E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Library of Congress via AP
This 1862 photo made available by the Library of Congress shows soldiers next to a lone grave after the Battle of Antietam near Sharpsburg, Md.
When dawn broke along Antietam Creek on Sept. 17, 1862, cannon volleys launched a Civil War battle that would leave 23,000 casualties on the single bloodiest day in U.S. history and mark a crucial pivot point in the war. And yet it might never have occurred - if not for what a historian calls a "freakish" twist of fate. Days earlier, a copy of Gen. Robert E. Lee's detailed invasion orders, wrapped around a few cigars, accidentally fell in a farm field and were discovered by Union infantrymen who passed their stunning find up the chain of command, spurring action.
Library of Congress via AP
Dead Confederate soldiers in a ditch after the Battle of Antietam near Sharpsburg, Md.
Library of Congress via AP
The front side of Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee's Special Order No. 191 dated Sept. 9, 1862. The handwritten document detailed the Southern commander's audacious plans for an invasion of enemy territory that would propel the Confederates to victory. Carelessly left behind as Lee's army marched north, the copy was spotted in a field by Union infantrymen and relayed up the North's chain of command.
Library of Congress via AP
The back side of Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee's Special Order No. 191 dated Sept. 9, 1862.
Library of Congress via AP
President Abraham Lincoln and Gen. George B. McClellan sit in the general's tent after the Battle of Antietam near Sharpsburg, Md, in 1862. McClellan's skill in organizing and preparing troops was what made Lincoln elevate him to command, even though the president had long been frustrated by another defining trait of "Little Mac" - his paralyzing deliberateness and tendency to grossly exaggerate the forces he faced. As a general, he was the temperamental opposite of Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Library of Congress via AP
Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee
Leave a Comment:
What a senseless war. I can however understand why the South went to war. Being used by the North for their crops, without much representation in the government at how things were run.
wrong on all points. they had just as much representation as any other region. they seceded just because Lincoln won the election, not because of anything he had done.
So that's your understanding of the war, it was fought over crops, had nothing to do with freeing slaves, how sad.
After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was abolished everywhere in the nation. Victory for the North meant the end of the Confederacy and of slavery in the United States. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s, and you think it was over crops.
The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction. To the white South this strategy trampled their Constitutional right, whom some still believe it's their God given right to own men as slaves.
Used by the North for their crops!?! The South chose not to industrialize, because it was not consistant with their "peculiar institution" (slavery). The South had little immigration, because the jobs that most immigrants would qualify for were filled by slaves, thus most immigrants went north, and got jobs in factories. Additionally, the southern "aristocracy" was far too close the the traditional European aristocracy for most immigrants to feel comfortable. The South made tons of money from its agriculture, but it was must less suited to a wartime economy than the industrial North. In the South, it was a "Rich mans war, a poor mans fight." The vast bulk of white southerners really had nothing to gain from the war, but since the rich planters totally controlled politics, they were able to influence the vote to secede. Contrary to popular opinion, it was a very near thing in most states as far as the sucession vote was concerned. But as is usual, the radicals were able to force their will on the bulk of the population. In LA, the vote was against sucession, was again, the rabid sucessionists were able to overcome popular opinion. No, the South was not "used" by the North. They chose their situation, and paid the price. The Civil War is almost totally the result of wealthy southern planters attempting to protect their interests above those of their countrymen (and poorer neighbors.) The war was not fought to free the slaves! Your average Northerner didn't give a damn about the Africans. Had Lincoln said we were going to war to free the slaves, their would have been mass rebellion in the North. As far as most Northerners were concerned, the war was to preserve the Union. As far as the average Southerner was concerned, to quote Shelby Foote, we're fighting cuz y'all are down here.
@moshuluu. You might want to watch" Birth of a Nation" again. Had nothing to do with slavery
For those who still believe the Civil War was fought over states right's, you may want to review your U.S. history. In regards to the Civil War and the reasons behind the war, I suggest you start with the Missouri Compromise and work forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511.html
http://www.ushistory.org/us/23c.asp
Poor Robert E. Lee.
But, you know - sometimes I wonder if it wasn't all a mistake. Just divide along the Mason Dixon line and go on.
Would have saved us all a lot of trouble, even today.
R U sure, so you are getting your info from a 1915 silent propaganda film that sates "The Civil War divides friends and destroys families, but that's nothing compared to the anarchy in the black-ruled South after the war."
The black ruled south after the war? you may want to ask some of those "strange fruits hanging from the poplar trees" about how they "ruled" the south after the war.
Perhaps you should get a real education rather than your Liberty "university", texas board of "education" text book fairytale education.
You're kidding, right, Birth of a Nation, a 1915 movie that did nothing but promote a distorted viewpoint, one which you seem to subscribe to. Opinions vary, but mine is, what this movie recounts is the history of the Civil War through the eyes and experiences of Southern whites who vehemently opposed the political and social progress made by newly freed African Americans after the Civil War.
Thomas Dixon Jr believed that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.
Where do you people come from with your distorted ideas.
There's a scene in the movie of Klansmen, dressed in white sheets, on horses, dumping the body of the character Gus (?), a black man who they had killed for causing (they claimed) a little white girl to hurl herself off a cliff, and you think it's not about slavery?
If you want to base you ideas on a movie, maybe you should read, "An Absolute Massacre, The New Orleans Race Riot of July 30, 1866.
Actually, someone miss read the orders and thought that Nobama, nobraina, nonothing had been reelected. People were so pissed off it started the batttle.
While understanding that the war between the states was not fundamentally begun over the slave issue, but rather states rights. Slavery none the less was a despicable, cruel, and violent institution and it debased the slave owners nearly as much as the slaves they owned.
Obama No; Your understanding and historical perspective of a watershed event in American history befits your name and in general the current "tea party" in general. Stupid can't be fixed but ignorance can be;try reading more mainstream books and less Fox/Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck education.
@ Obama no
That is precisely the kind of vapidity that currently plagues conservatism. Have you even read the Constitution? That's a honest question. by the way. Does 3/5 ring any bells? The South was given a myriad of concessions that gave it more power per voting citizen than the North had. Why do you think the Constitution calls for a decennial census of people and not citizens? The South was able to count slaves toward its number of total people and thus gain seats in the House of Representatives; while it denied them the rights of citizenship. Had slaves been given the right to vote, they would have most certainly voted pro-North, and/or for the abolition of slavery.
There were just under 4,000,000 slaves counted in the 1860 census. That gave the South 14% of the total population count toward its allocation of House seats. To put that in perspective, the most populous state in America at the time was New York with 3.8 million. That means the South got a "free New York" in its count without having to grant voting rights. And finally, read the secession decrees from Southern states. The South declares unequivocally that its sole reason for attempting to dissolve the union is to protect the institution of slavery--not one state mentions anything about crops. If we, conservatives, lose this election because of fools like you presenting us as half-wits to the general populace...really I'm simply speechless at your utter lack of historical knowledge.
I ADORE history!
One Comment...BIG PROGRESSIVE. To all you nay sayers, watch it again.
Please re-read my post @ 1.5 and appear to be smarter than your friends when the Cival War once again comes up in a discussion.
I'm pretty sure it was a youtube video that led to this battle!
Would to God the South had won so that moronic tea party types could wallow away in their own Texas dustbowls and Mississippi swamps while they leave the rest of us alone. America would be better off without the Southern fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, and pseudo-patriotic lunacy. Go ahead, Johnny Reb. Get out your Stars and Bars, sing Dixie, and secede in peace.
Michael in S J,
Actually, both Slavery and State's Rights were imprints on the same side of the coin at the time. Lincoln's election was proof to the South of what they had feared, the North would over-populate and over-expand them, cutting off their access to new territory and influence. It is hard to believe that they expected Lincoln to immediately ban slavery and emancipate all slave everywhere on US territory. Lincoln had been ambivalent, defending a salve-owner's right in Illinois and subsequently attacking the institution (concept) of slavery a couple of years later. But his primary concern, "The House Divided", was the radically different tracks between Northern and Southern development and politics. Don't forget that Lincoln was related to Southerners by marriage, and had actually been born in Kentucky, a slave state.
