|
|
|
|
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 106 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:05:30 PM | MG
I KNEW you were going to say that!!!!!!! :) | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:10:25 PM | Well, it's just looking at the facts...
It's like in the case of Jefferson, sitting there probably writing his thoughts on how important freedom was , and democracy was, and then .....having one of his slaves bring him a drink.
If you look at the body of his work, you'd think the guy might have woken up screaming one night (ala Soylent Green) from a nightmare yelling " OH MY GOD , BLACKS AND WOMEN ARE PEOPLE.....D'OH !!! " 
Even Douglas and Susan B. Anthony had some real disagreements as to who should be emancipated first .
Just think of how long it took women to get the vote, in North America, and how hard they had to fight to get it.
Until people's eyes are opened, they remain blind - even the really smart ones.  | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:15:13 PM | I'm sorry but citing yourself in an article isn't evidence. It's you just repeating yourself.
Once again, find me some evidence that most abolitionists owned slaves, otherwise I'm calling bullshit. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 109 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:23:14 PM | Hey CHarles, that article was given to you so you would have the two sources from it,,DUH!!!!!! The facts in my article are from those two exact sources I cite in the article, therefore, I can't do anything else for you 
Once again, try reading sometime, it might be useful! How's that for bullshit?
I see your points MG, African Americans were actually allowed to vote before women if I'm correct on that one, I could be wrong though. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:36:38 PM | Coati, for the most part your correct that the majority of Northeners had no concern for slavery. The abolishist were a very small sect of the Northern population. This Is where Javan2 is correct, the only issue that most Northenerns had concerning slavery or the ending of it, was the fear of losing their employment to cheaper labor... (Please excuse my language here but to keep things in proper alignment and so that others can better understand it) There wasn't a large popoulation of negros in the Northern States at the time just prior to the war. This is where things begin to get complex see most Southerners didn't own slaves and Northeners hardly knew any negros. On the one side you had population who didn't know them nor had they any experience living with them. While on the otherside the Southern population did live with them and knew many quiet well by name...
The racism known in the North was very different in the South. Both the Northern and the Southern white population where arrogant and professed to be superior to other races, there is no questioning that! However, it's one thing to profess superiority in the absence of something and an entirely different matter to conduct one's livelyhood in the presence of something. The despise between the races in the South didn't exsist as it did in the North. In fact there was a bond that extended beyond race amoung White and Negro Southerners that is hard for us to phantom today. We have all been instructed with great effort that slavery was so terrible that no good could come from it. But that's not the case if you look for the truth. it all sounds reasonable but placed under the microscope that fable turns to dust. There was love between master and slave and slave for master. I know this is a very difficult concept for us to grasp in our modern times but thats due more to the credit of misinformation than actual reality.
But Slavery wasn't the cause of the war. The Slave owners were opposed to succession and spent fortunes trying to avoid the dissolving of the Union. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:38:39 PM | Hey CHarles, that article was given to you so you would have the two sources from it,,DUH!!!!!! The facts in my article are from those two exact sources I cite in the article, therefore, I can't do anything else for you
So the sources are not available online, essentially I have to take your word for it.
Duh! is right. As stated previously, unless you can show some source, I think your claim that "most abolitionists owned slaves" is false.
Considering many states had made slavery illegal before the civil war, I'm curious how you can claim that abolitionists were slave holders in territories where it was illegal to have slaves.
Southern Historical revisionism at its finest. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 112 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:43:17 PM | | Google the books!!!!! Or buy it, just do something and quit being a lazy bum and find your own sources,,GOOD LORD!!!!! | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 113 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:45:46 PM | | Charles, I will see what I can find on those two sources, that way you can stop your whining. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:52:12 PM | While I tend to agree with the notion of "look it up"...
