|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 1, 2017 7:57:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2017 8:18:46 GMT -6
www.civilwarcauses.org/douglas.htm - Stephen A. Douglas speech in 1858. www.civilwarcauses.org/douglas.htm- This link also leads to the Lincoln Douglas Debate Transcripts to help in your research. Keep in mind that politicians in the 1860's were no different than 21st century politicians. They will and did say things that due to other pressures, would not be things they could do, when in office. Lincoln's speeches give you the feeling that he did not care about slavery and could not do anything about it. However, when push came to shove, after the Antietam victory, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation to get the North back into the fight. What he said prior to the War, was not what he actually did. Good luck on your research and I look forward to reading your comments. I hope this discussion is illuminating about the History of the War Between the States.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jun 1, 2017 8:28:00 GMT -6
ok i Will look into those things before coming back here You're a champ.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 1, 2017 8:59:23 GMT -6
Since the subject of this thread is a contentious issue at best I will be keeping an eye on this thread; I have no issue with a continuation of this discussion as long as the discourse is civil, polite, and professional in tone. This is intended as a reminder, not a proscription of any sort and is not directed at a specific poster.
Thanks for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2017 11:57:54 GMT -6
As I've begun to dig a little deeper into the historiography of the causes of the War Between the States, I've found that one source began the issue of the war being about States Rights, not Slavery. The organization was the Southern Historical Society and here is their webpage for your use as a source. I am still reviewing its content, just thought all might enjoy another source. www.civil-war.net/shsp.asp
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2017 17:18:42 GMT -6
I learned a fact many years ago that I have never been able to put into words correctly. Simple put, we, as humans, are always looking for the single reason why events occur. Accident investigators learn soon, to look for multiple failures, in electronics we learned early to look for multiple problems. It's true in the study and analysis of history.
I found a review of a book on the tactics in the Civil War which said it perfectly, and I wanted to share it with you. Here it is: "analysis of conflicts and their resolutions can rarely be tied to one cause- causes are normally woven together and to analyze one thread without the others creates artificiality which negates any sincere analysis. " For me, that says it all.
|
|
|
Post by gysendorf on Jun 14, 2017 3:44:42 GMT -6
Winner always writes history! They try to hide their misbehaviours in war, e.g.in 2.WW US-Marines broke gold teeths out of dead japanese soldiers mouths, what actual DoD tries to hide. And thats only one example of US history. Other nations same problem look on the faded english empire, so you are not so special. But why are the southerns so fixed on the civil war? You succesfully betrayed and genocides the ametican native people, conquered with lies cuba, philipines and so on. Started After 2.WW every war with a lie and the World belives you and admires the USA as Land of the free and civil rigths. So be proud of what your nation has done the last 125 years and the most part of the world loves the USA for that. Or you have also to rewrite this part, USA terrorism in south and middle American in the last 70 years and we didnt look on the last 16 years where the USA got transformt into a Police state and they broke their own constitution since George W. Bush. I guess the price to be the shining glory nation is cheap when the campaign is called Gettysburg and the rest is hidden.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 14, 2017 5:41:13 GMT -6
Winner always writes history! yep, reminds me of a game I play, some of the fluff during a skirmish over a research station says "Our propoganda mills will cover the political fallout of a nuclear exchange and make it seem like they fired first"
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 14, 2017 8:38:59 GMT -6
Winner always writes history! They try to hide their misbehaviours in war, e.g.in 2.WW US-Marines broke gold teeths out of dead japanese soldiers mouths, what actual DoD tries to hide. And thats only one example of US history. Other nations same problem look on the faded english empire, so you are not so special. But why are the southerns so fixed on the civil war? You succesfully betrayed and genocides the ametican native people, conquered with lies cuba, philipines and so on. Started After 2.WW every war with a lie and the World belives you and admires the USA as Land of the free and civil rigths. So be proud of what your nation has done the last 125 years and the most part of the world loves the USA for that. Or you have also to rewrite this part, USA terrorism in south and middle American in the last 70 years and we didnt look on the last 16 years where the USA got transformt into a Police state and they broke their own constitution since George W. Bush. I guess the price to be the shining glory nation is cheap when the campaign is called Gettysburg and the rest is hidden. "16 years where the USA got transformt into a Police state and they broke their own constitution since George W. Bush"
Hum...funny, I've lived here in the US for most of my 50 years (i.e. other than my time in the Navy) and I must have somehow missed the part where we turned into a "Police state". What utter tripe.