The South was a major importer of English and French goods such as machinery, arms, hardware, jewelry and time-pieces, clothing, furniture, spice, tea and coffee. It exported, as almost the sole source, cotton to pay for these goods. Meanwhile, the North was a major exporter of manufactured goods such as cloth, firearms, furniture, metalwork, and raw metals. The South wanted LOW tariffs, where the North wanted strong HIGH tariffs to protect its industries. The North did not need outside sources of food, clothing, arms, hardware, metal goods or machinery; it made its own. But the South did not, and felt it would be strangled economically trying to trade cotton to a limited Northern market while buying Northern manufactured goods at inflated prices; or buying European goods and paying the North for the privilege. Support for this, up to half of CSA troops were equipped with foreign-bought weapons, and nearly as many Southen locomotives and almost all rail were English.
I'll be doing some research on this civil war display of yours. First: the photos posted have been adjusted and changed. Second: The photo of Abe Lincoln is totally bogus, the clarity is unreal quality and it has 1948 in the lower left hand corner.
Ultimately, The U.S. Civil War was fought over slavery. We will never get past the division that still exists between North and South one hundred and fifty years later as long as Southern states continue to teach revisionist history about the cause of the war.
The way I see it, after the war, General Grans said best "The South fought with courage and nobility. But I believe it was one of the worst causes men ever fought for."
Ultimately, The U.S. Civil War was fought over slavery.
That's exactly right. The war was fought over slavery. This idea that is was fought over states' rights stems mostly from revisionist history, mostly from Southern authors in the 1960s during the civil rights era.
Smoking kills - no warning labels on cigars back then?
BTW; I'm a smoker - most addictive substance on the planet - I wish they made it illegal.
The things the South prides its self on - not exactly deep thinkers. Intolerance is still destroying our country.
@Corewynn : You are right :
Civil war 1861 - 1865.
Declaration of emancipation : January 1, 1863, so well into the war.
Also, the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves from the Southern States and the territories in rebellion against the United States government.
He should have just emailed the thing.
The cause of the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The results of the civil war ended slavery.
A part of history not talked about is the life of the slaves. Yes they were property of the slave owners, but most all were treated well. They had a place to stay, food, clothing, no bills. This was their life, this is all they knew. Once the war was over, slave owners were forced to kick the slaves out, no where to go. Something should have been done to help former slaves adjust to life as a free person in a capitalistic society and economy. It was about like kicking your 12 yr old kid out and telling him he is on his own.
The issue of crops can't be separated from the issue of slavery. The southern economy was supported on the backs of its slaves, all else is BS!
The South left the Union to protect slavery. This event was proven by a Southern historian named Charles Dew in a book called Disciples of Disunion. Dew grew up believing in his Southern heritage. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were childhood heroes to him. He went on to get his PhD in history, and he studied the commissioners that South Carolina sent out to the other 14 slave states in the winter of 1860 and 1861 to convince the rest of the South to leave the Union. Dew was shocked to learn that these commissioners were NOT talking about states' rights that winter. They were talking about slavery, and telling the other states that they needed to leave the Union to protect it.
The North, on the other hand, did not go to war to end slavery. The North went to war to keep the Union together. Lincoln said that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single slave, he would not free a single slave, but if he had to free every slave to restore the Union, he would free every slave. Actually, Lincoln didn't have the legal authority to free every slave, because slavery was protected in the Constitution. And, because most white Southerners did not own slaves, Lincoln believed he could lure them to his side. Therefore, at first the North fought a "soft war," trying not to create any collateral damage. As the war dragged on, Lincoln realized that Southerners who did not won slaves weren't coming over to the Union's side. So, the war was changed to a "hard war," in which the North started to destroy the South's ability to make war by destroying its infrastructure. (See Sherman's march to the sea.) One of the resources the South had was the labor source of slavery. That is why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It only affected areas still in "open rebellion" because it was issued under Lincoln's war-making authority as Commander-in-Chief. (Remember, he could not constitutionally end slavery everywhere.) So, it didn't apply to slave states that never left the Union (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri), or Confederate areas that had been conquered by the North (Northern Virginia, Southern Louisiana, and most of Tennessee). It won't be until the 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865) that slavery would be abolished throughout the country.
And, by the way, I don't know where the first commentator gets this idea that the South went "without much representation in government." As has been pointed out above, the opposite was true. With the three-fifths rule, the South was OVER-REPRESENTED in the U.S. government before the Civil War.
oldcountry - see here for Antietam Lincoln image:
So, what was the Civil War about then? Don't try to claim state's rights, because the issue the Southern states seceded over was the argument that they had a right to practice SLAVERY.
If the slaves loved their lives, why were so many of them escaping to the North that Congress passed The Fugitive Slave Act?
Where did you learn your revisionist history?
Kaybee, kind of curious that you and others seem comfortable with bashing the south for their transgressions when almost all of our ancestors pretty much raped and stole much of what the native americans had before their arrival. Oh I get it. Theivery and rape is alright as long as your side is the one doing it. And no, I'm not a southerner, I live on the west coast. Just think it's funny how some of you feel the right to portray yourselves as high and mighty when your ancestors were likely guilty of similar offenses.
Calm,
No one here is condoning suggesting that the injustice to Native Americans. But it sure is strange that so many people will apologize for, rationalize, and otherwise explain away slavery.
Kevin wrote: "What part of history not talked about is the life of the slaves. Yes they were property of the slave owners, but most all were treated well. They had a place to stay, food, clothing, no bills. This was their life, this is all they knew. Once the war was over, slave owners were forced to kick the slaves out, no where to go. Something should have been done to help former slaves adjust to life as a free person in a capitalistic society and economy. It was about like kicking your 12 yr old kid out and telling him he is on his own."
Where do you get your history, a Thomas Dixon novel? There are a LOT of books written about the life of a slave. A good autobiographical one is Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup. (Also see, Barbara Field, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground, Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, and Ann Patton Malone, Sweet Chariot).
As for doing something to help former slaves adjust to freedom, it was tried. Ever hear of the Freedmen's Bureau, or the phrase "40 acres and a mule" from Gen. Sherman's Field Order No. 15? White Southerners resisted every attempt to help the transition from slavery to freedom. I'm sure that you heard of the KKK. And, when Reconstruction ended in 1877, white Southerners re-asserted their control over white society, and former slaves were relegated to an inferior social postion.
Since when does "the community" arrogate to itself the right to "collapse" opinions that may be controversial or provocative but do not violate basic standards of decency. Who here has the right to deny Obama No or Pedagoguish or any other person their right to be heard? Shame on you if you censor a comment just because it doesn't align with your narrow view. And shame on NBCNews for allowing it to happen. Open up these comments--all of them--and let people be heard.
Sorry Marty, but I don't see anyone on here trying to justify or explain away slavery. Reading some of the responses, some posters on here seem to delight in insulting southern folks when their ancestors are just as culpable of similar transgressions. I did read some posts stating that northerners owned a large portion of southern plantations. Is that what you were referencing?
@Old Country 11 - The photo isn't necessaily fake, but I would bet it was staged. They used very fine-grained silver, and the clarilty of photos back then could be great, better than most pixelated cameras these days. But they did use extended exposure time, so if they wanted a crisp photo, the subjects knew to sit still until told. Check the American flag and you'll see the blur from movement during the exposure. The "1948" isn't necessarily the date of the photo, butthe day it was catalogued or something.
The vast majority of (white) Southerners were too poor to own slaves and worked in fields themselves. Only the most wealthy of Southern families had slaves and plantations. A major misconception of history is that a lot of Southerners had slaves. That's like saying today most Americans live in million dollar homes and drive a Mercedes and have nannies to take care of their children. No, the War Between The States was NOT about slavery. FYI, a "civil war" by definition is two or more factions fighting over control over the SAME government. What happened between 1861 and 1865 was a fight for independence from government, not unlike the same mentality that started the Revolutionary War.
As a Southerner myself, I must say that I'm glad the North won. However, events in this nation over the last 25 years or so has made me realize that this nation is on the verge of another one: those who are dependent on government and those who want freedom from government tyranny. There is, of course, a happy medium for government needs, but both major political parties see a different future for America. It's rather ironic that our #1 Founding Father, George Washington, was against a two party (or more) political system. But America is a big family...and like families, relatives, etc., they will squabble and fight. Our Founding Fathers fought when the Continental Congress was formed, but they were able to work out their differences. Today, well, we can see how well Democrats and Republicans get along with one another in Washington (and their voters).
Good grief, they went to war because of the lack of one word... "Compromise"
Either side willing to give. Does that sound familiar? Maybe our president should pull our his "Webster" and read the definition...Sorta like when Stephanopoulos read to him the definition of "tax" - which btw, he also ridiculed.