Or buy it, just do something and quit being a lazy bum and find your own sources
YOUR claim, YOU support it. The burden of proof is on you. You can't reasonably expect a general audience in a public forum to back up your claims for you or take your word for it. You CAN expect them to at least review the evidence presented. You've presented an unusual opinion, and haven't given anyone the means to confirm support for it. Ball's in your court. If you cite the actual sources, odds are someone can find them or THEIR references in public domain or via an academic server. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 115 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:06:52 PM | Here ya go, and I will not do this again, it's called GOOGLE, I"m on here to debate, not do your research for you, thank you. This is the information I found on the book COmplicity, to include a Washington Post Review of the book in relation to the facts it contains on how the North Prolonged and profitted from slavery.
In the book COMPLICITY, p. 64, "In the Area of this Quadrangle...",
Atkins, Voyage to Guinea, p. 269 I capsulized bits of
Venture Smith's life as a slave. (But he also wrote his own life
story, which he dictated to Elisha Niles, a schoolteacher and
Revolutionary war soldier. It provides a look at Northern slavery.
Black armies had been plundering Africa's rich west coast since
the 16th century to provide labor for the New World. Lining the
coast were about 40 "slave castles," or "slave factories," in
which traders from Europe and the colonies could SELECT and BUY
captive human beings.
This info came from this link, you will have to scroll down a bit, but
here it is.
http://www.factasy.com/forum/index.php/topic,374.20.html
There's other good stuff on there as well about the north during
that era in conjunction with slaves.
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=2086
This even includes a video about the book, etc.
This is The Washington Post's Review of this book and the information
it gives.
Review:
"Everyone knows that the South was different — perhaps so much so
that, in the words of the historian James C. Cobb, it often
'hardly seemed part of America at all.' But few agree on how and
why it was so distinct. A recent bevy of books wrestles with
Southern identity — a question that is older than the republic
itself.
Once, the institution of slavery and the white supremacist
ideologies..." Washington Post Book Review (read the entire
Washington Post review) that it spawned defined the Southern
difference, and the boundary between North and South could be
located with geographic precision along the Mason-Dixon Line. But
recent studies have emphasized the extent to which chattel
bondage, long believed to be the South's 'peculiar institution,'
was a continental and national phenomenon, as much at home in the
Northern colonies (and, after 1776, Northern states) as it was
in the Southern ones.
These new studies of Northern slavery were summarized in two
extraordinary Sunday supplements published in 2002 by the Hartford
Courant, Connecticut's oldest newspaper. Anne Farrow, Joel
Lang and Jennifer Frank, the lead writers of the Courant's special
issues, have now expanded their work and published it as
'Complicity.'
Although written in the telegraphic style of modern journalism,
this tough-minded book reveals Northern slavery to have been
neither a marginal nor a short-lived institution but a central
element of the region's economy and society. During the 18th
century, New York — where slaves composed as much as a quarter of
the population and probably more than a third of the work force —
was the largest slaveholding city in mainland North America, with
more slaves than Charleston or New Orleans. Slaves existed in
even higher proportions in parts of the Hudson and Connecticut
valleys, northern New Jersey, Long Island and Rhode Island.
The glacial pace of abolition suggests the importance of slavery
in the North, where it survived for more than half a century after the Declaration of Independence pronounced 'all men are created equal.' The gradual emancipations enacted in the Northern states with the largest slave populations, New York and New Jersey (announced with great ceremony on the Fourth of July in 1799 and 1804, respectively), liberated not a single slave. Instead, only those born after that date were freed — generally when they came to their age of majority, which was generously defined as the mid-twenties for women and the late twenties for men. Slavery thus lingered in the North. In the 1820s, census enumerations counted some 30,000 slaves in the so-called free states, and a handful of slaves remained until the middle of the 19th century.
As the authors of 'Complicity' show, when Northern abolitionists
finally put a stake in the heart of chattel bondage, slavery's
importance grew. The post-emancipation North became the hub of
the international trade in tobacco, sugar and especially cotton.
The same merchants and bankers who brokered the transfer of those
slave-grown commodities between Southern states and mills in
England also bankrolled the expansion of the plantation regime.
Since politics followed economics, Northern politicians —
especially Democratic ones — were solicitous of the interests of
Southern slaveholders and did much to protect the institution of
slavery from its opponents.
