The Civil War

[chucklenut]

I'm not a history buff, but I wish I could read up on the war and not feel like I was reading revisionist history. If anyone knows a good book or series, please share. In school, all they would talk about is SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY!!! And while I know there's a little truth to that, the VAST majority of Southerners didn't own slaves (my ancestors certainly didn't), and the other details of what sparked the war really seemed like they were glossed over when I was in school. Sorry for being ignorant, but if anyone knows well-researched and unbiased sources I'd appreciate it

im pretty sure the south had a larger regiment of black conscripts in affect than the north did

the confederate constitution prohibited integration of the armed forces so they were used more in the capacity of support role and labor, but many in fact would ride into battle along side their white officers as body guards or servants

people today will widely reject this idea because they dont understand the mindset of the time period. slave or not the southern states were invaded and peoples homes being raided. im sure the choice isnt easy especially as 2nd class citizen (black in america in general, north or south) but still during a civil war you gotta pick a side it would seem

 

[chucklenut]

1) It was not the War of Northern Aggression, who fired the first shot? You pick on someone bigger than you are, you get what you deserve
2) There are more than one or two causes and reason for the war, it wasn't just slavery and union.
3) Having lived in Richmond, VA I was impressed by all the statues to Southern leaders. I guess you had to display the second place trophies somewhere ;-)

1) you referring to fort sumter? guess the north should have recognized the south's sovereignty after years of taxation without representation eh? how would you feel with essentially foreign troops stationed in your backyard?

2) the war had everything to do with an overbearing federal government not representing the disenfranchised and poorer states......sure is a familiar theme

3) win or lose both sides had their heroes. whats troubling is the lengths some would take to remove these great men and their monuments from history (for the good or bad, sherman for instance is remembered for his blood lust and penchant for attacking defenseless cities)

(not that i agree or disagree with confederacies politics, but your short version is a pretty skewed view)

the south was fighting a defensive war the entire time, let that be noted

 

[sparked1]

I'm not a history buff, but I wish I could read up on the war and not feel like I was reading revisionist history. If anyone knows a good book or series, please share. In school, all they would talk about is SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY!!! And while I know there's a little truth to that, the VAST majority of Southerners didn't own slaves (my ancestors certainly didn't), and the other details of what sparked the war really seemed like they were glossed over when I was in school. Sorry for being ignorant, but if anyone knows well-researched and unbiased sources I'd appreciate it

I think you'll want the Revised Guide to Revisionist Civil War History - Revised, Revision 2.0. Find it a your local Cracker Barrel gift shop.

 

[chucklenut]

I think you'll want the Revised Guide to Revisionist Civil War History - Revised, Revision 2.0. Find it a your local Cracker Barrel gift shop.

this needs to be a real book

 

[strider12]

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" by Crocker is excellent.

 

[Gigabyte71]

A simple google search will give you some basic facts, even from some 'liberal' sources.

 

[Crubear]

1) you referring to fort sumter? guess the north should have recognized the south's sovereignty after years of taxation without representation eh? how would you feel with essentially foreign troops stationed in your backyard?

2) the war had everything to do with an overbearing federal government not representing the disenfranchised and poorer states......sure is a familiar theme

3) win or lose both sides had their heroes. whats troubling is the lengths some would take to remove these great men and their monuments from history (for the good or bad, sherman for instance is remembered for his blood lust and penchant for attacking defenseless cities)

(not that i agree or disagree with confederacies politics, but your short version is a pretty skewed view)

the south was fighting a defensive war the entire time, let that be noted

Just to be clear, I am participating in this thread in the spirit it's meant. I am a student of history and a veteran and respect the ideas both sides had. I am thankful that union was preserved, regardless of what we've turned it into these days.

That being said.....

Fort Sumter was owned by the United States of America, secession changed nothing about that actual ownership of the property. Just like Castro taking over Cuba didn't revoke the treaty that gave the US Guantanamo Bay.