Obama is constantly quoting and comparing himself to President Lincoln. Re:
Fine. But the issue here is what SHOULD be done "through government." Evidently Obama thinks that includes solar panels and Chevy Volts. He also seems to think that it is the government's role to rig the markets through regulation to punish fossil fuel based energy. In fact Obama thinks it is the government's role to rig the free enterprise system to ensure outcomes consonant with his vision of social justice. He just needs to find quote from Lincoln to back that up along with running up the debt to exceed GDP.
Obama is no Lincoln, but he does however make Jimmy Carter look good. :-)
Did you notice, all of you worshipers of the American flag, in the picture of Lincoln with McClellan, the flag is being used as a tablecloth. Nothing wrong with the flag being useful. You might even want to burn it for warmth. It's never good to worship "things."
successful troll is successful
10tacle - ..."those who are dependent on government and those who want freedom from government tyranny". Pretty narrow groups you have there. There are other options. I hope you're not insinuating as someone else has that Democrats all want to be taken care of, because that is so outstandingly false that I can only shake my head and laugh!
How careless!
Probably great cigars.
The cigars had nothing to do with it. These plans were left for the union to find. Now all you have to do is find out what group of men unassociated with the war would do such a thing. You dont find that this is extremely coincidental to say the least?
" When dawn broke along Antietam Creek on Sept. 17, 1862, cannon volleys launched a Civil War battle that would leave 23,000 casualties on the single bloodiest day in U.S. history and mark a crucial pivot point in the war. "
Of course, they're going to call this a 'pivot(al) point in the war. How else could they keep recruiting after 23,000 men lose their lives that day.
While I am thrilled to see something interesting on the news page for once...this has been known for years and years. Lee could have been destroyed if only the orders had been read...but is this really to be posted as news now? Weird
The term "casualties" includes but is not limited to deaths. And yes Lee was doomed after his Antietam debacle. He would never fully recover. Unfortunately while Lee's forces were trapped after Antietam with the Potomoc at his back, McClellan failed to push his advantage, in spite of Lincoln's orders, and Lee slipped his troops across the river into Virginia to fight another day. That's largely why Lincoln sacked McClellan afterwards. Had McClellan followed orders many historians believe the war would have ended much sooner. That was Lincoln's goal at that point.
Really? 23,000 men lost their lives that day?... Since when does casualty only mean death? In those days (like today) you could take a bullet, live and are still considered a causalty because in one way or another you were injured in combat.
Paul, You are exactly right. McClellan had created a well trained Army of the Potomac but once created, he could not bring himself to use it effectively for fear of loosing his creation. The northern commanders failed on numerous occasions to follow through on victorious days and finish off the Army of Northern Virginia.
Once Grant took over in the East, many senior commanders on both sides knew it was just a matter of time until the superior numbers of soldiers and equipment would end the war in a northern victory. James Longstreet, who had introduced Grant to his wife when they served together in St. Louis, tendered his resignation to Lee staing that "that man Grant will fight us every day until the end of this war."
After the Battle of the Wilderness, Grant's orders to mover to the left flank showed the Army of the Potomac that there were to be no more battles and retreats to Washington. He would indeed fight Lee everyday until the end.
Poor Robert E. Lee.
But, you know - sometimes I wonder if it wasn't all a mistake. Just divide along the Mason Dixon line and go on.
Would have saved us all a lot of trouble, even today.
Wish I could have met Abraham Lincoln! What a marvelous character he was!
It was the CIA ! I'm tellin ya!! They have a time machine!! NO !! REALLY!
There have always been false pretenses that religion, land boundaries or social differences drive us to war. Since the dawn of civilization, all skirmishes, battles and wars have been about economics. It is basic human nature to strive for a position of wealth and power to live in luxury while others toil beneath us for what little crumbs we may toss their way. The wealth and power always drives evil (and many once good) men mad with lust for even more. There can never be enough as these crazed men finally convince themselves that they deserve it all.
The vast majority of wealth of an entire land is eventually redistributed into the hands of the few that are blind to fact that they have become seriously outnumbered. The tremendous misery of the masses that produce all of that wealth with their blood,sweat and tears always results in insurrection, rebellion and revolution. Greed may be the most powerful motivating, addictive and dangerous force known to man that has destroyed every great and promising civilization throughout world history.
Our wise founding fathers sought to invent a Democratic Republic immune to the greed of the British monarchy that sparked the American Revolution. They declared a united nation of thirteen tiny colonies on the principles of equality in the pursuit of happiness for all and a government for the people, by the people. A constitution to be drafted and signed by all 13 colonies required much debate and compromise. One of the most conflicting and demanding issues to stand in the way was slavery. Constitutional amendments were put in place to address this issue and all other conflicting issues that may arise in the future. One of the mightiest nations and the greatest civilization of free nations in the world was born of their creation.
Many will argue that the American Civil War was fought over slavery or states rights. I respectfully disagree. It was fought over economic supremacy. The north was enriched with great industrial wealth. The south was enriched as the bread basket of America. The north was limited to a single vote for each of it's free citizens as representation in Congress. The south had that single vote plus the 3/5 of a vote placed by the master of each slave that was prohibited from voting. The north pushed for abolition of slavery to restore true representation in Congress.
The wealthy northern industrialists had to pay each and every free American that labored in industry. The wealthy southern plantation owners paid a lump some for each slave and enjoyed free labor from the slaves and their children for decades. All moral and legal persuasions cast aside, the Civil War was born out of greed by the wealthy industrialists and the wealthy plantation owners.
I would hope that every American grieves equally for each Rebel and Yankee soldier that bravely fought and died for his way of life even under false pretenses. I would hope that every northern and southern U.S.A. citizen realizes that the Civil War is long over. Every southern citizen recognizes and salutes the American flag. Every southern citizen is as willing to serve our nation in military duty as those in the north.
Our division today is of partisan nature driven once again by economic disparity. Not the north against the south or the red states against the blue. It's the greedy few with unending lust for wealth and power against those of us working hard everyday that own the land constitutionally and provide all of the wealth with our labors. It has nothing to do with "class warfare". It has everything to do with right against might.
One of the best explanations for what led to the Civil War that I have ever encountered....actually THE best....excellent observations....we should learn from the past....it would be of great help to us in order to understand why the things that are happening now are happening at all...
Steven-1134633
Uuummmm, maybe because it happened 150yrs ago Monday?? Maybe it's worth a mention.
commonsense, basically agree with you, but your conclusive entry i can't see. you are describing class warfare, why be afraid to call it what it is?
They had lined notebook paper in that day and age? Also, it was Bradys' assistant who took the battlefield photos-
I can't think of any wars that were really necessary. Unfortunately, there is no politically correct way to rid the world of evil people, because evil is relative and to some, justifiable. We didn't learn anything from the Civil War, WWI, WWII or Vietnam, and are just repeating history everywhere we send troops to 'make peace and sell democracy'. If you're gonna fight a war, FIGHT A WAR, don't just go looking for the evil, because you can't find it or defeat it.
War does not determine who is right, just who is left.
How very True !!! In ALL Wars...even those today. My son served 3 tours in Iraq, my brothers in the Gulf War and My Dad 2 tours in Viet Nam...The Facts of why, when and such are sadly discovered much later after these "end" and usually by that time we are "brainwashed" and refuse to believe the truth. I personally see no point in "rescuing" people who don't want to be rescued...nor arguing over religion or race to the point of blood shed. The facts of the reasons for the Civil War are there for those desiring to learn the truth...just as they are for our current involvements...I did not view the war to be about slavery alone...as mentioned many northerners WERE the PLANTATION elite in the South...just as we now overlook the reasons for conflict......OIL..... ?I think it is sad when WE feel we have all the answers..and our way is the only way...ask a native American how it feels to loose your country, your language and your culture....RACE issues are not ALL Black and White...
and the VICTORS get to write the historical accounts. The only "true" account of the end of VietNam is "Declare VICTORY...and then RUN LIKE HELL!"
by the way girl - "race issues" result from an individual's inability to look at someone and see beyond the "skin color". Myself, I'm more of an "intelligencist" - I tend to judge people on what I perceive to be their intelligence (but not based on outward appearance)
Henry Ford once said "If you rounded up the 5 largest war profiteers in New York City you would end war for all time.
You must find it an exhausting and annoying world.
Canary in the coal mine, you're an oxymoronic douche!
