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.

Yep, but while the U.S suffered only 13% casualties, most of its troops were ill-trained immigrants. The U.S knew this and had to cut the legs off of the C.S.A forces.

And wow, you actually used the phrase "dude". I can feel the earth beginning to tremble at this utterance.

Even worse frazzled halonachos missed some big issues with his numbers.

"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"

The south had less numbers but were fighting on home turf, able to dig in for many fights. The south lost because they relied on slavery. They didn't really have roads or railways, and most whites were as poor and bad off as the slaves. In war numbers don't mean much when the other army is on it's own turf. The south pretty much had to win the war quick and failed.

34% death rate vs 13 is horrible. I'd had my generals hung, not martyred. The confederates pretty much lined thier proud sons to be slaughtered. Bad tactics are bad

This is what happens when your kids are in high school. You start to use their patterns. You should hear the wife at this point.

I'm not getting the point of your "immigrant" statement. They "had to cut out the legs" YEA! Its called winning. As noted CSA got off light.

Stop using new time language and slang frazzled, it's scaring me.

With the immigrant statement i'm saying that the north had more meat to throw into the grinder.

I think we can all agree that the south lost though and I don't think the C.S.A got off light.

If you think about it those slaves were property which people had payed for(now, I'm not advocating slavery, just stating what they were back then), and they were expensive. The south would not only lose their slaves (which would be like losing a huge part of your investments) and also lost their work force. The south was sent into economic disrepair as the rich southern families were now poor due to looting, loss of slaves, loss of land, etc. If Lincoln had not tried to rebuild the south, the remaining southerners would be destitute and literally have nothing to work for. Lincoln would've condemned half of the nation to death and chances are he still would've been shot, but so would any northern successors and congressmen.

halonachos wrote:Stop using new time language and slang frazzled, it's scaring me.

With the immigrant statement i'm saying that the north had more meat to throw into the grinder.

I think we can all agree that the south lost though and I don't think the C.S.A got off light.

If you think about it those slaves were property which people had payed for(now, I'm not advocating slavery, just stating what they were back then), and they were expensive. The south would not only lose their slaves (which would be like losing a huge part of your investments) and also lost their work force. The south was sent into economic disrepair as the rich southern families were now poor due to looting, loss of slaves, loss of land, etc. If Lincoln had not tried to rebuild the south, the remaining southerners would be destitute and literally have nothing to work for. Lincoln would've condemned half of the nation to death and chances are he still would've been shot, but so would any northern successors and congressmen.

1. Seriously? Seriously? (highschooler statements). Or as the boy would say to blow me "yea thanks for that."
Or as we said back in my high school "OOG! OOG BATOOG WOOGA!"

2. yes they could and did. Time honored US army tradition good for rebels, Nazis, Spanish, or samurai wannabees.

3. Actually you just described Reconstruction and reasons underpinning growth in the West thereafter. As General Frazzled, however, I would have insurred future compliance for the survivors through additional motivational methods. Death to traitors. Its not just a job. Its a calling.

Most ACW casualties were caused by disease.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

George Spiggott wrote:Irrelevant? You've heard of Northern Ireland right?

You really think there's that much of a connection between the Reformation and Irish Nationalism?

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.

It's why it should be commemorated, sure. Having a Guy Fawkes style celebration would be a bit out of place, which was all I was saying. Everyone getting together to light a bonfire representing Sherman's march to the sea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I will return to my original premise.

Actually what you'll do is restate your original premise while ignoring the posts that showed your mistakes.

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.

Yes, the primary motivation for the North was to maintain the Union. The primary motivation for the South was to maintain their rights to slavery.

If you don't believe this, then you are a fool.

Your effort to contort an analysis of Union motivations into a summation of the causes for both sides isn't so much foolish as disingenuous. Your failure to address that simple point and instead continue repeating your opening argument is just lazy.

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.

The distinction is trivial and contrived, when you consider the issues of states right no part of the US has gone to war to protect. When the only set of state's rights that have ever led to secession anywhere was slavery, it's pretty fair to say it was about slavery.

Here in Western Australia we get hosed on Federal funding allocation, and whenever our share gets cut someone will make some noises about secession. But no-one has gone and blown up a military barracks yet, because while we'd like to control and keep revenue raised here more closely, it isn't an issue close enough to our hearts. The South and slavery in in the mid-19th C, though, was a very different matter.

I think people make a mistake in thinking you can have a society with legislated racism and it's just like any other, but with that one bad thing. That kind of thing is so pervasive, it gets into everything. I've read a lot of interesting parallels between the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, the same crazy mindset, the same fantasies of self-importance... racism gets into everything and it makes you crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose.

