Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:The war itslef did not become about slavery until Lincoln ordered the Emancipation Proclamation which I believe he announced after the battle of Antietem. The only reason he announced it after a victory was so that it didn't seem like a desperate move on the US's part to gain support. Instead it made the US cause seem like a just crusade and ended most of England's support for the south.

Your history there is awful. Really, really awful.

There is a vague kernel of truth floating around the outside of your statement, in that the North was fighting to maintain the union but used slavery as an issue to assume the high moral ground and to discourage European powers from aiding the South.

But to think slavery just became an issue part way through the war is very, very wrong. Slavery was the dominant political issue for decades before the war, brought to a head with the Dred Scott case, and the failure of Buchanan to address the issue in any meaningful way. This came to a head with Lincoln’s election, whom many in the South believed would force the South to end slavery. Then you can read the declarations of independence of a variety of states with many references to slavery, and the Constitution of the Confederacy - which was basically a direct copy of the US constitution, plus a bit on term limits to appeal to Virginia, and a big change that explicitly stated the Confederate government had no right to stop the states from allowing slavery.

Slavery was a big, big thing. How could it not be?


Your comment that the war was caused by Northern ‘racism’ to the South is well… you know the South attacked the North, right?

The South could have pointed fingers at the North and said "he started it".

From The Onions American Voices section on the announcement of Confederate History Month:

"Take that, big federal health care bill."
- Joe Cook Cage Clerk


"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Bin Laden’s Day."
- Keith Hill Instant Print Operator


"I can't think of a more beautiful time and place to revel in defeat than Virginia in April."
- Susan Pollit Systems Analyst

Frazzled wrote:Speak for yourself. Many Southerners view the Confederates as traitors. God bless that Lincoln didn't have me around as general of the Army of the Potomac. There would have been more Cherokees left alive than Confederate sympathizers. And by Confederate sympathizer I mean anyone who wasn't a slave freed from a plantation.

So you mean that you would advocate the genocide of an entire group of people?

See, most southerners didn't actually own slaves because back then a slave cost around $100, which was big money back then. Most of the generals also liked Lincoln, however, Lee had closer ties to his family than the country so he chose to fight for the south. That's like if I went up to Frazz and told him there was going to be a war againt the federal government and that Texas was one of the states fighting the federal government and that the federal government wanted him to lead the army attacking Texas on behalf of the federal government.

Now Frazz has two options, he could join the Federals or he could stay in Texas. The ramifications for both being great. If he stayed in Texas, he could stay with his family and friends and has the potential to stay where he lives.He would be a traitor to the government, but he could console himself on the fact that he's defending his home. Or he could side with the Federals and force his family to move from their house which may get destroyed, and away from his friends who may get killed. However, he would be the one leading the federal army that is destroying his old home, his friends, his past, and maybe his family if he is unable to get them to leave.

Most southerners were stuck, they couldn't afford to leave so they chose to defend their livelihoods and their family.

Uncle Tom's Cabin heavily portrayed the southern slave owners as brutal monsters incapable of human affection. The north regarded the south as hicks and unwashed, filthy creatures who didn't deserve to see the light of day. Also, let it be pointed out that while slaves were free in the north, many people were still bigoted towards them. A lot of the irish immigrants hated them because they competed for jobs that the irish felt that they needed.

Again Ahtman you show your curious gift to look past my writing and come up with delightful assumptions about me. You can't guess me because I contradict myself so many times it isn't even funny.

Saying that the war was about slavery from the very beginning is a gross oversimplification. I don't believe it was truly about slavery in the beginning because of the border states that fought for the U.S, but were promised to be allowed to keep slavery legal. If it was about slavery, then I doubt those states would've been promised to keep slavery at the start of the war. It started as a war for state's rights because Lincoln never ran on a platform saying he would abolish slavery, the south was just paranoid and thought he would. The republican party was a third party and very up-and-coming at that point so the southern conservatives were afraid.

To say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was the reason the war erupted is also a gross oversimplification, but I do believe that it was the final straw.

A great example about this argument is when Apu was trying to get naturalized in the Simpson's. He was asked "What was the cause of the Civil War?" and Apu went into a discussion about other reasons(states' rights, etc) and the examiner said "Just say slavery.".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lincoln wanted to stop the expansion of slavery, not abolish it, there is a difference.

Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator

Fixed

I am sure that Frazz would do the right thing. Just like if my family or half the black community declared ourselves russian communists, I would have to side with America. No matter if it's your own race or own family, wrong is wrong. His land is America's land, anf if he had to leave in order to fight for it he would. He wouldn't be fighting Texas, just the traitor scum who spit in the face of everything America stands for. And I'm sure he could lead his Army well enough to avoid killing his own family members. The man's been alive at least a million years.