In grad school I learned that it was not Lee but it was Stonewall Jackson. this is news to me.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back Canary. Your ability to judge someone on your implied rational 'perception' of someones intelligence appears to be mostly based on their political or religious views rather than their intelligence which doesn't really cast you in an unbiased light. If intelligence is the diatribe that partisan hacks spew on this site, then we as a country are sorely lacking intelligence.
The American Revolutionary War was necessary, and so was WWII. You probably won't see this response, though.
the Civil War ended up removing and clamping down on ignorant southerners... a good war... thank u karma!
Oh Please! A good war,thank you karma! You probabhtly didn't know what the civil war was,till you read this article!
Way down south in the land of Cotton old times there are not forgotten,Look Away Look Away Look Away Dixieland!
Guess where that song's from!
Dan, I think you misunderstand the ideas behind karma.
I don't know about a "good war" but the Civil War was about a group of people who wanted freedom to decide their own lives. As an African American lesbian who traveled 15 hours to another state for my same-sex marriage, I understand completely.
What I do know is that separatist movements are still active in the United States. Watched a show on PBS about a failed one in 1770s NC/TN--State of Franklin.
One think is for sure, we Americans are a feisty bunch of people!
Check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin
Jon,
If you've ever been "down-South" or even to the "Border States", you'll see that the Old South isn't quite dead. Certainly racism (abundant on both sides during the War, including within the abolitionst societies) still lives. States Rights as supreme is a keynote of the Tea Party, despite tbe real inability to regulate, control, or assure uniformity of laws between states. And some of those places still flying the "Stars ad Bars" really do believe in the rebirth of an old-fashioned agarian, fundalmentalist Christian south of segregation and privilege for a few.
Sorry Dan @5
Apparently the job is still unfinished!
As Dan and Michael in SJ prove, ignorance abounds throughout the country.
It also turned children into orphans, women into widows, hale and hearty men into cripples -- and people into corpses. And you think it was a "good" war.... May karma catch up with you, and quickly.
@DoubtingToni; Wikipedia is NOT really a trustworthy source -- because anyone who happens to have an account there, ANYONE, can go in and edit anything they want, any time they want to.
Quoting and citing Wikipedia is like saying that you learned it from a friend who heard it from their sister who heard it from a cousin who heard it from their uncle who heard it from a guy on an airplane who heard it from a kid talking about a TV show from three years ago.
You sound like an elementary school child. You should kill yourself because we wouldn't want you to pollute the gene pool, would we?
Waste. The Intercontinental Railroad did get built. Many profited from the needed materiel for the fighting forces, et al. Wars - population control?
I"f you've ever been "down-South" or even to the "Border States", you'll see that the Old South isn't quite dead."
Is that ever the truth. Go to small towns in Mississippi, Alabama or Louisiana (all are like 3rd world nations) and just listen. Not much has changed.
Ben Franklin said "There has never been a 'GOOD WAR' or a BAD PEACE". It is STILL TRUE TODAY
Ignorance usually is apparent within the context of one's comments either written or verbal....Natchez Mississippi was spared during Shermans March......Why? They Plantations were owned by NORTHERN families including the slaves who worked them.....Google it sweetie.... I have lived in several northern states....in Europe and the south....at least the PEOPLE I know have an understanding of Karma and realize usually the one spouting ignorance is truly the ignorant !!1
Dan-1845101:
You are an ignorant ASS !
Why call southerners ignorant? Less than 1% of southerners owned slaves. What they were fighting for wasnt slavery. It was their way of life and their sovereignty. They broke away from the USA which was their legal and constitutional right to do so. The northerners who were just pawns fought a war that they themselves didnt want to fight, there were riots in the north where people were killed because they wouldnt be drafted. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south, Many thousands of slaves that were in the northern states werent released until 7 years AFTER the war was over. So how could this have been a war over slavery????
Karma? I'll take caramel corn.
Toni---the secession you referred to looked to be before the War for Southern Independence. That is, unless you made a typo in your posting. You put the State of Franklin in the 1770s. It was actually a bit later--the 1780s.
The word "Ignorant" has apparently come to mean "anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint."
Kind of curious that some of you seem comfortable bashing the south for their transgressions when almost all of our ancestors pretty much raped and stole much of what the native americans had before their arrival. Oh I get it. Theivery and rape is okay as long as your side is the one doing it. And no, I'm not a southerner, I live on the west coast. Just think it's funny how some of you feel the right to portray yourselves as high and mighty when all of our early European ancestors were guilty of similar offenses.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN........What a Fool he was!
Girl, you shouldn't be commenting on the ignorance of others. Please look at a map. Sherman's March to the Sea began at Chattanooga, moved through Atlanta, and on to the sea at Savannah. Natchez, Mississippi, is nowhere near that route. I do not know the history of what did or did not happen at Natchez during the Civil War, but I know it had nothing at all to do with "Sherman's March". I do know that Savannah was saved from destruction by its mayor telling the Union Army that they would not resist. I am personally thankful for that, Savannah is a beautiful, historic city (and I'm a damnyankee from Michigan!).
An excellent account of the Battle of Antietam and McClellan's failure to exploit the found Order 191 can be found in The Landscape Turned Red
Is that a movie and/or book that happens to be "based on" the battle and the events leading to it -- or is an actual, documentary account of it? And WHO IS THE AUTHOR?
Thanks, Tarpon, almost forgot. Stephen Sears - author (easy to remember b/c of Sears Roebuck). What it was like - info taken from diaries, letters, etc. on the Battle of Antietam. A great writer on Civl War. Thanks for that ping.
Agnon -- from Amazon: Landscape Turned Red, winner of the Fletcher Platt Award for best non-fiction
book about the American Civil War, is the definitive work on this bitter battle. Sears bases his account on diaries, dispatches, and letters. STEPHEN W. SEARS is the author of many award-winning books on the Civil War, including Gettysburg and Landscape Turned Red. The New York Times Book Review has called him "arguably the preeminent living historian of the war's eastern theater."
Obviously you're far more educated and intelligent than the rest of us, but your accusatory tone assuming people are citing inferior sources is just a tad annoying.
Good thing that the South was comprised of armed citizens, under the 2nd amendment. It allowed the South to defeat the tyranical Gov'ment in Wa DC.
Good thing the nigga slaves weren't armed, or they would have exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and killed their uber-rich white "massa's". Oh, right only those legally recognized as being a person could be a Citizen -- and a nigga slave wasn't even considered to be a person at the time.....
And yes, I deliberately use the term "nigga", because an indentured WHITE servant -- even though technically a slave -- was still legally a "person".
Good thing that the South was comprised of armed citizens, under the 2nd amendment. It allowed the South to defeat the tyranical Gov'ment in Wa DC.
You are kidding aren't you???
Hmm, wonder why the slaves could not get guns?...I thought that gun control was useless because anyone can a gun, whether legal or no.
I wouldn't call it senseless, it was literally a battle of who's sense was going to be the American way.. The confederate system would have ended in a nazi-like fashion had they won the war. Depending on who you ask I'd say it was either a good or bad thing, ( the south losing ) , because laws would be so different and the majority of the people considered 'undesireable' would be forced into slavery or confinement or put to death. But then again, we've evolved to the point that slavery is actually legal again on technical grounds... You can be forced to labor in prison camps and can technically be bought and sold into contracts to this day. You have the freedom to go out and learn for insane prices that only the privelidged can afford, or the freedom to struggle trying to start a business, or to get a @!$%#ty job that basically walls you for life unless you feel like starting over or taking the time to progress... Capitalism isn't really freedom. It's just, capital.
I think Roman would be a better historical comparison than Nazi; and I am sorry that you feel like you cannot compete in a capitalistic society. However, I don't think you will find the rest of the world any better.
I'm not under the impression I can't compete, I was born to a well enough off family. I am just saying there are no systems of government capable of effectively combining the fundamental attributes of capitalist and communist society without leaving swaths of it's population open and vulnerable to poverty. In any class system there will be poor and rich, but to this scale , in this day in age, is ridiculous. We are on the verge of socio-economic collapse and we can barely hold our own system together, let alone going out on some crusade to stop the rest of the world from starting what WILL be the third world war. Any day now. Some would say it has already begun. I can tell you it is only a matter of time before a major event takes place that puts all of us in every region of this planet at risk of losing what we have now and what we are working to gain in the future.
Two excellent comments Cameron....albeit, the second comment. most people are going to say, take the "tin-foil" off your head because those type people believe America is untouchable. I, like you, believe WWIII is in motion, how long will it be before it is full-blast, I don't know, but I do believe the ground work is being laid, and no, it DID NOT start under President Obama, this has been going on for decades, and, eventually, it's going to blow.