Yeah, when you have less stuff and that causes you to lose all your territory and surrender... that's called losing. That's exactly what losing is.

Wars aren't fought in convenient weight classes.

sebster wrote:I think people make a mistake in thinking you can have a society with legislated racism and it's just like any other, but with that one bad thing. That kind of thing is so pervasive, it gets into everything. I've read a lot of interesting parallels between the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, the same crazy mindset, the same fantasies of self-importance... racism gets into everything and it makes you crazy.

Did you ever see the movie CSA?

halonachos wrote:
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.

So, the CSA surrendered because they couldn't handle the attrition involved in a protracted conflict, but it had nothing to do with the fact that the USA was actively engaged in applying the pressure which created that attrition? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Did you ever see the movie CSA?

No, but checking it on IMDB it looks pretty interesting. Would you recommend it?

Yeah, if you're interested in how something like institutional racism can change a nation's character.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, if you're interested in how something like institutional racism can change a nation's character.

Cheers, I'll hunt it down.

sebster wrote:

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.

The distinction is trivial and contrived, when you consider the issues of states right no part of the US has gone to war to protect. When the only set of state's rights that have ever led to secession anywhere was slavery, it's pretty fair to say it was about slavery.

Although I would guess that you have never heard of the articles of confederation, I may be wrong. It was the U.S's first attempt at government, but was extremely heavy on states rights and it was no easy task to remove the articles of confederation and lay the new government(that we still use today) down. A lot of southern states liked the Articles of Confederation due to the lack of a strong central government, however, it wasn't really good for trade among the states and John Hancock never showed up to work, even though he was the president, because he literally did nothing. The central government couldn't even raise an army, the only form of military were state militias.

Even though they did not go to war over this, it was threatened and the south didn't like the removal of the Articles, but allowed it to go through because they allowed the states some rights, such as the choice of slavery abolishment. It was a compromise similar to the one that established a House of Representatives and a Senate to be included in our congress.

You didn't address why slavery was mentioned EIGHTEEN TIMES in the first state's declaration of secession.

Although this thread is not old, every post since page 2 or so has been thread necromancy (including this one :( . . . ).

Beerfart wrote:I missed it for a while too....I was out in the fields picking cotton....really. Wish I had someone to do it for me.

Beerfart wins the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Did you ever see the movie CSA?

No, but checking it on IMDB it looks pretty interesting. Would you recommend it?

It makes my posts look subtle and clever but it has its moments. I loved the ads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since we're past the halfway point of Confederate History Month (All new! All different!) I want to throw something newish into the discussion.



While to many of us the CSA is dead history, about as meaningful as the Qin Dynasty or the Ottoman Empire (both of which fell long after the CSA) to some it is a living, meaningful institution.

To the people who see the CSA as the fulfilment of their racist dreams things like Confederate History Month (New and Improved!) is a coded message from politicians that we're with you. No politician will ever say he wants to roll back civil rights, and I'd bet damn few them even want to in their darkest dreams, but they're politicians in a democracy and a vote is a vote, even from a Klansman.

In the US these winks and nods to our most hateful elements have been going on for decades. Nixon is the most famous user of it with his 'southern strategy' to cast the Republicans as the party of 'States Rights' (meaning no civil rights for 'those people') but the game is even older.

So that's why we're celebrating Conferderate History Month and not Civil War History Month. That's why the governor opps! Forgot about slavery in his proclamation. He was sending a clear message. And I bet the right people got it.

So did the wrong people, K_K.

/conspiracy

halonachos wrote:Even though they did not go to war over this, it was threatened and the south didn't like the removal of the Articles, but allowed it to go through because they allowed the states some rights, such as the choice of slavery abolishment. It was a compromise similar to the one that established a House of Representatives and a Senate to be included in our congress.

It’s been recognised about a dozen times in this thread by myself and others that several issues were relevant to the decision to secede. But it has then been pointed out each and every time that the one really big issue was slavery, which is why the only big changes between the US and Confederate constitution was the absolute right of states to have slavery if they want. You can have points of dispute on term limits and the like, but you don’t go to war and get a few hundred thousand people killed over them. But economics and (probably most importantly) social structure enabled by slavery – that’s something people go to war over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So that's why we're celebrating Conferderate History Month and not Civil War History Month. That's why the governor opps! Forgot about slavery in his proclamation. He was sending a clear message. And I bet the right people got it.

Oh yeah, it was dog whistle politics, which has been a lynchpin on the GOP strategy in the South since the Civil Rights bill.