Slavery in the North, like its counterpart in the South, was a
brutal, violent relationship that fostered white supremacy.
'Complicity's' authors shred the notion, famously advanced by the
Yale historian U.B. Phillips, that the central theme of Southern
history was the region's desire to remain a white man's country.
Sadly, Phillips was not so much wrong about the centrality of
white supremacy to the South as blind to its presence in the North.
'Complicity' also recapitulates another theme of recent
scholarship, showing how the slow, painful emergence of African
American freedom in the North actually (BEG ITAL)intensified
(END ITAL) racism as whites — no longer distinguished from blacks
by law — invented new invidious distinctions. During the early
19th century, various Northern states denied black men the right
to vote, serve on juries and otherwise exercise citizenship.
Some states even barred blacks from legal entry. Beyond the law,
white Northerners regularly excluded African Americans from
churches, schools, civic associations and even graveyards — or
placed them in segregated and almost always inferior sections
therein.
'Complicity' makes clear that differences between South and North
did not rest on slavery and racial ideologies alone. But there is
more to the story, and in 'Away Down South' University of Georgia
historian James C. Cobb writes what he calls '(BEG ITAL)a(END ITAL)
history rather than (BEG ITAL)the(END ITAL) history' of who
Southerners thought they were.
The gang is all here: big players such as Thomas Jefferson and
Tom Watson, William Gilmore Simms and William Faulkner, Broadus
Mitchell and Margaret Mitchell, and W.J. Cash and W.E.B. DuBois,
as well as bit players such as the planter Bennehan Cameron, the
academic Rollin G. Osterweis and the social activist Julia
Tutwiler. The stock figures of Southern literature — Jeeter
Lester, Ike McCaslin, Willie Stark and Will Varner — mix with
the real figures of Southern history. (Sometimes it seemed they
were kinfolk.) Patricians and parvenus, idealists and materialists,
fading gentry and rising industrialists, and modernists and
anti-modernists tumble off Cobb's pages. They construct great
causes and lost causes, love the landscape and despoil the land,
fill their purses and save their souls, and often elevate the idea
of womanhood while debasing women themselves. The inhabitants of
'Away Down South' come at us thick and fast, benighted and
bemused, roaring down some unpaved backcountry road, pedal to the
metal. If this sounds like a breathless rendition of Southern
history by an academic who loves to name names, it certainly is.
Still, no one remotely interested in the South will be able to
resist this book, and readers are bound to learn from Cobb's
enormous erudition.
The larger meaning of this flood of knowledge is more difficult
to discern: Cobb unwinds rather than unravels the story of
Southern identity. He marches from the 17th century to the 21st,
revealing how generation after generation of Southerners
defined themselves. His descriptions of successive iterations of
Southernness are priceless, but he gives little sense of why and
how Southerners continually remade themselves.
To address that critical question, one would do well to turn
to W. Fitzhugh Brundage's 'The Southern Past.' Brundage, a
professor of history at the University of North Carolina, does
not have Cobb's range or inclusiveness, focusing instead
on the post-emancipation period, especially the civil rights and
post-civil rights eras. But his close analysis brilliantly
reveals how Southerners defined themselves — and who did the
defining.
Brundage begins his story in the late 19th century as white men
and women — shaken by military defeat and emancipation — began the
process of making 'Southerner' synonymous with 'white Southerner.'
This, Brundage rightly insists, was no semantic battle. Whites
seized public space — erecting monuments, organizing parades and
presenting pageants — to enshrine the slaveholding past as a
golden age when whites and blacks lived in loving harmony.
Asserting that civilization was a racial trait over which
Anglo-Saxons enjoyed a monopoly, they affirmed their place atop
Southern society and relegated the 'savage' descendants of
Africa to its nether reaches.
