[negative]

Army of Northern Virginia surrenders on this day. Also, the firing on Ft. SUmter was April 12, 1861.

[Colonel]

Lee surrendered, I didn't.

[Short Hand]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Lee surrendered, I didn't.

YEE HAWW

[Coleman]

[quote="Short Hand":27238]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Lee surrendered, I didn't.

YEE HAWW[/quote:27238] rolleyes:

[negative]

On April 18th, Johnston surrendered to Sherman.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Lee surrendered, I didn't.

....rofl.

So you're against abolitionism still? LONG LIVE THE COTTON INDUSTRY.

[Machette]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Lee surrendered, I didn't.

......

[negative]

hey colnel--these are obviously some people who dont know about the Civil War--especially Tripper

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by negative

hey colnel--these are obviously some people who dont know about the Civil War--especially Tripper

I actually did an entire year of the American Civil War, in the best high school in the country. So, explain yourself, or don't post at all.

[negative]

Well, first of all the basic idea that the Civil War was fought over slavery is absolutely false. The main cause of the Civil War was the polarization between north and south-caused by the institution of slavery. The main cause for the Union during the Civil War was to hold the Union together. It didnt become a slave war until 1862-When Lincoln freed slaves in states he couldnt control. Why didnt he free the slaves in the border states? Why were there protests daily in the North against emancipation?

Lincoln passed this proclamation for two purposes. One was to make sure the South would not be aided by Brittain. Two, it also gave him more soldiers to send to war. Remember the Union was more antiwar than the south all the way through 1864. If Sherman didnt capture Atlanta, the SOuth would have won-but thats a different discussion.

Wasnt it Lincoln who said "If I could save the union by freeing none of the slaves I would do it; if I could save the Union by freeing some slaves and enslaving others I would do it; It I could save the union by freeing all the salves, then I would do that also" or something along those lines. Also, the typical Southern soldier never owned slaves. Lincoln's wife (Marry Todd or something) owned slaves, and her family had made millions in the slave trade.

The Civil War was not a war over abolitionism or whatever, it was a war over the different ideas in the country. Slavery is wrong-dont get me wrong-but I dont think it was the main cause of the Civil War.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by negative

The Civil War was not a war over abolitionism or whatever, it was a war over the different ideas in the country.

...Yeah, different ideas regarding slavery. oOo:

[negative]

Originally Posted by Tripper

...Yeah, different ideas regarding slavery. oOo:

Im not going to argue with you-but you have no idea what your talking about. Slavery wasnt an issue untill 1862. The Civil War started in 1861 when the South seceeded from the Union. The south suceeded because of states rights and taxes.

If you want to talk about slavery as the cause (even though taxes and states rights were) then what can you say. Are you talking about bleeding Kansas? Sure, this involved slavery a little, but it was mainly over the issue of who controlled the house and senate-salve or free states.

I really dont know what to tell you other than the fact that you are wrong.

[Colonel]

Y'all need to lighten up and laugh a little.


BTW - What negative said is correct. I would argue, however, that slavery was not the only thing, nor the main thing, that polarized the country. A shift in the population (and therefore the number of congressman) towards the North allowed Northern politians to ram through legislation that put high import taxes on goods that the South needed from England etc. (other taxes that hurt the South were involved too.) Also the Federal government was becoming stronger and this didn't sit right with the Southern states, who leaned towards the States having more control.

But all of this is for another debate I guess. My original comment comes from a bumper stick that used to be popular in the South, prior to political correctness, when you could joke about taking exception to what was going on in Washington without being thought a traitor.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by negative

Im not going to argue with you-but you have no idea what your talking about. Slavery wasnt an issue untill 1862. The Civil War started in 1861 when the South seceeded from the Union. The south suceeded because of states rights and taxes.

If you want to talk about slavery as the cause (even though taxes and states rights were) then what can you say. Are you talking about bleeding Kansas? Sure, this involved slavery a little, but it was mainly over the issue of who controlled the house and senate-salve or free states.

I really dont know what to tell you other than the fact that you are wrong.

I am not wrong. That's pathetic, and it's no way to argue. Go back to offtopic if you're going to pull that shit.

You're denying facts if you think the issue of slavery had no bearing at all on southern secession. I'm not saying it's the only issue at all, but you seem to think it has absolutely no relevance.....

The confederates didn't like northerners telling them what to do, in turn taking away their right to their "peculiar institution," a.k.a slavery. The abolition of slavery would hurt the southern cotton industry, which flourished after cotton gin was invented. The issue of slavery was part of the "states rights" that you were refering too.

I suggest you read up about your own countries history some more:
[url:1a481]http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html[/url:1a481]

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by Tripper

You're denying facts if you think the issue of slavery had no bearing at all on southern secession. I'm not saying it's the only issue at all, but you seem to think it has absolutely no relevance.....

negative is not saying that slavery had no bearing, only that slavery was but one of many issues that led to secession. I think that may be what you are saying too. The difference is the degree of importance. You seem to think it was the number one issue. It was not. I would say that taxes and free trade were the issues that pushed everything over the edge. We may not have gotten to the edge if slavery were not there. But we would not have gotten to the edge if slavery were the only issue either.

One interesting way of looking at it is to think about the debates over the new western states. Some Southerners wanted to move there and take all of their property with them. (this property included slaves). Northerners wanted those states to be more politically aligned (or allied is a better term?) with them and the best way of doing that was to prevent Southerners from moving there. Slavery as an institution, was not an issue debated in terms of right or wrong, but was used as a way to increase political power. So although slavery was an issue in this case, it was the fight for political power that was the cause of the disagreement. If slavery had not been there, the Northern politicians would have used some other issue to gain what they wanted. So, to me, to say that slavery caused the war or that slavery was the reason for the war is wrong in the very critical sense that the war was probably inevitable, even in the absence of slavery.

Originally Posted by Tripper

The confederates didn't like northerners telling them what to do, in turn taking away their right to their "peculiar institution," a.k.a slavery. The abolition of slavery would hurt the southern cotton industry, which flourished after cotton gin was invented. The issue of slavery was part of the "states rights" that you were refering too.

True, but most Southerners felt that slavery was on its way out eventually. The Southern Constitution even prohibited the importation of new slaves. This was a law in the US but it had never been added to the US Constitution. If the South was so "pro-slavery" why would that have been included in their Constitution? In fact, the New York Times wrote an editorial shortly after the CSA published their Constitution that said that it was such an improvement on the US Constitution that it should be adopted in the North immediately.

Originally Posted by Tripper

I suggest you read up about your own countries history some more:
[url:5d771]http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html[/url:5d771]

Nice site. It is a good idea to read several versions of the events to get a true picture. But be careful, there is alot of revisionist history being written and taught in schools these days. (EDIT - I usually try to read the accounts written by the men who were there. To get a true sense of the Southern perspective you should read "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" By Jefferson Davis, The original is a very long two volume set, but you can get an abridged version from the museum store at Beauvoir) I think it is because it makes us look better to have fought to abolish slavery than it does to say with were bickering over taxes and land like a bunch of children and couldn't solve our differences peacefully.

As a little side note..the whole dang war could have been avoided if Dis-Honest Abe hadn't started it. Near the end of the first page of the site, you link us to above, it mentions a supply ship forcing the secessionists hand. What it doesn't say is that a delegation from the Southern States was in Washington at the time trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Or that Dis-honest Abe had just told them he would not to resupply the fort. (there was no need to - except for agressive military reasons - the Northern soldiers were freely allowed to come into town and buy provisions, such as food, every day) Or that even after the shelling (in which no one was killed) the delegation again tried to resolve the matter peacefully but Abe had his heart set on war.