. They're the radical radical radical radicals. Radically.

SC being "weird" isn't really an argument. Nor is the notion that the South was helped by cotton import tariffs, when they exported these goods for the heavily taxed products the North produced.
The fact Jackson had to send in the troops shows you how fragmented the Union already was.

[jecko7]

Concerning Northern mercantilism, South Carolina almost seceded over import tariffs in 1832. That gives you an idea of just how heavily the South was impacted y reckless economic policy led by the North.

Actually, South Carolina was an oddball Southern state. No other state stood with them during the tariff crisis. They also didn't actually try to secede, they nullifed the law (pissing off Andrew Jackson). But the tariffs were only passed with a compromise - other goods like cotton were taxed as well, helping out the Southern economy.

Like I said, SC is just weird. They're the radical radical radical radicals. Radically.

SC being "weird" isn't really an argument. Nor is the notion that the South was helped by cotton import tariffs, when they exported these goods for the heavily taxed products the North produced.
The fact Jackson had to send in the troops shows you how fragmented the Union already was.

My point was that the view held by SC was not held by the rest of the South. The rest of the South was like "Damn, shoes cost a dollar more?". South Carolina was like "Screw taxes, we don't have to listen to you!".

Also, my point was that the North didn't just take control of the government and jack up tariffs. They had to compromise with the South, if the South had been adament about not paying taxes it wouldn't have gotten passed.

[suggs]

No, the North changed the rukes, forcing the south to secede.
Anyway, her's professor Flashman, much funnier than me, and much more right than you:

"The Yanks have to live with their ancestors' folly and pretend it was all for the best, and that the monstrous collection of platitudes which they call a Constitution, which is worse than useless because it can be twisted to mean anything you like, is the ultimate human wisdom. Well, it ain't, and it wasnt worth one life in the War of Independance, LET ALONE THE VILE SLAUGHTER of the Civil War. But perhaps you have to stand on Cemetry Ridge after Pickett's charge to understand that..."