You seem to have forgotten that Fraz was alive during the civil war.

theHandofGork wrote:You seem to have forgotten that Fraz was alive during the civil war.

I'm thinking if Frazz is millions of years old he was alive during the Civil War.

At least my math tells me that 200<1,000,000

Fateweaver wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:You seem to have forgotten that Fraz was alive during the civil war.

I'm thinking if Frazz is millions of years old he was alive during the Civil War.

At least my math tells me that 200<1,000,000

My comment was directed towards halonacho's hypothetical. Your math is undoubtable.

Oh I'm sure there are people who don't realize 200<1,000,000. New math and all. Hell, they probably learn it in school. As fethed up as the school system is it wouldn't surprise me.

halonachos wrote:To say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was the reason the war erupted is also a gross oversimplification, but I do believe that it was the final straw.

Given that it was written about five years before the Dred Scott decision, I really doubt that.

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator

Fixed?

You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?

Ahtman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator

Fixed?

You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?

And that there's a big difference between a failed assassination plot that got no-one but the plotters killed, that was hatched over a now irrelevant religious dispute, and a civil war that killed more than half a million soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, the political effects of which were felt by people still alive today.

Ahtman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator

Fixed?

You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?

Earth to Ahtman, Yeah! (I don't really think you're in space). I really should have gone with the Orky question mark rather than a real one, a bit too subtle as written.

sebster wrote:And that there's a big difference between a failed assassination plot that got no-one but the plotters killed, that was hatched over a now irrelevant religious dispute, and a civil war that killed more than half a million soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, the political effects of which were felt by people still alive today.

Irrelevant? You've heard of Northern Ireland right?

The number of dead is precisely why you should be celebrating it, although with hindsight maybe 'celebrate' is perhaps a poor choice of word. Anything that does a little to wash off the moral whitewash surrounding the ACW gets my vote.

halonachos wrote:

Now Frazz has two options, he could join the Federals or he could stay in Texas. The ramifications for both being great. If he stayed in Texas, he could stay with his family and friends and has the potential to stay where he lives.He would be a traitor to the government, but he could console himself on the fact that he's defending his home. Or he could side with the Federals and force his family to move from their house which may get destroyed, and away from his friends who may get killed. However, he would be the one leading the federal army that is destroying his old home, his friends, his past, and maybe his family if he is unable to get them to leave.

You forgot the third option. Join the loyalists. Exterminate the secessionsists utterly, their families, and all who support them. To quote the immortal bard. Death to Traitors.
(this is actually what occurred in the South during the Revolution FYI between rebels and loyalists).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:I am sure that Frazz would do the right thing. Just like if my family or half the black community declared ourselves russian communists, I would have to side with America. No matter if it's your own race or own family, wrong is wrong. His land is America's land, anf if he had to leave in order to fight for it he would. He wouldn't be fighting Texas, just the traitor scum who spit in the face of everything America stands for. And I'm sure he could lead his Army well enough to avoid killing his own family members. The man's been alive at least a million years.

Word.

theHandofGork wrote:You seem to have forgotten that Fraz was alive during the civil war.

Exactly. I'm the guy with the plate. There's Bob on top about to pull another one of his many pranks. it was shame what happened to Bob.

Poor, poor Bob.

So Frazz, you would join the british during the Civil War? There were two sides in the war, the Federals (a.k.a the Yanks/U.S) and the Seccessionists(a.k.a Johnny Rebs/C.S).

You sound like you would just off and go put on a redcoat and drink some earl grey tea.

Also, apply what you're saying to the revolutionary war. You live in America and would rather join the english in their fight against the american colonists than help the colonists. Not only that, but you would advocate the death of every single supporter of the revolution.

Manchu wrote:Poor, poor Bob.

We kept telling him, but he never would listen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:So Frazz, you would join the british during the Civil War? There were two sides in the war, the Federals (a.k.a the Yanks/U.S) and the Seccessionists(a.k.a Johnny Rebs/C.S).

No first I would have wiped out a few villages. Were I General Sherman, there would not have been a Georgia left, just ashes. There would have been no one left to surrender.

Remember what Shaka Zulu said. "Never leave an enemy behind."

But last time I checked, William Wallace beat Shaka Zulu so I don't care about what Shaka Zulu has to say.

While you eliminate Georgia, and destroy their future as the producers of fine peaches, you would tick everyone else off. Lincoln didn't want to destroy the south, just beat it back into the union. The wholesale slaughter you would've wrought would be reason enough for Lincoln to deprive you of your general rank.

halonachos wrote:But last time I checked, William Wallace beat Shaka Zulu so I don't care about what Shaka Zulu has to say.

