Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Slavery provided income for the rich, which provided for the economy of the South. The non-slaveholders fought collaterally... they needed the rich slave holders to retain their wealth.
A very valid point.There are, I think, other reasons besides the hope of one day being a plantation owner that caused non-salve holders to support slavery (and fight for the Confederacy). One is found in the dark part of human nature that wants to feel superior to somebody else.Many of the poor whites in the South could comfort themselves with the thought that they were better than the slaves. Abolishing slavery would destroy this comforting perception.Additionally, freeing the slaves would have created competition for low wage paying jobs. Which was part of the reason for the anti-draft riots in New York City and the animosity of the Irish to Northern war effort. (The Irish at the time were at the bottom of the socio-economic totem pole and did not want freed slaves competing with them for jobs.)Lastly there is the issue of outright racial prejudice. The desire of the abolitionists to free the slaves was upsetting to many non-slave owners for racial reasons. (In order for a society to countenance slavery ideas of the racial inferiority of the slaves had to be both widespread and deeply seated.)
I saw a program (I think on the History Channel) about the re-birth of Christmas in America. As mentioned above, in Colonial times it had fallen out of favor. This was in part due to the pagan origins, but mostly because its associated vandalism. It was the custom for people, called rowdies (as I recall) to go from house to house demanding food and drink. They would break windows, etc. of those who failed to feed them. Even if provided food and drink they would often still destroy property, partly on purpose and partly, in their often drunken state, with their boisterous partying.In the United States much of the re-birth of Christmas goes to Clement Clarke Moore, who in 1823 wrote "A Visit from St. Nicholas", also known as "The Night Before Christmas" and "'Twas the Night Before Christmas." His poem was based upon classical legends, mostly notably that of the four centaury Greek Bishop canonized as Saint Nicholas. He was famed for gifts to the poor.Our conception of Santa Claus is also heavily influenced by Thomas Nast the well known illustrator and political cartoonist. (As well as devising the image of Santa Clause, Nast developed the image that today is associated with Uncle Sam as well as the donkey for the Democratic party and elephant for the Republican party.) For example, the idea of Santa Claus checking his list to see who has been naught and nice comes from one Nast’s illustrations. (He produces one every year over a considerable period of time.)The Christmas tree is an old German custom. It became popular in Great Britain during the Victorian era when Price Albert set one up in Buckingham Palace. In time the custom came to America.
I truly believe that regardless of who was in charge of the Confederate Army, Sherman had the resources and momentum and Atlanta was going down before the election regardless.
I agree that Atlanta would have fallen (if the war continued) no matter who was the Confederate commander. The "64 dollar question" is when. I don't think Atlanta would have fallen before the election if Johnston had remained in command. (Just look at how long it took Grant to break the seige at Petersberg.) Had Hood not attacked Sherman (suffering major causilties) Atlanta would not have fallen when it did.Consider that the Battle of Atalanta was fought July 22, 1864 but it was not until September 2. 1864 that Sherman actually entered Atlanta. I think had Johnston remained in command he would have been able to delay the fall of Atlanta another two months--and that would have resulted in McClellan wining the election and the South gaining its independence.
It appears I'm the only one (who has thus far posted in this thread) that believes the fall of Atlanata changed the outcome of the Lincoln vs. McClellan election. Its clear that before Atlanta fell that Lincoln believed he was going to be "badly beaten." I think he was right. I think that had Davis not replaced Johnston with Hood that McClellan would have defeated Lincoln and the South would have gained independence through a negociated peace. I am surprised that no one else here believes that.
Is this typical political dissimulation or a blatant pandering to Islam and mulitculturalism?
It strikes me as "blatant pandering to Islam and multiculturalism."
Wouldn't have mattered.. the South was pretty much done at this point anyway. Replacing Johnson with Hood really was insignificant. The end results were already written on the wall.The Western Theater had been secured by the Union, most of the Trans-Mississippi was also secured by the Union. Grant was pushing from the north, Sherman from the south. The Confederacy was boxed in, losing real estate rapidly, soldiers returning home and little to no backup troops.
I fear you missed my point. It appears you are only looking at things from a military viewpoint; you're not looking at the bigger picture.There are more ways to win or lose a war than on the battlefield. Just look at Viet Nam. The American military never lost a significant battle but North Viet Nam won the war. War weariness caused the US to stop fighting and go home resulting in North Viet Nam winning the war. Something similar could have happened in the Civil War. Had Lincoln lost the election to McClellan the outcome of the Civil War would have been different. The North was weary of the war and McClellan was running on a platform calling for a negotiated end to the war. He would not have continued the fighting; he would have negotiated a peace that would have granted the South its independence. At the time Davis replaced Johnston with Hood everyone--including Lincoln--thought McClellan would win the election because the North was tired of fighting. (The fall of Atlanta changed everything by re-energizing the North.)Had Atlanta not fallen to Sherman before the Lincoln vs. McClellan election the South would almost certainly had gained its independence. I think that had Davis left Johnston in command Atlanta would not have fallen in time to help Lincoln win resulting in the South gaining its independence.
The Confederacy was doomed as soon as they fired on Ft Sumter, the only question was how long.