Cameron,
The South's dependence on cotton and the plantation system is what doomed it. The commercial agriculture model slowed the development of industry and made the entire region dependent on "foreign" (Northern, British or French) markets for their sole good, cotton. Further, the inability of states to abandon their "rights" to do something so simple as adopt uniform railroad specifications, crippled intra-state trade. The best comparison of the Confederated States of America government is the Continental Congress or the subsequent Confederation Congresses prior to adopting the Constitution. All failed to support of finance the armies and navies which fought for them. All failed to set aside personal, local or state prejudices for the larger picture of a greater country.
The CSA actually owes much of its philosophy to Thomas Jefferson, a state's rightist agarian idealist. Ironically, Jefferson had a black slave mistress, constantly conducted agricultural trials but never exploited their results, developed a whole series of plantation industries (lime-making, black-smithing and a nail factory (at a time buildings were burned to salvage their nails), brick kilns, and a commercial kitchen) which he also never supported or exploited, railed against extravagent expenditure but died penniless, and railed against an absolute President but with no Congressional approval bought 1/3 of what is now the lower 48 states from France. The Southern leaders read his anti-Federalist tracts written to answer fellow Virginians Madison and Monroe, but failed to learn the lessons of his life.
The truth of Southern life was that poor whites may have looked down on the black slaves, but often lived in worse condition, on land often rented from or mortgaged to the local plantations. Their was no obligation to feed these people, get medical assistance (as an owner of a $1000-2000 slave probably did), and NO general education. So a poor white share-cropper was no better than a slave, just free. Which was the other great cause of Southern lack of development. The tools of reading, learning, the law, science and engineering were all in the hands of the top few percent.
The true death blow to the South did not come at Appomattox, but rather a third of the world away in Egypt. Where in 1864, the British found they could grow cotton on their own plantations to supply the needs of not just their mills, but all of Europe. Cotton bales in the 1865 South were good only for stopping bullets.
Cameron, you sound like a reasonable person, just one thing you missed, the Civil War was over taxes.
The South was paying over 80 % of US tax in the form of indirect export duties.
Never believe anyone is going to do much for another. This from an old Wayne University man from the middle of Detroit, Mich.
You are right " You can't run the world"
the Civil War was over taxes.
Not even close. The primary source government revenue at that time was alcohol, not cotton. The was was fought over slavery.
Charlie: My impression, why a Civil War? Halt the secession - No. 1, caused by economic and social differences between the North and South, which then led to states' right vs. fed. govt., which included slavery as primary reason, taxes, etc. followed.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. It didnt free the slaves in the north. Those slaves weren't released until 6-8 years after the Civil War was over. This proves that the war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over control of the south. The south legally separated itself from the USA and had every right to sovereignty. This was a war of aggression. Lincoln himself wanted to repatriate ALL the negroes back to Africa. In his own words. "It is not fair that you live amongst us nor is it fair that we live amongst you, the only satisfactory answer is to found a homeland on your own continent where your people can thrive. "
There's a site, The Freeman Institute, that gives detailed information on the Black cultures, their advancements in early civilization, and inventions in the last 100 years. Who knew? Looking for Stephen Wright, scientist, apparently he's a part of this site. Wright says, "Since light travels faster than sound, isn't that why some people appear bright until you hear them speak?" One more, "Half the people here are below average."
Golly – G ee, seems like we need a refresher course in American history. The Civil War was not
about slavery, it was about cotton and the cotton gin being invented, it was about the US of A taking property, namely Fort Sumter, part of North Carolina.
When the south started exporting ginned cotton from their ports to England and France it
forced the northern textile mills to pay more for raw cotton and complaints poured into DC. The mill owners forced the government to start charging a export fee on the cotton growers.
The growers got a little upset about this and ask that their states be removed from the Union. To enforce their export fees and stop the states from rebelling, it was ordered that Fort Sumter and the North Carolina Island it set on, be made US property. Oops. Also the powers that be, said no state has the right to leave the Union. Which of course is allowed in the Constitution.
Now things started to get a little rough, North Carolina kicked the feds out of Fort Sumter and more and more Southern States succeeded, making for some real bad PR. What really capped off the young conflict was the organizing of the succeeded states into a unified Confederated States of America, CSA, and the
election of President Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln knew the North was in trouble when the South ask England and France to join the fray. Then he had a idea, an idea that went against what he believed in but one that could save the Union, he freed the slaves. France and England had recently renounced slavery and withdrew their support of the South. Will we all know what happen next.
Being of Scotch heritage that was held as slaves to the Irish for 200 years I feel the pain of slavery. But we must remember history as it really was, not like we think it should be.
Um, Sumpter is in S.C. I thought.
Cameron, your first comment was so spot on, it actually gave me chills. It's like you were describing MY life down to the letter. Ha ha. Nevertheless, I still try to put things in perspective and tell myself that I'm fairly fortunate to have been born in this country.
That would have been awful, of course; on the bright side, your longevity genes are rockin' the ages!
Charlie,
I do not know what history books you have read, but have you ever heard the term "King Cotton". It was very popular back then when referring to the South. Slavery was legal even in the North till the Emancipation Proclamation three years into the war.
Lazarus
Being that they don't teach cursive handwriting anymore in schools, who except 'old-timers' will be able to read the original documents?
Ya, I think Lee lost lost because his officers could not understand his written orders.
I just visited a charter school in Monument, CO and they were teaching cursive to grade schoolers.
It's still being taught at a public school in Michigan, too.
Some second graders were introduced to cursive in my school. A teacher I taught with used teaching cursive as a reward for students who showed pride and improvement in their printing towards the end of the school year. The rest of the class was told they would have to wait until third grade...I don't believe I ever saw such a rapid improvement in printing in my life! It is in the method of the teacher...Princeton just has amazing teachers!
Tom -- you hit the nail on the head. We don't teach history in our schools today. We teach some watered down version something of the past and I don't know what it can be called. It's worthless. A huge number of college students think WWII was the US and Germany against Russia.
No one teaches history or ever has. It's a conceit to imagine it. As someone mentioned above the winners always write the history.
Have a look at the Bayeux Tapestry. In it you'll see French revisionist history for the battle of 1066.
Watch "Birth of a Nation"
And "Reefer Madness".
Watched it. Why did you suggest it?
Found it to be an interesting movie. In terms of cinematic value, I like how the movie was filmed. However, I was repulsed by the end of the movie by the ideology.
Actually my wife is going to do postgraduate research on a theme in that movie--when societies are stressed, people tend to vent their frustrations on vulnerable groups. After the Civil War, embittered southern whites targeted the the former slaves.
The movie does a good job of pointing out how people, impotent in many respects, must exert power to relieve the stress. Apparently, discrimination, torture, and murder are better than acceptance, positive ways to make change, and prayer.
If it was up to R U Sure, He/She would masturbate to the movie Birth of a Nation while there was still slavery in the South.
@WX once again it was not about slavery! That hump on your back....Book Bag or Boy Friend?
Share what you are smoking R U Sure
R U: Not necessary to stoop to meat's level - just hope he doesn't breed.
Meat sneaked into the gene pool while the lifeguard was not looking.
And "Freaks"
Southern whites have always been a problem for decent American society.
That Bull sh-t and you know it. go count your food stamps and tell us how terrible it is...
@GayAtheistMarine & @ Dan1841something above......Please tell me why 95% of my new clients consist of Northerners moving down to my Southern state......if we are an ignorant and un-decent people as you indicate in your posts, why is this happening.....knowing you two won't be moving here is a great comfort to me......Please read up on your history and don't rely on friends and families for your information. Quit being mouth puppets....
@Polvorita, Yankees have done such a good job up north, they are coming south, to share their lifestyle. Here in Florida, we have been putting up with their @!$%#e for 60 years.
John and Polvorita, a "tsk, tsk" is aimed your way for responding to that blatantly ludicrous statement. It deserves nothing. I didn't even tag it as "inflammatory". (There is no way to tag something as "comically stupid"-I checked.)
Please tell me why 95% of my new clients consist of Northerners moving down to my Southern state...
Ever hear of anyone from the South retiring to the North?
The south is being targeted once again. This time its being invaded by northerners trying to overwhelm the culture and traditions of the south. Another targeted area is the State of Iowa where illegal aliens are being ushered there with their chili beans and 3rd world culture and morality. Its an attempt to destroy the foundation of the breadbasket of America.