While you eliminate Georgia, and destroy their future as the producers of fine peaches, you would tick everyone else off. Lincoln didn't want to destroy the south, just beat it back into the union. The wholesale slaughter you would've wrought would be reason enough for Lincoln to deprive you of your general rank.

Strange they kicked the crap out of Tennessee pretty well that way and Grant got promoted. That whole starving a city thing did wonders for his career.

As noted there would be no one left to tick off. If a village town/surrenders, mercy is given. If not everything dies. It worked for the Romans, it worked for the Mongols, it worked for the Leichtensteinians. Curse you Leichtenstein!

That was different though. He starved them into submission, but he didn't burn them alive. So in essence he was promoted because he didn't wantonly destroy everything in his path, just allowed the city to sit there until they gave up.

And yes there would be people to tick off. Destroying the south meant that england would have no cotton for its textile industry. It would be similar to the first gulf war I believe.

If you threaten the well being of another country's industry and economy, they will go after you.

Also, that whole "kill every enemy" theory has only worked for Leichtenstein and that's because it's run by penguins. The immortal enemy of the weiner dog.

Seriously? You think that?
Thats what the Confederacy thought too. Didn't work out so well did it? Besides all the freed slaves now have 100-200 acres each, so cotton production is back up to full speed in a jiffy.

Britain enters the war there are a lot of dead British troops. The Union wasn't even trying hard and they stomped the South utterly. Lets get real here. The British weren't stupid and knew not to get involved in an internal matter.

The union was trying hard, actually the irish were, but that's another story.

Well, the british did give the south supplies, weapons, ships, encouraging words, etc. It was the whole reason the union had to set up a blockade around the south. Oh, and if the southern army had chased after the U.S army at the first Battle of Bull Run, the war would've been over much, much faster. However, the south wasn't the agressor. They blew up fort sumter because it was in the south, not because they wanted to kill all of the carpetbaggers. Gettysburg was a failed attempt to demoralize the union and an attempt to sweep through the north.

Also, I still believe you would've sided with the redcoats instead of the colonists. As you hate treason and traitors, the redcoats would've welcomed you in their part of the revolutionary war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will return to my original premise. The war was not completely about slavery, it was barely about slavery. It was about the rights of the slave states to keep their own laws. Lincoln was for the cease of expansion of slavery, but not the abolishment of it in the states that already had it. By issuing the emancipation proclomation, he didn't actually free slaves, but instead slit the throat of official british support for the south. England was officially anti-slavery, but could support the war because it wan't about slavery until Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclomation making it a war for slavery or freedom.

If you don't believe this, then you are a fool. As the proclamation only affected those states under union control, the states which had mostly abolished slavery already, it didn't do anything. The proclamation didn't even affect the border states which were allowed to keep slavery until the 13th and 14th amendments.

Even after the war, it took the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments to end slavery. After this, ex-slaves were still treated like third class people by northerners and southerners alike.

Furthermore, to say that the south was about slavery is another gross stereotype. Many stations of the underground railroad were in the south, mostly houses owned by quakers who didn't believe in slavery and would find ways to deny the fact that they were hiding slaves.

In effect the south wasn't fighting for slavery, just the right to control whether or not they did condone slavery. These may seem similar, but are different. While one is activity of keeping people as slaves the other is the right to choose a stance on the issue. In essence state sovereignty on the issue and not the issue itself.

halonachos wrote:The union was trying hard, actually the irish were, but that's another story.

Well, the british did give the south supplies, weapons, ships, encouraging words, etc. It was the whole reason the union had to set up a blockade around the south. Oh, and if the southern army had chased after the U.S army at the first Battle of Bull Run, the war would've been over much, much faster. However, the south wasn't the agressor. They blew up fort sumter because it was in the south, not because they wanted to kill all of the carpetbaggers. Gettysburg was a failed attempt to demoralize the union and an attempt to sweep through the north.

Get real the South never had a chance. They picked a fight with the one country that's lost one war...ever and had just come off not only wiping out Indians left and right, but also Mexico in record time. Freed slaves fighting for the Union alone outnumbered the Lee's army at its height, by multiples. They never even needed a full on draft, just draft LITE.

You can flip that around easily. If the Union had won at Bull Run, skipped down and burned Richmond, and hanged the entire Confederate Congress and generalship from sign posts, then the war would have been over as well.

Correction. The British SOLD items to the Confederates. Thats called making a profit.

Also, I still believe you would've sided with the redcoats instead of the colonists. As you hate treason and traitors, the redcoats would've welcomed you in their part of the revolutionary war.

And they would have won too.

However, the south actually won the first and second battle of bull run and not the north.

