Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Civil War did NOT start in 1861.. it started all the way back in 1787 when the US Consitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and the divide built up with every event that took place between then and 1861.
I disagree. When the Constitution was written slavery was a dieing institution in the South and it's decline continued until the cotton gin was invented. Slavery would have died a natural death in the South, just as it had in the North and in Europe, had the cotton gin not make the Southern landed gentry so rich they were willing to go to war to preserve their “peculiar institution.”
Notch…you're articulate and make your case well. You're also dead wrong on many points, including your assertation that both sides were equally at fault. Your statement, “I find the association with the Nazis and Confederates alarming…” shows me you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrors of slavery. Taking a person's liberty isn't that far removed from taking a person's life. At least that's what I believe Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Frankly I don't think it's inappropriate to compare slaveholders and Nazis: both groups felt that due to racial superiority they could do to others whatever they wanted, both groups forced others to labor under harsh conditions for their own ends, both groups unjustly put others to death.
Notch…Southern culture and slavery were two sides of the same coin. Saying the South fought for their culture, for States Rights, etc. means the South was fighting to preserve slavery.The South has always had trouble acknowledging that (1) it fought a civil war (2) to preserve slavery. It invented the “Lost Cause” myth to avoid owning up to these truths.My sister lives in South Carolina and I often hear her say the same type of things you say. Her explanation (in private) to me is: What else can I tell my children? That their ancestors were bad men?Germany has done a relatively good job of teaching its citizenry that the Nazis were “evil.” The South needs to acknowledge similar truths regarding slavery.Face it: –Slavery formed the economic underpinnings of the Old South. –Regional differences always boiled down to the issue of slavery.–The South started the Civil War to preserve slavery.
This is a relatively straightforward question: what exactly was the South's objective during the war?
The answer is simple, although many Southerns refuse to accept it: To preserve slavery.There had been friction (over multiple issues) between the North and South for decades, without the South succeeding from the Union. But as soon as a (moderate) abolitionist (Lincoln) was elected President the South succeeded–before he could take office. IMHO the timing makes the (primary) motive crystal clear.
Follow up – so if the South just wanted to survive, and take a defensive stand, did its military strategy reflect this? Or, to put it another way, were the moves made by the South in keeping with the idea of “holding on” or did it stray from its main objective?
Are you alluding to Gettysburg with this question? You see we invaded the “North” to get France to intervene but that bit us in the butt because Lincoln did his emancipation proclamation which kept Europe over in well Europe. But the second time it was to get them into the Yankees into the open and pressure the north.
I may be misreading the above. It seems to say the Emancipation Proclamation was issued following the Battle of Gettysburg. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862 which granted freedom to all slaves in any of the Confederate States that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. A supplementary executive order was issued January 1, 1863, which named ten specific states where it would apply. The Battle of Gettysburg was fought July 1-3, 1863?after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued.I agree that the Emancipation Proclamation made it impossible for England or France to intervene militarily on behalf of the South. It caused Lincoln a lot of “grief” in the North and, IMHO, was a gusty act on his part in which he risked his political future to achieve his political goals.
Your right about how a dynamic IP address can be the source of such problems. I was going on the assumption that when Aetheling was using a different computer it was connected to the same router and so would have the same IP address. (An assumption I probably shouldn't have made.) Anyway that's what caused me to suspect (defective) cookies–which I've also seen create login problems.
Yeah but Ronnie was a better actor by far! So there! 🙂
Yea but Grant didn't sponsor an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
Problems can be caused by cookies that malfunction. Try clearing your cache and always reboot the computer.
a victory at Gettysburg might have brought England in on the side of the South…At the time of Gettysburg they were sitting on the fence.
I must respectfully disagree. Following the Emancipation Proclamation it was impossible for England or France to enter the war on the side of the South. It was a gutsy move by Lincoln. One the one hand it made it impossible for Europe to militarily assist the South, but it was extremely unpopular with many in the North and made being re-nominated more difficult.
Knowing how census data was used to put Japanese-American citizens in what Americans would call concentration camps were they not located on US soil, I am very hesitant to answer questions not related to apportioning the US House of Representatives. For race I check “other” and specify human.
I believe Noah cannibalized the ark afterward to build homes for his family and other structures for the animals. He almost had to didn't he?
Sounds probable.
But the impression that the ark made on Mt. Ararat might still be there, and it might not. It's not really that important to me, but if it is still there, it would really shake the world to its foundations…especially the evolutionists and atheists.
So you'd think, but there's a lot of truth in the old adage: “A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I fear they'd find a way to deny the truth–no matter how compelling it might be.
Grant's accomplishments are greater than those of Regan. It's far more likely that communism would have imploded without Regan than the North would have won the Civil War–preserving the Union–without Grant.Grant doesn't merit having his portrait on the $50.00 bill for the the accomplishments of his presidency, but he does for his role as a general in the Civil War. One need not have been president to merit having his portrait on US currency, as witness Franklin and Hamilton.
I agree with the “let's wait and see” approach.I'm not an archeologist and so my opinion is very much that a layman, but I seriously doubt that after all these centuries there is anything of the ark left to find. I also doubt anything is left to identify the site. Soil erodes and landscapes change. Wood rots, or gets burned, or is used to build other structures…
Franklin worked very, very hard while in France. But, unlike Adams, he performed more of his labors in the salons of Paris than in the office. John Adams did not understand how much diplomatic work is accomplished behind the scenes in informal conversations and settings. Franklin spent his evening hours with the “movers and shakers” who fundamentally ignored the “other Adams” (as he contemptuous called) all the time John Adams was in France. Franklin didn't go to office until mid-day which upset Adams–who never understood the importance of the Parisian salons. Franklin was very popular with the French and they treated like a “rock star.” John Adams was jealous–and because he neither understood nor had admission to the salons–complained that Franklin “didn't do any work” when the truth is very much the opposite. In judging how hard Franklin worked don't overlook his age and his gout. He put in more than a full day's work throughout his stay in France.
Along with this, would the Treaty of Versailles still have been put into effect?
I'm guessing that had the Austro-Hungarian Empire survived WWI the terms the Treaty of Versailles terms would have been different.WWI was a war nobody really wanted; the Treaty of Versailles was a disaster. Had the allied leaders posed greater foresight–such as seen in the 1815 Treaty of Vienna ending the Napoleonic Wars–we might have had an enduring peace instead of WWII.