Getmad: Are you Native American?
Ever hear of anyone from the South retiring to the North?
Ever hear of the underground railroad?
The Confederate's were traitors to their country, pure and simple. Glorifying them as anything else is traitorous.
Democrats are a member of a Godless party.
Clearly it was God's will that these orders were found, although the event resulted in the death of thousands, decency and right prevailed.
It is not surprising how many people who were educated mostly by the federal government don't know the history of their own country. It was started because the federal government wanted to have more power than the states the slavery issue did not come up till the last year of the war.
R U Sure- a surrogate for Ann Coulter. Do you just repeat everything you hear on Fox?
It is not surprising how many people who were educated mostly by the federal government
Well moron -- they were not educated by the federal government. Most people were educated by LOCAL SCHOOLS. And some of the things they're being taught is insane -- such as the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Glad I don't have the same god as U RAre you some kind of moron? The southerners were the only ones in the war that were fighting for their land and people. The northerners weren't fighting for their values or homeland. The southerners didnt want to have anything to do with the north. The Great Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the south, it didnt free the slaves in the north, and there were many thousands there. Those slaves weren't released till 6-8 years AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER!!!!!!
Not actually so, since before the war citizens of all states had a stronger allegiance to their home states than to the Federal Government. Lee refused to command an army which Secretary Blair offered him with the mission of stopping the rebellion in South Carolina because he would not raise his sword against his fellow Virginians. Had he taken the offer, many of the other seceding states might not have followed South Carolina and Virginia into the Confederacy.
Before the war documents were written "The United States are" after "The United States is"
Out of curiosity, what mythical deity does your party blindly worship?
Mythical deity, your people are so desperate. Directly attacking God. This is new for you guys, kind of a scorched earth policy eh? All your doing is giving the Elect every reason they need for these final days.
Anxiety is a clear sign of guilt ...
Terrible, unstable hand writing, many corrections and changes, clearly signs of a very nervous man.
The good guys won, thank God.
My wife and I visited Antietam, Harpers Ferry and Appamattox Court House during our historical tour Spring Break. We like to support our National Parks and museums. The history is ours to debate and decide how to use to better our lives today.
Very few visitors were at the Antietam National Park (which is precisely why we vacation in October and March/April), so it was quiet and peaceful. It was hard to imagine the sights, sounds, and smells of the bloody battle there. . . until we saw the photographs.
At Antietam, I studied the pictures of men heaped into a ditch or crumbled on the ground. Besides the dated clothes and haircuts, I saw faces of men I see everyday. I cried thinking about the family and friends who waited for men who would never return home.
When I looked at the expansive fields again, they looked bleak. At the Burnside's Bridge, chills ran through me. I don't know if it was the cool breeze from the last of winter or tortured spirits. Either way, I was so glad to see a bus of students pull up.
Check out this link for more information on the Battle:
http://www.nps.gov/anti/photosmultimedia/photogallery.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/antietam-150-anniversary_n_1886826.html
DoubtingToni, Thanks for the article's reminder, amid all these cerebral comments covering modern subjects, politics, character judgments and even if the war served any value, that real men fought and bled that day. Who were loved and fell, never to return home.I have been where you visited, especially Antietam also when it was quiet. And also seen those photos. I carried in my hands an actual bullet from another battlefield as I gazed across those empty haunted fields.Then later shared the bullet with my son as I helped teach him about the Civil War.
So often we read history or such events like this box found and skim over them, unable to really stop and let what we are reading sink into our thoughts.To visualize what is happening, what the day was like, what people talked about, cooked. It seems strange how the carelessness of one person, could change the course of a battle and affect so many lives. Then again as history has shown, serendipity so often has played a major role in every field of science,knowledge, discovery, progress and adventures of mankind. I dare say, we would still be in the stone age without it.Cigar anyone?
Yes, a terrible terrible waste of good Christian white men. When you look at all the wars we have fought it appears to come down to that.
The war could have been avoided if the southern US had embraced freedom.
Polka,
No, The war was more about maintaining a life of privilege for a small percentage of the populace under an agarian economy highly depending on imported goods. Two great ironies:
Within about ten years, the Old South political machine had re-emerged along with many of the old plantations. Now both blacks and poor whites were equal. Equally under the thumbs of the note-holders on their share-cropping land, growing the same crops for the same, or less, than before.
And as the Northern industrialization rose and spread, the capitalists and large-scale industrialists created a form of wage-slavery and company-town model, which used debt and low wages to bond their workers to them.
In the South, local law enforcement, same police, and mob violence became tools of enforcement of the privileged mien. This model continued through the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's-1970's. In the North, not only local law enforcement (which might be sympathetic to the workers) but hired private police, state police and even quasi-military troops (National Gaurd, even regular troops of the Army in the Pullman strike) were used to suppress worker unrest. The upheaval in the North began in the 1870's and continued through the 1950's as almost an internalised class-based civil war.
Unfortunately, I can see a return to the same Northern model at some point in the future as more and more not-privileged, but comfortable Americans find their access to the economy shut-off. And this affects even the poor (working or idle) as fewer dollars flow to them through the ever-shrinking middle-class. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, Federalist or Tea Partier libertarian, the same conditions will arise. First fighting amongst the elements of the lower classes for assistance and access, followed by the ascension of a leadership bent on "retaking" the country for the forgotten.
If that sounds Marxist, I am sorry, but Marxism is the inevitable pendulum swing from unchecked Capitalism. BTW, Marx created none of this, he observed the history of classic and contemporary societies, regarding what we might see as the dark times as the most stable, and therefore the most desirable. I don't agree with Marx' conclusion, but I have to agree that there must be a leveling and reinstitution of access to opportunity.
Polka you are not only poorly informed but factually wrong. Secession is a Constitutionally protected right. Try reading it again. Also the only way to avoid this war was for the south to give up complete authority over them. Of course that authority would be held by the northerners heaping more taxes on the south. They would have been the early version of us, economic slaves.
Also understand this, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. The many thousands of slaves in the North weren't released until 6-8 years after the Civil War was over. If the war was fought over slavery....... How do you explain that???
Polka14: "...if the southern states had embraced freedom" FOR ALL. (I don't mean to smarta$$.)
Secession isn't a right as it violates the constitutional rights of American citizens.
The Civil War was fought to liberate the southern US from Confederate occupation.
My history books taught me that the US government wanted to increase the import taxes even higher on the slaves being brought into the USA. When the president and congress refuse to make a deal with the Southern plantation owners these rich and powerful men decided to divide the USA into 2 different countries. It had nothing to do with the slaves....President Lincoln or no one else in the North tried to help the slaves that had no jobs because plantations were burnt..they had no money and many where starved to death while others died fighting against the Northern army. Many ran away out into the country side while the Northern carpetbaggers "rich business people from the North" stole and scammed the devastated southern people, both black and white of everything of value that was left.
It's interesting how many people, especially northerners, seem to think that the South "went to war" against the north. They didn't. Lincoln decided that he would use force to bring the southern states back into the union. Jefferson Davis said, "We only want to be left alone". But then the winners also win the propaganda war.
Too bad for them, they do not get to dictate anything. Leaving the Union is treason and is a violation of Constitutional law as it violates the rights of American citizens.
jasperark, who fired on whose army first? Seceding is one thing but, actually attempting to kill another nation soldiers is an act of war.
jasperak,
No, Actually the Civil War was started by a bunch of hot-heads in South Carolina, who fired on Ft Sumter without any orders or authorization. The fort was low on supplies and men were scheduled to be rotated. The Navy was actually NEGOTIATING about the resupply of the fort by 2 ocean-going tugs (yes, they had them back then) which were already at sea. The shelling began while these negotiations were still proceeding, and before ANY seccession memorandum was signed.
Actually, there is a political reason to believe that Lincoln would have sought a negotiated settlement of the slavery issue with some sort of compensation over time. But to assume that he would have immediately inserted non-existant Northern troops into the South is a joke. He already knew that many of his top commander/soldiers were Southern He would have also known that the agarian nature of the South left few strategic targets, but many battlefields. On the other hand, the Southern attitude was one of a short, decisive vivtory by the South's superior commanders and troop spirit. Neither side was really well prepared, which explains the relative calm of early 1862. And both sides primarily fought with conscripts and state regimental or company volunteers, often armed privately.