Disenfranchised black Southerners could not match whites'
ability to embed their claims in the public realm. Nonetheless,
in their own institutions — churches, fraternal orders and
schools — they created a counter-narrative that denounced
\romanticized renderings of slavery. Matching white Southerners
holiday for holiday, parade for parade and pageant for pageant,
black men and women emphasized their role in defending the
republic and its ideals. Central to their claims was the wartime
service of black soldiers. On every occasion — Memorial Day, the
commemoration of the passage of the 13th and 15th Amendments, the
birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Lincoln, and especially the
Fourth of July — black veterans countered what white Southerners
labeled as treason. For them, the assertion of their identity as
Southerners was an act of self-creation and liberation.
Southern identity was contested, and its very meaning emerged from
that struggle. As Brundage sees it, the struggle was ongoing, and
the battlefield was memory — explained here as an active process
whereby people selectively shape the past to make of themselves
what they will.
In perhaps his most rewarding section, Brundage shows how Southern
whites built the scaffolding upon which their memories rested. Of
particular importance was the creation of state-sponsored
archives, the establishment of privately funded museums, the
professionalization of the study of history, the growth of
heritage tourism and the creation of a variety of historic sites
from roadside markers to plantation complexes. Again, white
Southerners — acting from positions of power — saw the sites of
their memories lovingly restored; black Southerners saw theirs
demolished. But with the end of segregation, whites and blacks
confronted one another on far more equal ground in battles over
the placement of the Confederate battle flag and the singing of
'Dixie.'
That debate over identity continues in countless controversies
over museum exhibits, the placement and removal of historical
monuments and the naming of public buildings. Rather than seeing
these contests as simply reflections of contemporary divisions
within American society, Brundage makes it clear they are part
of an ongoing battle that has defined the South and distinguished
it from the North. Yes, the South was different, and, at least
in part, history made it so.
Ira Berlin teaches history at the University of Maryland and is
the author of 'Generations of Captivity: A History of
African American Slaves.'"
Reviewed by Ira Berlin, Washington Post Book World
(Copyright 2006 Washington Post Book World Service/Washington Post
Writers Group)
Synopsis:
Rich with historical documents and photos, this narrative dispels the myths surrounding the history of slavery in this country, revealing the North's deep dependence on slave commerce and its own exploitation of slave labor.
back to top
About the Author
Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank are veteran journalists
for The Hartford Courant, the country’s oldest newspaper in
continuous publication. Farrow and Lang were the lead writers and
Frank was the editor of the special slavery issue published by
Northeast, the newspaper’s Sunday magazine.
Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of
History and of African and African American Studies at Harvard
University. She is co-editor with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., of
African American Lives.
The link for this review is as follows;
http://www.powells.com/biblio/0-345-46782-5?&PID=28736
feel free to dispute a Professor of History and of African and African
American Studies from Harvard University as well as journalist's
from one of the country's oldest newspaper within the United States. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 116 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:07:32 PM | | Frogo, I just did, thank you. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:11:24 PM | She did support her claim. She gave a link on what she wrote. At the bottom of the link she referred to 2 books. OHH what you forgot that there are books people may have refer to?
Now you either have to go to the library or buy the books to check her claim out. Or find the books on the net. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 118 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:13:18 PM | | I did make an effort here for anything on the internet, there is another book in the article I wrote called "new york burning" and NO!!! I'm not looking it up too!!!!! :) | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:13:55 PM | I'm only briefly going to touch on the subject of T. Jefferson because the subject needs to stay on the topic at hand.
I often wondered how Jefferson dealt with his delimma of believing all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and he himself owning slaves. I studied this subject to the point of several migrians and read everything I could and lots of answers were provided but none seem to quiet reach the real solution...
Then one day it struck me that I had thought about the problem all wrong. It was quiet evident that Jefferson was a thoughtful man and expressed a unique quality of compassion for his fellow man. This is when the light bulb came on! It wasn't that Jefferson had a contridiction in his life but in fact found the only solution he could attain in his lifetime for the question. Place yourself for the moment in his shoes and the answer slaps you in the face. He, obviously just couldn't set them free or they more than likely would end up in the hands of someone who would care for them less than he. He also couldn't just set them free and ship them back to Africa, none of them had seen that continent in two or three generations, they would never adjust being so removed from that culture. The only life they had ever knew was here in America this was thier home... In the end it wasn't a delimma for him but rather his deep love and affection for his slaves that kept him bound as master, Monticello was as much their home as it was his and both worked together to constuct it...