Sorry dude, you can't talk disenfranchised when Southern states were allowed to count property to get more votes in congress. I'm assuming you also ignore the fact that there was a very careful and deliberate process in place to keep slave and free states balanced so that there was "equality" in the Senate (Mason-Dixon line). It was Democrats who controlled the congress and presidency at the time of the elections, so if you have a problem you know where to look.

One thing I didn't know until reading a few years ago, after the election the Southern controlled government started transferring military goods in northern arsenals to southern arsenals in preparation for hostilities. Never underestimate Southern preppers :-)

Both sides had good men and women working and fighting for what they believed in. What they paid for in blood laid the foundation for everything great we would become over the next 100 years.

The South may have been on the defensive, but that Robert E. Lee guy taught more than a few lessons.

 

[chucklenut]

Just to be clear, I am participating in this thread in the spirit it's meant. I am a student of history and a veteran and respect the ideas both sides had. I am thankful that union was preserved, regardless of what we've turned it into these days.

That being said.....

Fort Sumter was owned by the United States of America, secession changed nothing about that actual ownership of the property. Just like Castro taking over Cuba didn't revoke the treaty that gave the US Guantanamo Bay.

Sorry dude, you can't talk disenfranchised when Southern states were allowed to count property to get more votes in congress. I'm assuming you also ignore the fact that there was a very careful and deliberate process in place to keep slave and free states balanced so that there was "equality" in the Senate (Mason-Dixon line). It was Democrats who controlled the congress and presidency at the time of the elections, so if you have a problem you know where to look.

One thing I didn't know until reading a few years ago, after the election the Southern controlled government started transferring military goods in northern arsenals to southern arsenals in preparation for hostilities. Never underestimate Southern preppers :-)

Both sides had good men and women working and fighting for what they believed in. What they paid for in blood laid the foundation for everything great we would become over the next 100 years.

The South may have been on the defensive, but that Robert E. Lee guy taught more than a few lessons.

im pretty sure the confederates gave fort sumter plenty of warning before they attacked. their succession was not recognized, hence enter civil war (there was back and forth for a long time and this was only done after political pressure had failed to give the southern states what they wanted)

and im well aware of the free versus slave state expansion toward the west. that doesnt mean there wasnt pressure and bullying from the larger northern states, especially in regards to who could sell what ( many southern states were opting for lower tariffs so they could trade with other nations that would pay more. the north didnt like this....sounds like mercantilism a bit.....didnt the english do that?)

and im pretty sure the transferring of military arms had been going on for some time. heck i think some federal troops defected during this time period to state militias.

either way this could go back and forth for quite a bit. i think the general point here is what they teach in public schools doesnt do history justice

 

[Gigabyte71]

Y'all should read this thread. And yes, it is about the war of Northern Aggression.

http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/709436-America-s-Religion-of-Violence

 

[strider12]

Just to be clear, I am participating in this thread in the spirit it's meant. I am a student of history and a veteran and respect the ideas both sides had. I am thankful that union was preserved, regardless of what we've turned it into these days.

That being said.....

Fort Sumter was owned by the United States of America, secession changed nothing about that actual ownership of the property. Just like Castro taking over Cuba didn't revoke the treaty that gave the US Guantanamo Bay.

Sorry dude, you can't talk disenfranchised when Southern states were allowed to count property to get more votes in congress. I'm assuming you also ignore the fact that there was a very careful and deliberate process in place to keep slave and free states balanced so that there was "equality" in the Senate (Mason-Dixon line). It was Democrats who controlled the congress and presidency at the time of the elections, so if you have a problem you know where to look.

One thing I didn't know until reading a few years ago, after the election the Southern controlled government started transferring military goods in northern arsenals to southern arsenals in preparation for hostilities. Never underestimate Southern preppers :-)

Both sides had good men and women working and fighting for what they believed in. What they paid for in blood laid the foundation for everything great we would become over the next 100 years.

The South may have been on the defensive, but that Robert E. Lee guy taught more than a few lessons.

My only problem with any of this is the belief that ANYTHING good came out of the war. As far as I, and a lot of other people are concerned, it was the death of individual freedom.