I agree the South lacked the resources to win a protracted war. Perhaps, however, the South could have won by using a different strategy or if the things had gone differently before Lincoln defeated McClellan.The Buchanan Administration transferred most of the contents of Northern armories south before Lincoln took office. Winfield Scott's favoritism resulted in Southern officers being better trained--and holding higher positions--than those from the North. So at the beginning of the war the South actually had more material and a better officer corps.As I see it there were some ways the South could have won. The first was by invading the North after Bull Run. A successful invasion might have led the North to sue for peace. This was, of course, contrary to the will of Jefferson Davis, and IMHO was a huge mistake on his part. (It resulted, I think, from his belief that not invading the North was necessary to gain the support of England and France. Another major mistake by Davis and something that Lincoln made impossible by emancipating the slaves.)The second--which the South tried--was by making the North grow war weary and abandon the struggle. This stratagem almost worked. Had McClellan defeated Lincoln the South would have gained its independence. But Northern victories shortly before the election--especially those of Sherman--thwarted that hope. Also, had Lincoln been assassinated before his second election things might have been different. As I see it, much of the resolve that kept the North in the war came directly from Lincoln. As I see it, the South came closer to winning than is usually thought. Had it not been for Northern victories--which in some ways were nearly miraculous--just before the election McClellan would have beat Lincoln resulting in the South gaining its independence. (Had Davis not replaced Johnson with Hood the whole outcome of the war might have been different.)
Because of the nature of the Confederate commanders Lee probably could not have coordinated his activities with other theaters even if he had wanted to. Confederate generals were much more resistant to central authority than Union Generals. Just look at the problems Davis had with the army of the Tennessee during the Atlanta campaign. Johnston just did his own thing.
As the war progressed Davis lost respect and Lee gained it. As I recall the Confederate Congress passed Lee's request allowing blacks to serve as soldiers because they couldn't deny Lee anything. If other commanders would have obeyed anyone it would have been Lee. Both because of his hero status and his accomplishments on the battlefield.There were other problems that would have made it more difficult for Lee to have acted as a supreme commander than Grant. One of these was the North had more miles of railroad track than did the South.However, I still feel the number one reason Lee did not function as a supreme commander is he lacked Grant's vision of what a supreme commander could accomplish.
Starting about 406 A.D. Spain was invaded by Germanic peoples (Vandals, Sueves, Alans, Goths, Visagoths, etc.) and eventually established a monarchy that ruled the Iberian peoples of Spain.Roderic, a Visagoth, was the of the Gothic kings to rule in Spain. He was defeated and killed by the invading Moors around 710 AD. Due to the conquest by the Muslim Moors there was a nostalgic remembrance of the Gothic rule that is still part of Spanish culture.To this day in Spain there are blue eyed, blond hair descendants of the Visigoths. Tracing ancestry back to Visigoths is very prestigious in Spain; something like in America having an ancestor that was on the Mayflower.Hence the term "blue blood" in Spain refers to what is perceived as the (rightful) former ruling class that was displaced by the Moors.
Lee never had command of more than the Army of Northern Virginia.
Not long before the war ended Lee became General-in-Chief of the Confederate armies. It was a position similar to that Grant held as Lieutenant General and Lee, like Grant, had supreme command over all the armies of his nation. (If the Confederacy can properly be termed a nation).IMHO Lee's promotion (which he reluctantly accepted) as the commanding general came so late in the war for it to have made no difference in the war's outcome. That being said, Lee never tried (unlike Grant) to co-ordinate the actions of the various armies to assist one another. Unlike Grant, Lee lacked the vision of what strategic cooperation between armies could accomplished. To the best of my knowledge, Lee (unlike Grant) never tried to do anything as a general in chief--which is probably why it is not generally known he held such a position.
On January 31, 1865, Lee was promoted to general-in-chief of Confederate forces.-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#General-in-chiefAn Act to provide the appointment of a General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States:“The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an office, who shall be known and designated as 'General in Chief,' who shall be ranking officer of the army, and as such, shall have command of the military forces of the Confederate States... General Robert E. Lee having been duly appointed General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States, will assume the duties thereof and will be obeyed and respected accordingly."-- http://www.manhattanrarebooks-history.com/lee_general_in_chief.htmGive me Lee's leadership with Grant's army.
I'm of a different opinion: That Lee is overrated and Grant underrated.Lee was a brilliant tactician, but used the (Napoleonic) tactics of the past. Grant was a brilliant strategist, who developed tactics of the future. When Grant became the supreme commander he moved armies in a coordinated manner so the actiions of each army benefited the other armies under Grant's command as well as contributed to the success of an all encompassing strategy. Lee held a similar position, but never tried to move armies in a manner that one helped another or an all encompassing strategy. In the Civil War, the defense had significant advantages. Twice Lee tried to invade Northern territory and failed both times. Grant, however, successfully invaded the South in both the West and the East.Grant’s victories moved the North ever closer to ultimate victory. Lee’s victories lacked similar long term gains—they only served to prolong the war.
It's very slow for me in San Diego. I've seen this problem with other sites. Usually it's because the hoast has problems and/or moved an account to what a IT friend describes as "a peice of crap" server. (An old server, an overloaded server, etc.)Hopefully the hoast will resolve the problem. If not the only option according to my IT friend is to change hoasts.
I got 40%. I knew two answers and guessed correctly twice. What I know about Viking history wouldn't fill a thimble.
Nice quiz. Thanks for posting it.From Wikipedia:Although most historians count 87 members of the party, Stephen McCurdy in the Western Journal of Medicine includes Sarah Keyes?Margret Reed's mother?and Luis and Salvador, bringing the number to 90. Five people had already died before the party reached Truckee Lake: one from tuberculosis (Halloran), three from trauma (Snyder, Wolfinger and Pike), and one from exposure (Hardkoop). A further 34 died between December 1846 and April 1847: 25 males and 9 females.
