Sherman's march to the sea

[jecko7]

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..."

I don't give a shit about some neo-hippy who's "already against the next war". Slavery is bad. Period. Dred Scott, Lecompton, KS Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, Fugitive slaves - all these are reasons why slavery wasn't just gonna fade away.

What this really boils down to is which is worse - slavery or the Civil War.

Then, after that, the question becomes this - what would you rather live with, a world with slavery or a world with the Civil War? I choose option B.

And yes, the Constitution can be altered, and it's a damn good thing for every person in America that it can or we'd still be living in the 17th century.

[jecko7]

And is Flashman actually a professor? I think he's a character in a book, I've been googling him and finding nothing but fiction.

Or was I supposed to know that?

[Grooveman2007]

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..."

I don't give a shit about some neo-hippy who's "already against the next war". Slavery is bad. Period. Dred Scott, Lecompton, KS Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, Fugitive slaves - all these are reasons why slavery wasn't just gonna fade away.

What this really boils down to is which is worse - slavery or the Civil War.

Then, after that, the question becomes this - what would you rather live with, a world with slavery or a world with the Civil War? I choose option B.

And yes, the Constitution can be altered, and it's a damn good thing for every person in America that it can or we'd still be living in the 17th century.

It's a myth that the north wanted to free the slaves at the start of the civil war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was strictly political, and it only freed the slaves in confederate states to avoid more succession. The cause of the civil was a combination of arguments over state's rights vs. the rights of the Federal Government, and representation. All of the arguments about slavery pre-civil war were centered around which side would have more representation in Washington. In fact, the northern dominated supreme court ruled in favor of slavery with the Dread-Scott case.

[InkL0sed]

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..."

I don't give a shit about some neo-hippy who's "already against the next war". Slavery is bad. Period. Dred Scott, Lecompton, KS Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, Fugitive slaves - all these are reasons why slavery wasn't just gonna fade away.

What this really boils down to is which is worse - slavery or the Civil War.

Then, after that, the question becomes this - what would you rather live with, a world with slavery or a world with the Civil War? I choose option B.

And yes, the Constitution can be altered, and it's a damn good thing for every person in America that it can or we'd still be living in the 17th century.

It's a myth that the north wanted to free the slaves at the start of the civil war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was strictly political, and it only freed the slaves in confederate states to avoid more succession. The cause of the civil was a combination of arguments over state's rights vs. the rights of the Federal Government, and representation. All of the arguments about slavery pre-civil war were centered around which side would have more representation in Washington. In fact, the northern dominated supreme court ruled in favor of slavery with the Dread-Scott case.

That's part of what made Lincoln such a great President. It's true that most Northerners didn't want to free slaves (just ask the Irish of the Draft Riots), but Lincoln saw what was best.

Also, I have to say that I agree with jecko in that the Civil War would likely not have happened without slavery. Sure, the North and South bickered over some other issues like states' rights, but the major dividing issue was slavery. Without slavery, you don't have Nat Turner's Rebellion, or Vesey's Rebellion, or most notably John Brown. In fact, the argument could be made that John Brown single-handedly incited the Civil War.

[btownmeggy]

Well, in history class we just learned about William Sherman's march to Savannah during the American Civil War. My teacher told us that Sherman gave orders to target property only, and not harm the population (unless they showed resistance). He then told us that in Georgia and other parts of the South today, you probably wouldn't be allowed to teach the march in that way, and that southern schools equate Sherman's march to some sort of grave human rights violation, with atrocities commited against Southern people.

I live in Massachusetts, so I was wondering if there are any southerners out there, and if you know whether or not that's true. Just curious.

I think this may be essentially accurate. During my entire childhood and adolescence, attending school in the South, I was taught that the Civil War was about "states' rights". Only while attending college among people who were not culturally invested in this idea and actually learning history did I realize that the only states' right of import was slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery. Amen.

Why did so many Southerners fight when so few actually owned slaves? The debate over slavery had lasted for generations before the Civil War, as easily evidenced by the CONSTITUTION'S own stipulations for exactly when the slave trade should end. Southern elites had spent decades acculturating Southern peasants to the supposed necessity of slavery. The idea of European superiority had steeped for hundreds of years and created a cultural paradigm, particularly recognizable in states where slavery was for a time a viable economic model, that permeated all classes.

[muy_thaiguy]

Well, in history class we just learned about William Sherman's march to Savannah during the American Civil War. My teacher told us that Sherman gave orders to target property only, and not harm the population (unless they showed resistance). He then told us that in Georgia and other parts of the South today, you probably wouldn't be allowed to teach the march in that way, and that southern schools equate Sherman's march to some sort of grave human rights violation, with atrocities commited against Southern people.

I live in Massachusetts, so I was wondering if there are any southerners out there, and if you know whether or not that's true. Just curious.

I think this may be essentially accurate. During my entire childhood and adolescence, attending school in the South, I was taught that the Civil War was about "states' rights". Only while attending college among people who were not culturally invested in this idea and actually learning history did I realize that the only states' right of import was slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery. Amen.

Why did so many Southerners fight when so few actually owned slaves? The debate over slavery had lasted for generations before the Civil War, as easily evidenced by the CONSTITUTION'S own stipulations for exactly when the slave trade should end. Southern elites had spent decades acculturating Southern peasants to the supposed necessity of slavery. The idea of European superiority had steeped for hundreds of years and created a cultural paradigm, particularly recognizable in states where slavery was for a time a viable economic model, that permeated all classes.

Simply put, most of the slave owners lived in the Deep/Far South, while the industry for the South was in the Northern part of the Southern States. Also, many people of the South had family ties to one another in one way or another. Many also believed in the slave owner's rights to own slaves. In other words, the South was pretty close knit and did want slavery to expand Westwards and Northwards. These are the facts why so many people of the South joined for the cause.

Also, the South initially started the Civil War (the conflict itself) by attacking the afore mentioned Fort, not the North.

[unriggable]

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).

The day after the results were in, a state seceded. It's the major reason.