As administrator here I am warning that this thread will not be allowed to turn into a political/bashing, trolling contest, or flame war...so don't go there.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jun 14, 2017 10:46:30 GMT -6
Winner always writes history! They try to hide their misbehaviours in war Ghengis Khan and the Vandals are two examples of winners. And you can look at the bibliography of ACW history and see that it is full of haliographies of southern generals written by southerners. The losers write history quite often as well. And as one victory who did write history recorded "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant". Some people are capable of recording the bad things said about themselves because they care about history not propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 6, 2017 9:24:22 GMT -6
Very true. "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."
A lot of people who want to honor their heritage can't face the fact that a lot of that heritage was slavery, so they say the war was about other things. Understandable, but not acceptable.
I don't doubt that Lincoln and most other northerners evolved on the slavery issue. I think we was pretty sincere and straightforward when he first said (Cooper Union speech) he wanted to limit its spread and knew not how to eliminate it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a very canny political strategy. It let him take away a portion of the South's labor pool, solidly improved relations with Britain and gratified the abolitionists at home. Proclaiming it would go into effect at a later date unless the South returned to the Union made it seem reasonable and rational. So - pretty shrewd.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 6, 2017 11:04:22 GMT -6
how did it limit the south's labour pool? slaves are slaves weather they know freedom is coming or not.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 6, 2017 12:00:57 GMT -6
how did it limit the south's labour pool? slaves are slaves weather they know freedom is coming or not. It has always been thought that the Emancipation Proclamation did remove the Europeans from intervention, eliminate resources namely slaves to work the farms and hopefully break the will of the people in the south to wage war. After the war, the southern authors and former officers worked hard to cover the South's slavery tracks. We know from records that thousands of former slaves were freed in the Union-occupied areas of eastern North Carolina and the Sea Islands of South Carolina. There were other parts of Virginia specifically the Shenandoah Valley, Arkansas, Mississippi Valley and others where this proclamation did remove these freed slaves from the work on the farms.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 11, 2017 7:22:38 GMT -6
If there was a federal army anywhere nearby, slaves would decamp and move to it. Having that associated small city attached to the armies was how the concept of 'contraband' came about. Since the South insisted that slaves were property, and as several Northern states (and US law at the time) agreed that slaves were property, they could be seized by the army as enemy property and then disposed of (IE freed) as the new owner saw fit. All that was needed was an acknowledgement that slaves could be used to make cloth, produce food or build entrenchments for the rebel armies.
There were incidents of a Southerner turning up at a Northern army HQ, demanding that they obey the Fugitive Slave Act and return his escaped slaves. These people were not pleased by the response.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 11, 2017 10:57:07 GMT -6
If there was a federal army anywhere nearby, slaves would decamp and move to it. Having that associated small city attached to the armies was how the concept of 'contraband' came about. Since the South insisted that slaves were property, and as several Northern states (and US law at the time) agreed that slaves were property, they could be seized by the army as enemy property and then disposed of (IE freed) as the new owner saw fit. All that was needed was an acknowledgement that slaves could be used to make cloth, produce food or build entrenchments for the rebel armies. There were incidents of a Southerner turning up at a Northern army HQ, demanding that they obey the Fugitive Slave Act and return his escaped slaves. These people were not pleased by the response. One of the most interesting facts about the Emancipation Proclamation was that A: It was issued twice B. It did not have anything to do with slavery in the North, it was strictly aimed at the South. The law invited and encouraged former slaves to join in the fight against their former masters. It was a brilliant maneuver. The captured slaves as the Union Army moved into former slave states were considerate contraband and were freed
|
|