Yet the South fired upon Ft. Sumpter first, without the Union taking any offensive action. Additionally, the South didn't bother to wait and see if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of secession. Which was quite possible, considering that the chief justice was a southerner. Instead, they were gung-ho for war, and fired upon ships attempting to resupply Ft. Sumpter (a federal property), and then Ft. Sumpter itself. Lincoln himself said (and I parphrase) If I can preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves I will, If I can preserve it by freeing some of the slaves, I will, and If I can preserve it by freeing none of the slaves, I will. Clearly, Lincolns major objective was the preservation of the union.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south, the slaves in the north (many thousands) were not freed until AFTER the war was over. 6-8 years after it was over. Clearly the war was not fought over slavery. It was about control of the south plain and simple.
Henry Clay presented a well thought out compromise to Congress. Too late. Once the smell of war and money is in the air, all is lost.
Get, deny it all you want but the bottom line is, the Civil War was all about slavery. Technically, it was about states rights but, the thing the south was afraid of was that with the addition of new states, is if more states free states joined the union than slave states, slavery could be voted out and there would be nothing the slave states could do about it but, if states had the right to make their own rules concerning slavery, then it wouldn't matter how many slave or free states there were. I guess you could say it was about controlling the south but, it was about controlling the south concerning the slavery issue.
Peace was possible before Sumter, but Lincoln insisted that succession meant war, just as some of the stubborn scholars today insist that succession was treason and deserved punishment. It was just an excuse to preserve Lincoln's power. Letting the South succeed would have been better than six hundred thousand deaths and the destruction of the South. The scars are still visible. Lincoln reigned over the greatest slaughter of Americans ever, and that's a fact. It could have - and obviously should have been avoided at all costs. Especially since it didn't really free anyone.
jasperakr, "didn't really free anyone?" I know a few million people who might disagree with you on that issue. If the north had just walked away, how long do you think the south would have clung to slavery?
Hmmm starting to sound more like today::::::racist is alive and well!
It is now called Anti-Colonialism.
R U Sure,
NO, that was the rebellion against the French, British, and even the US against Western control of Asian, African, or South American people.
I believe that the appropriate title is Elitism. Choose your sub-category: Racism, Wealth, Power, Intellect, Old Money/Power and Religion. Whatever your sub-category, you'll be superior to the majority of Americans. Race: Whites (minus Hispanics) are now supposed to be about 49%, but included some mixed backgrounds. (Even Asians, Blacks or Hispanics can look down on other nationality origin groups or economic levels) Wealth: There's rich and well-off, but today seems to demand well over $100million in convertible wealth. (becoming increasing the land of those who use other people's money to leverage their gain, with no recompempense) Power: Whose numbers are on yiur Smartphone, and do they answer? Intellect: Does Government and industry come to you for answers? (May become either Wealth or Power, but not assured,) OldMoney/Power: Does the mention of your birth name suck the air from the room? (Think Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Bush, DuPont, etc) And Religion: Are you the stalwart of the ONE TRUE faith? (Almost exclusively limited to a few ultra-right Roman Catholics and mass-market tele-evangelist Fundamental preachers. (Who seem to routinely self-immolate in episodes of financial misdeeds and sexual exploits)
Ascribe to the South what you will: racism, wealth, power, intellect, old money/power, or religion; you'll now find the same in every state in the union. The true sentiment of the Old South was a me-first preservation of the old society, much like Britain during the Magna Carta and later in the early 19th century when Parliment was reformed). Call it slavery or call it state's rights, in either caseit was really preservation of privilege.
Racism, Interesting subject but not what we are talking about. This is a search for truth, those who wish to cover it up tend to use race as a diversion. We're not buying it.
Wow awesome pics! Can't say I cared for the bodies in the pit one though.
I too am mesmerized by photography of that era up until at least 1935. I'm 64 and I remember my Mom telling me a number of times when I mention that time period "it's because you lived during that time."
No, I'm not crazy, least I don't think so…LOL
moshuluu,
Take comfort. You aren't the only one.
JustGetAlong.
You just found out that War is not clean and antiseptic.
The photo that you cited and thousands of others by Mathew Brady and his contemporaties showed anyone who saw them that war is always messy and dirty.
Photographs from that era are even more impressive when considering how difficult photography was back then.
Richard-2714364:
No not correct. Interesting unlogical leap of logic. I am not as sheltered as you care believe. All I said was I didn't particularly liked looking at the photo. If you do, maybe you have some deep seated issues? I don't disagree that it should be displayed. It is a fact of life and war and it was some 150 years ago.
Let me profile you: Your a middle aged man that probably has seen combat at some point in your life. You feel the longevity of your existence entitles you to make snap judgements about people to make yourself feel intellectually superior and wise beyond anyone else that is your junior.
... don't mind me, folks. As usual, I'm just checking in for my daily dose of monumental American Ignorance; its just one of the attributes that makes us truly "exceptional". Don't you just love how exceptional we're becoming? Seventeenth in math and science, world wide, behind countries the likes of Slovenia, for "god's sake"! But, the social "wing-nuts", among us, will sign up for another unfunded war at the drop of textbook. As a good friend of mine used to say, "if you want to hide something from the average American 'patriot', hide it between the covers of a book. The Civil War wasn't about slavery! Really? That's rich! And, it seems, we're becoming more hopeless as a nation, by the day. Enjoy what's to come of the darkness...
A man name Brady was the main photographer who had access to all the battle sites and politics in the War of Agression against the Southern States.
He did not publish the body of his work until after the war and because fear and anger was still so passionate, it was much later after the War.
If you have the type of imagination that can see images in your mind of what you read, then read about the actual battles of the Civil War. 1st. Chancellorsville/The Wilderness for example, was fought at just before dark. The historical reports of the soldiers who fought there, spoke of the fires in the woods that slowly consumed the wounded as the wild pigs would eat them alive. The soldiers behind their own lines would listen to the screams of the wounded and dying all night, knowing that their turn would likely come tomorrow.
The concept of medical corps and removing wounded from the field came as a result of that experience the soldiers had during the war. That and the invention of a process of sterilization and simple hand washing was a direct result of the terrible lessons learned with the assistance of Francise Nightingale, I believe, as well as the veterans of the Crimean War.
Antietam was considered a Union victory because the Confederate soldiers were almost out of supplies and ammo. They left the field for the first time, before the Union army and Lincoln jumped on an opportunity to declare a victory.
The incompetient Generals of the North had a talent for costing the Northern armies too much Blood. Burnside's Bridge for example was another debackle where General Burnside insisted on Marching his Army over a stone bridge on a small creek. I have been there many times and could easily walk across the creek.
For all of you that know next to nothing about the War, it was NOT fought over Slavery at all. It was over a dispute for State's rights to self-govern, and the division between Northern Industrialist, and Southern Agriculture.
The reason Slavery was declared illegal with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, was largely because of two reasons. Lincoln was an abolitionist much like Barry appears to be Muslim(Secretly), and because the northern states were being bled to death for want of white men to die in the numbers the northern generals were killing them. Black soldiers were allowed to begin fighting in 1864, but were commanded by White Officers and non-coms.
At Gettysburg, after the southerners slipped away, the battlefield was literally covered with decaying bodies that swelled in the Hot July Sun to the point of bursting. There were no wild hogs or fires to cook the dead and wounded, so they sweltered till mass graves were dug and local people and union hangers-on were employed to throw them into the holes.
There is an interesting foot note tied to the cigars. Had the Cigars not been found and tuned in to McClennan, he would have been looking at a consolidated, well equiped army looking down on Washington while his forces were scattered all over the place.
He was a terrible General, but as the old saying goes, "Even a blind hog will find an Acorn sometimes."
Lazarus
Addendum,
Mclellan, not McClennan. Type o
... nice try, Larry! Yes. the political ploy that served as the basis for South's argument for secession was what later became "States Rights" However, like virtually every war fought by mankind, since we first learned picked up rocks, and throw them at each other, the reason for the South's "war for disunion" was economic. The Civil War was fought because the Southern aristocracy (make that the Southern slave holding, landed gentry) were hell bent to expand the "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery westward to the territories and the North was dead-set against it. Thus "Bleeding Kansas", the border wars, "Q" Raiders, (and the James Boys), John Brown and, ultimately, Harper's Ferry. The war was about the expansion of slave-based,Southern agribusiness, and the North's being willing to fight to stop it. Moneyed Southerner slavers new that Lincoln would be willing (at least for the time being) to leave the institution of slaver alone, as it existed on the day of his inauguration. But they didn't believe that the abolitionist in congress would leave the system alone for long. This belief that slavery was doomed, in the absence of action, was especially ripe in South Carolina. And, from what you've written, I'm almost certain you have at least some idea what happened next. The war was economic, the economics of agriculture, fueled by advances in technology, to wit, Mr Witney's cotton gin. The argument you make-the same specious argument that has been made by Southerners, since "redemption"- that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, is a revisionist myth. It is what budding lawyers are taught in law schools all over the country as an attempt to "make a distinction without a significant difference". At its core, there is no difference between the economics slavery and practice of slavery itself as the cause of the Civil War. This point can be made quite simply by thinking about the answer to the following: Would there have been a war, when it was, if Lincoln had somehow been allowed to insure its expansion? When you think about it, the answer to this question is simple, as most things obvious are: had Lincoln been so inclined (and been able to do so) Beauregard would have had no reason to fire on Sumter.