Note: Yes, Jefferson did sell slaves on the market but it was always slaves that were unruly or diseased. Did he have sexual relations with Sally Hemings, it's possible? But nothing has ever been proven except that his family DNA was found in one of her offspring. Could it be his, maybe his brother Randolph Jefferson or another one of Jefferson's relatives? Lets not forget he was only a man not a "god" and we shouldn't judge him by his shortcomings only but by his asprirations too. We all have good and bad qualities in each of us... How can we judge him if we are too ashamed to admit our own faults? No one is perfect! | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:26:27 PM | nona..thank you again..very informative & impressive..how does one quote on here?
And thanks to the men for the update about the minie ball..now I get it..that was a a painful & destructive invention.
I did get to see a CSA uniform in the museum..the left pants leg was cut off at the knee..the information provided with the uniform said he survived but it was not uncommon for them to just cut through uniform..they didn't discard cloth if could be helped..these days we rip/cut clothes if need be to remove all the clothing to get to a wound..pain medication/antibiotics is also available now..I don't think they had that during the War between the States..
 | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 121 | |
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:28:42 PM | Cotton, I just learned myself , but this is how you quote on here. Type
<div class="quote"> then place what you are quoting here, by copy and paste then at the end of the quote which you copied and pasted put this at the end
Hope that helps :)
Ok, I just realized I can't show you on here, it's quoting the directions I am trying to give you lol
Ok, I just screwed this all up!!!! Sorry!~!!!!!!!! | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:42:03 PM | it's just brackets "[ ]" around "quote", "i", or "b" to start quoting, italics, or bold, and "[/ ]" around the same to end the sequence.
When you edit, it will show as "div class" and "/div", and doesn't always work properly in the edited passage. If you lose the quotes in edit, edit again, replacing all your original bracketed "quotes". If you see the problem right away, you might be able to page back to get your original text. If your text is long, it's good to type it in notepad, or copy it to notepad before posting. It makes corrections a LOT easier and faster. It also avoids accidental loss of the whole passage if you're using multiple windows and click the wrong button :P | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:44:20 PM | The Blue and the Grey isn't quiet the entire story when it comes to uniforms. They wasn't too much into camoflage and therefore their uniforms could be quiet unique and colorful in the opening years of the war.
Some dressed in Zouave uniforms
Some had Butternut uniforms.
A Southern solider in need of a belt would often take one from a dead Union solider and wear it upside down so that the "US" stamped on the buckle would read "SN" meaning "Southern Nation."
Antiseptic in that age was at best alcohol (Whiskey) They had some medications but at that time they still didn't know about different blood types. Their medical care lacked much to be desired. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 8:26:40 PM | Topgear..the uniform I viewed was butternut I would guess..defintely not gray..I called it a yellow beige color when I saw it..
Do you mind telling me how you know so much of this?..
Do you know where & when Lee & Jackson had their last meeting before Lee surrendered?
Also when Lee decided to surrender is it truth that he was looking at his men & said he saw the blood running from their bare feet into the snow & he knew the South could not win?..he couldnt continue?..What do you know of the surrender? Thank you. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/6/2008 11:10:49 PM | In the book COMPLICITY, p. 64, "In the Area of this Quadrangle...",
Atkins, Voyage to Guinea, p. 269 I capsulized bits of
Venture Smith's life as a slave. (But he also wrote his own life
story, which he dictated to Elisha Niles, a schoolteacher and
Revolutionary war soldier. It provides a look at Northern slavery.
Black armies had been plundering Africa's rich west coast since
the 16th century to provide labor for the New World. Lining the
coast were about 40 "slave castles," or "slave factories," in
which traders from Europe and the colonies could SELECT and BUY
captive human beings.
I didn’t argue with you that the north had slaves at one point.
http://www.factasy.com/forum/index.php/topic,374.20.html
There's other good stuff on there as well about the north during
that era in conjunction with slaves.