Hell, I'll use VMI again. At the battle of new market a group of teenagers charged and broke the union lines on their own. The north had weapon production capabilities while the south needed an outside supplier.

Not to mention the fact that many veterans of the Mexican-American War were also from the south along with some of the leaders.

The british traded goods and supplies for cotton that the south provided. The cost of textiles greatly increased in england as the supply of cotton dwindled so the brits were willing to trade for cotton lest the populace rebel due to $100 pairs of underwear.

While slaves and such outnumbered the south, southerners were used to using weapons to hunt and were veterans of the wars previously mentioned.

The north also had one thing the south did not, a navy. However, the south were the first to develope an ironhide ship mind you.

In the end it was the lack of military supplies that cost the south the war.

So, even though this has gone way offtopic, I support the confederate history month.

halonachos wrote:However, the south actually won the first and second battle of bull run and not the north.

Hell, I'll use VMI again. At the battle of new market a group of teenagers charged and broke the union lines on their own. The north had weapon production capabilities while the south needed an outside supplier.

Not to mention the fact that many veterans of the Mexican-American War were also from the south along with some of the leaders.

The british traded goods and supplies for cotton that the south provided. The cost of textiles greatly increased in england as the supply of cotton dwindled so the brits were willing to trade for cotton lest the populace rebel due to $100 pairs of underwear.

While slaves and such outnumbered the south, southerners were used to using weapons to hunt and were veterans of the wars previously mentioned.

The north also had one thing the south did not, a navy. However, the south were the first to develope an ironhide ship mind you.

In the end it was the lack of military supplies that cost the south the war.

And better generals. Like it or not Lee did not face generals of quality until the western generals were redeployed after leaving the Army of the Tennessee dead on the battlefield. You forget whuile lee did well in Virginia the Union was running amok in the heart of the Confederacy. By the end of 1862 Antietan had happened, Shiloh had happend, the rivers had opened. By 1863 the Confedeeracy was reduced to the East Coast and was set to be split in two by that lover of peace Sherman.

Grant only lost one major battle-Cold Harbor, and still kept right on coming. Lee understood battles and campaigns, but Grant understood strategy in a modern context.

You can say its only because they had more stuff. But thats what Germany said in WWII. At the end of the day the Union still had more stuff and stomped on the Confederacy. Its material dominance makes defeat that much more inevitable. Even with a brilliant general and brilliant victories the fact is the Confederacy as literally ground into dust.

The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose. Also, I would say that virginia was the heart of the confederacy seeing as though it held the confederate and part of the union capitals.

I would credit the union blockade more than the generals. The generals were fighting starved men, which made fighting easy.

halonachos wrote:The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose. Also, I would say that virginia was the heart of the confederacy seeing as though it held the confederate and part of the union capitals.

I would credit the union blockade more than the generals. The generals were fighting starved men, which made fighting easy.

Thats called strategy (even though you're wrong)
The South is a food producer not importer. Foodstuffs were low because: 1. all the men were dead and couldn't grow crops; and 2. the rail transportation system was purposefully wrecked by Union.

But thats my point. The South was fighting the Napoleonic Wars. The North was fighting modern warfare. Destroy their ability to wage war. Overwhelm them with superior technology, superior communication, superior logistics, and superior firepower. Try to have half decent generals once in a while.
its the same strategy the US Army has used ever since.

In the end its all about logistics.

Napoleon used blockades as well I believe.

But yes, they needed supplies when they were cut off and the farms were destroyed and salted by the union. Europe was the only ally that could potentially send them something, but the union cut it off.

As a citizen of the state in which most of the battles of the civil war were fought, I do know something about the civil war. A majority of the cash crops were tobacco and cotton, both of which are largely inedible, so edible food was pushed down farther south. The railroads to these places were destroyed as you noted, but the farms were also destroyed as well as ill-equipped as the manufacturers of farm equipment were either turned into weapons factories or were located in the north.

So, the south lost because they only had food stuffs and a small railroad capability keeping their war effort running. Once the south lost most of its connections with manufacturing, it was only a matter of time before farm equipment became unusable and the army became ill equipped.

Couple that with the steady influx of irish immigrants into the union and you can see why the south lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

So while the south had less numbers than the north, they suffered less casualties. You can say that this is because the union had more men so more could die. I see it at the Union had more men which should've inflicted many more casualties on the south.

I would not say that the union ground the C.S.A into the ground. I would rather say that the C.S.A realized that they could not replenish the amount of men lost in battle so they surrendered.

Dude by your own stat 34% of the total CSA armies were dead.

At the end of the War Lee's army almost literally starved to death. They were not getting food, material or trips. They were the only significant force left.