Thanks Yoda, and a nice try to you as well. The facts you presented are true, but Lincoln would never have been elected if he pressed the Abolition issue. Abolitionist were considered radicals and even terrorist by the people in general. Northerners owned slaves till the Abolition proclamation as well. And you are correct about the large cotton growers because they already had a large investment in their capital stock, slaves. However, their numbers were very few.
However I did enjoy our debate and would like to happen onto you in a face to face. We could enjoy some coffee and conversation.
May I suggest Shelby Footes Narrative of the Civil War. It is very involving and makes it interesting to read.
Very nice indeed.
Lazarus
lol yet another example of how smoking can be really bad for your health :p
how does things like this happen. 23000 men. how many thousand people enslaved and treated like animals, raped and murdered and worked to death. God forgive this world and we sinful people.
I wonder how many copies of that note were produced, and why no one noticed it went missing. You'd think orders like that would have been carried by mouth and conveyed personally. Not that 23,000 men would not have died, or the battle not fought or the war not won.
Things were taking on a sickening momentum. There was a conference going on somewhere in Virginia about the secession crisis. Trying to be constructive. Several Southern states were involved. Virginia had not seceded. I believe R.E. Lee was at that conference. Then it was announced that Lincoln wanted to march Federal troops through Virginia to force the seceded troops back into the Union. With that passions were inflamed and Virginia voted to join with the other Southern states.
Lee was at a conference in Secretary of War Blair's office being offered command of the force being assembled to quash the rebellion.
It's amazing hwo many people think this war was about slavery, it wasn't. Plain as that, it was about State's rights, and how the North was encroaching on the south's lives. The south believed that they could decide what would happen in their states without having the government tell them what to do. Now then slavery was an issue, but it was not a cause of the war, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he used it as a way to rally the troops and give a cause to the war, because if we lost the south, we would probably not be here. A foreign power could have come and taken us over, which is why England favored the south in the war. When Lincoln was elected they seceded and went to war. Both sides had good reasons and bad reasons. There really was no "good" or "bad" side. Just Americans fighting for what they believed in, and were willing to die for it. Where has that determination gone today? And on the subject of slavery, the slaves were ussually treated very good. They make it out to be that every slave was tortured and treated like trash. They were NOT, the owners of the slaves were going to take care of them, because the slaves were their money. If you torture your money, you aren't going to get much out of it. And when the abolitionists came telling them to free their slaves because it was wrong, they didn't even take a look at what the north had with the factory workers! The north had much worse conditions for the workers there. The average slave was treated better, and had better living conditions than the average factory worker, but they came screaming at the south to free their slaves with propoganda like "Uncle Tom's Cabin". So every northerner was convinced that the slaves were being treated horribly and it was their duty to go and free them. And many of the southerners didn't like slavery either, many southerners weren't even slave owners! They were just going to defend their home. THis is what Robert E. Lee did, when he was offered the commanding general position of the Union army. He said that he would not raise his sword against Virginia. You can see his house from Washington, right across the border. He wasn't going to invade his own home. They were all Americans and should all be remembered, Confederate or Union. They all had good and bad reasons, so don't bring in your "they were rascist!" and "well the south was horrible!" comments, because they're wrong. Oh, and look up the Northern POW camps, and you'll get a new opinion about them. They weren't the great saviors they're made up to be.
"Today we sit around and argue about politics. They had a war about it"-Sam Elliot
"Same land. Same god. Different dreams"
Yep, all about state's rights--the right to own another human being as "propahtah" The right to beat, rape, maim, and kill your propahtah at will. I'm sure your thinkin'--ah, the good ol' days. Yep, gonna go down to the slave quarters and rape me a "nigrah ho" 'cause I own her and that twat can't do a damn thing about it.
Scott -- you're preaching revisionist history. The South was afraid the North was going to take away their "property" --- their slaves. The was was fought over slavery. It wasn't until the 1950s before that fact was questioned.
k9luver- what the heck? I agree with corewynn 100%. If you look at the statistics very few people owned slaves in the south. And very few were abused. This is what the internet is for, to look up your own stuff, and make your opinion. They make those movies and stories so horrible so they'll be popular. If you had a story of someone treating a slave nicely, no one would read it. So do you8r own reasearch and learn some things.
Charlie- It might be revisionist history, but that's because I believe it was wrong the way it is taught. They always tell people that the south are the extremely bad guys, and the north was the great saviors of the slaves. The abolitionists killed people who owned slaves, which isn't much of a "great savior". There are a lot of factors to the war including slavery, all I'm saying is that the wars main cause wasn't slavery, but it was still a cause. And I also believe that secession was unconstitutional, even Robert E. Lee believed that, but they still went ahead. But I'm glad that you're thinking, unlike some other people.
I can hear the cry now....."Uncle Toms". Black slaves were treated better than they were in their home country. Scientists have proven the average caloric intake exceeded 3,000 calories per day. These slaves were treated so well that most would not leave their plantations. Even when they were promised 40 acres and a mule. White slaves didnt have it so good. Long before black slaves were brought to this continent white boys were kidnapped off the streets of many European cities. They were put aboard ships and taken to the sugar plantations where most did not arrive alive. These white slaves were given free to these plantation owners where they lived on average only 2.5 years. So if we are going to talk slavery we are going to talk about ALL slaves. By the way, did you know where the word slave comes from? It came from the word SLAVIC and referred to whites that were kidnapped and sold to rich trading middle eastern types.
The Blacks in the south were considered 'property." Whether physically abused or not, generations of Blacks have been given their slave ancestry as their backpack. Shunned by mainstream society at every turn, in every area of civilized life, no, how could Blacks integrate into a white society that degrades and humiliates at every turn? This attitude is prevalent in the southern states - this attitude cannot be denied as its proven over and over, daily. The southern negative attitude toward minorities, against anyone who is not white, is passed from generation to generation. It's evident in some of these posts. Adding faith/religion to the mix isn't going to be a good thing.
South Carolina had for years been making threats about seceeding - since the Nullification Crisis when Jackson threatened to lead an army to Charleston and hang the entire South Carolina legislature. The export taxes on cotton and other agricultural commodities were at first the cause of the conflict and Lincoln did in fact state that his mission was to preserve the Union and that he would free no slaves if if would bring any state back into the Union. He only freed slaves in states which were in rebellion against the Union in the Emancipation Proclomation because he feared that Maryland and Kentucky would join the Confederacy. Slavery did become the rallying cry for some but most northern soldiers "didn't give a damn one way or the other about darkies."
James Longstreet even told Lee that they should have freed the slaves and then seceeded to deny the issue to many northern politicians. By then, the issue was a moot point since South Carolina had already begun the conflict.
what i can't understand how long is this generation going to be paying for slavery i did not do not or have the desire to have a slave that was in the past the past dosent anybody get that if you are racist or not has nothing to do with it ether past is suposed to be past to keep bringing it up is to fuel hatetred i don't like being judged for something that took place centries ago period get over it move on were all americans now act like it
You might say because the oppression of blacks, women and minorities lasted into the 1970's several years after the passage of the civil rights act. It has barely been a generation since the end of the war against oppression. Which is just another name for slavery. You can still see the hate stirred up in many quarters simply by electing a black president. You can feel the hate mongering for the vote, it reminds me of the good old days in the South when it was legal to lynch your black share croppers. Deny education to black people and access to public areas simply because of race. This was all a reality just forty years ago. There are many who dream of going back, back to states rights verses your rights.
Oy Vey, you can say that slavery is like the Holocaust. Its a never ending gift used to keep people under a cloud making it impossible to move forward. What we need is a moratorium on lies, exaggerations, historical falsehoods.