You just quoted an unsourced forum statement, it isn’t any better of a statement than what you have on here!
As for the following quote you gave me.
Where do the words "Most abolitionists own slaves" appear? Which was the issue I took contention with.
Once again, a source which indicates "Most abolitionists owned slaves."
Discussing prominent northerners of the revolutionary war has nothing to do with that statement. Discussing people circumventing the abolishment of slavery through other means isn't proving your claim.
Thankfully I don't need to argue with a harvard professor, because he isn't saying anything about the issue at hand.
In your words "Duh!" | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/7/2008 12:22:26 PM | Nona, Topgear & others..a few of us here have enjoyed your post..and from all of us here we thank you..hope to see more..
Does anyone know about Lee & Jacksons last meeting?..I was in a thrift store here & found an old picture that had Lee & Jackson on it..said it was their last meeting..they were on horses in some woods..anyone??..it even has the Confederate Flag in the background being held by 3 other men that appears to be just arriving... | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/7/2008 5:39:32 PM |
Do you know where & when Lee & Jackson had their last meeting before Lee surrendered?
Short answer:
It was early May 1863 a few miles SSE of Chancellorsville, near Plank Road & Furnace Road. The success to the Confederate victory for the battle that was to come after their meeting belongs to Jackson. Lee was very reluctant to thin his force but gave in to Jackson's plan of a 12 mile flanking march that might catch Hooker off balanced. The rest is of course History. Ironically, it was the last battle Jackson would take action in because he was shot by his own troops after surveying thier success. He didn't die right away but had to have his left arm amputated, it was actually pneumonia that took him in death. However, before he passed away and the Doctor had told him he would die this day he asked what day it was. He was told it was "Sunday, General" to which he said "I always wanted to die on a Sunday." He laid in bed quietly for most of the day until late and he opened his eyes and said ""Let us pass over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees." and he died...
Gen. Robert E. Lee mourned the loss of both a friend and a trusted commander. The night Lee learned of Jackson's death, he told his cook, "William, I have lost my right arm" (deliberately in contrast to Jackson's left arm) and "I'm bleeding at the heart."
Also when Lee decided to surrender is it truth that he was looking at his men & said he saw the blood running from their bare feet into the snow & he knew the South could not win?..he couldnt continue?..What do you know of the surrender?
That's not exactly the true story. Lee never really thought the South could win a war with the North. Lee's surrender at Appomattox wasn't so much a decision as it became an obvious necessity. Lee of course didn't speak much about the war after open hostilities had ended. He wasn't in a postion to speak about it he knew his words were watched carefully and he didn't want to see anything he might say be turned around and provide reason for the South to be further damaged. However, it is interesting what he had to say privately. He once remarked "Had he knew how things would turn out there would have been no surrender at Appomattox." Lee and Davis both died Stateless men (meaning men with no country) and there is reason for this. Had the US government permitted a trial then it would have opened itself up to evidence that would show that the Government itself had violated it's own Constitution. That might have set off a bigger rebellion and it was important for the public to believe the struggle they had just endured was to preserve the Union and bring about the end of slavery... But that's not the truth! It was all about Federalism and subjugation...
Do you mind telling me how you know so much of this?..
LOL, that's a long story and believe me I didn't start off wanting to know any of this. If anything it was happenstance. See, I had this very quiet Uncle and in my youth I would go over to spend weekends with my Aunt and Uncle sometimes, as many of my close relatives. They were also very popular with the neighborhood kids in their area and my Aunt had a nack for fun and games. She had a badminton court set up and they also had a small pond and wooded area that resembled more like a tiny park which was in part why their place was so popular. If we kids weren't playing outside like most of the summer then we all would be inside playing some board game or cards during the winter. Anyhow while visiting my Uncle who was a very quiet man and seldom had anything to say would sometimes at the surprise of us kids would all of a sudden become passionately loud because of something he would hear on the news, read in the paper, etc. It always centered around something about law, politicis or history. He didn't speak often but when he did he spoke with great knowledge and enthusaism much like J. F. Kenndy or Mr. Obama (in our current time). Nevertheless, all very boring subjects to us kids but little by little some of it begin to absorb into me I guess? He had a very extensive library and would often be reading a book from his collection. As I grew older, the more I learned from him and his library but I didn't orginally have any interest in such things. However, as I begin to see the reality of things in the world, I started to see the responsible need to express the truth and counter the misinformation that was being brainwashed into us at school and as the voting citizen that I was to become in the future. I put several of my history teaches to shame mostly by pointing out that they couldn't teach true history or they would lose their tenure. They could only keep their jobs if they taught the government endoresed doctrine and that's the reality of it... I once was about to be failed by one history teacher because I would not agree that the First President of the United States was George Washington. I eventually had to go before the education board where I proved my case that John Hanson was the First President of the United States, that George Washigton had only been the First President of the United Staes under the Constitution, not the First President of the United States, that happened under the Articles of Confederation...
Anyway My Uncle who was a quiet and very reserved man is the one who unshackled my eyes to the truth. He knows far more about this stuff than I could ever hope to attain. | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:15:08 PM | So tell us posters who or what do you think was the straw that broke the camels back.
1. We've heard that Slavery wasn't the key issue.
2. We've heard that the election of Lincoln wasn't the reason.
3. We've heard that it wasn't States Rights.
So, what would bring about a large portion of the country to break it's mutual bonds with one another, if none of those where truely the cause? | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:43:40 PM | wow! after reading the whole thread ~ I'm not confussed ~ but more enlightened ~ yet I still can't find your anwser ~~ and it exist today? hummm,
topgear1 ~ if it wasn't need and greed ~ and the south finding it totally impossible to get cotton to market without cheap labor ~ completely distroying the souths.
If it wasn't Linclons' refusal to allow the union to be divided,
If it wasn't the hypocrites of what was practiced and what was preached and written into law. ( which still exist today!) Many lost confidence in the system ~ I 'll go with that answer ~ thats my final answer. Loss of confidence
~dar
and yes, there were many people that had slaves, that were not racist~ they had them for many reasons ~ some might even be called noble efforts ~My family had a few up until Uncle Jefferson Atlee Davis died at 99, ~ couldn't get rid of them ~ they were family, you don't get rid of family ~ It was a point in time ~ I sincerly appericated everyones insights ~ | |
|
| the civil war
Posted: 1/7/2008 7:36:20 PM |
dancecard
wow! after reading the whole thread ~ I'm not confussed ~ but more enlightened ~ yet I still can't find your anwser ~~ and it exist today? hummm,
I'm sorry but what are you asking with that question/statement, maybe I can be of help?
if it wasn't need and greed ~ and the south finding it totally impossible to get cotton to market without cheap labor ~ completely distroying the souths.
If it wasn't Linclons' refusal to allow the union to be divided,
If it wasn't the hypocrites of what was practiced and what was preached and written into law. ( which still exist today!) Many lost confidence in the system ~ I 'll go with that answer ~ thats my final answer. Loss of confidence
Those all played a role and were very much contributing factors to the opening of hostilities and theres much more that factored into it but hasn't been discussed. However, there was one pivotal moment that occuried that set the wheels in motion all the rest was just the load placed in the cart. As with any conflict things build up and words are exchanged even some show of strenght is displayed but that doesn't produce a fight. A good analogy of this can be found in the movie "Tombstone" when the showdown at the OK corral is about to errupt. All the same signs are displayed but none of that starts the shooting. It isn't until that slightest and almost trival thing occurs does the shooting start. In the Movie its the wink that Doc Holiday gives to the Clantons and McLaurys that brings about the exchange of gun fire... Of course it wasn't as simple as a wink that caused the a great part of the Nation to up and one day call it quits.
I'm curious if anyone knows what that subtle trigger was for the proverbal straw that broke the camels back? Your close with the loss of confidence answer but what was it that signaled that things had crossed a thresehold from which there was no going back? How could it be that we found ourselves in a place where compromise was no longer possible? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
