Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So Notch (or anyone else), what do you think was the larger significance of the riots (if any)? Did it have a social or political impact on the progress of the war itself?Scout, I'm pretty sure the movie took place in the 1860s, unless I'm confusing it with some other movie in which the riots are depicted.
The movie did take place during the 1860's... Social impact yes indeed. Think about it. You have immigrants, living not much better than the slaves lived, you are being granted citizenship solely on the premise that you will then go fight for your new country; your poor status requires that you go fight since you can?t come up with the $300 commutation fee.Most of these immigrants were fed up with fighting in their homelands; which is why many of them came to this country in the first place, and now they are being forced to fight again, and by this time, for a group of people that they had no desire to fight for. I think on top of their hardships, the bitter pill that slaves would take away their already meager existence AND they had to go fight and die for this to happen. And they couldn't buy their way out like others could. Who can blame their actions?Politically I think it was less impacting. The states? leaving the Union was a far bigger impact on the entire political structure of the time. You had Mayor Fernando Wood supporting secession and Governor Horatio Seymour running on an anti-war platform. I think this was just a Copperhead train of thought and people dismissed it as crazy. But again, socially I think it was very significant. The number of killed and injured varies from low to very high, but up to that time it was the most deadly riot in America. I also think it is a prime example of the misconception that northerners were fighting for to free the slaves. They weren't, and many in the north believed that freeing the slaves was a not only a bad idea because they were considered intellectually inferior but because, as the draft riots proved, the slaves represented competition for the low income working class.So socially it was very significant and IMHO is a perfect place for people today, who don't really understand the Civil War or slavery, to start to get a real picture of the period outside of the regurgitated, politically correct fluff that has been and still is taught.
It'll take me a while to get my degree at one or two classes at a time, but like already stated, I can see getting burnt and stressed out real quick. If you aren't in a hurry, take a break. If you are in a hurry, evaluate WHY you are in such a hurry and would that justification warrant the burn out that would result.
One of the bloodiest riots in American history in terms of the amount of lives lost in time in relation to the size of the population of the country. I also find it interesting that these riots took place in New York. New York was this close to seceeding during the Civil War, for different reasons than the south.Another topic of the Civil War that gets completely glossed over... too bad...
I have never heard a historian claim any more than that Arthur was a mythical construct of several early English kings. I don't believe he was a true historic figure. If this location is supposed to be Camelot then they need more than one 6th century account to prove it. They can start by trying to prove he existed as a real person in the first place.
What about the theory that he was not a British king but the Roman soldier Lucius Artorius Castus? I read a few things, and yes, saw the movie, and that story seems more plausible than the rest as Castus was a real, verifiable person and that his legacy grew into legend and thus the Arthur legend...
Everything I have read the term “black flag” is used as a metaphor, no actual black flag being flown, but used to represent their giving “no quarter” to the enemy.
I read a few books and have heard that Quantrill flew no flag and the whole “Black Flag” story is unsubstantiated… Cole Younger even wrote in his book that no flag was flown and he roade with Quantrill… thoughts?
I would not consider 9-11 a non-wartime event. The attack was clearly an Act of War even though perpretrated by a non-state actor.I would add the McKinley assassination that put Teddy Roosevelt into office. Roosevelt entirely changed US foreign policy and had a profound effect on the business climate in the US as well.
If I made it 11 McKinnley assassination would be in there... Absolutely...As for 9/11, it pre-empted any conflict... hence it's inclusion...Donald, some othe events you referred to were during Vietnam (sticklers will say it wasn't a war...declared... true enough.. but ask anyone who served if it was a war) so those events would be excluded.Obviously the list could be huge... I picked things that defined a moment in our history and were instrumental in future change.
Very interesting indeed… The one that I found fascinating was the first underwater photo… Photography was still in it's infancy and the ability to use the technology on land was in itself a challenge, but to tackle it underwater? Impressive.
Sherman for sure would get the nod for the North, with Benjamin Butler a VERY close second.The South is a bit harder to pinpoint... Forrest maybe... possibly even Jefferson Davis...
Do you mean his move prior to Gettysburg? If I remember right he did it to draw the Army of the Potomac away from DC. He hoped to be able to do an end run around them and threaten Washington, forcing Lincoln to the Peace table.
Right... I guess I was wondering if he actually thought about the fact he was on the agressive and if this move didn't work, or if Lincoln refused to offer terms (which I am sure at this point in the conflict Lee had to realize Lincoln's resolve to preserve the Union was unshakeable) would this be the best course of action. This agressive move split up a lot of the Souths army... and I wonder if, again, at this point in the conflict, he truly understood the limitlessness of the military resources the North had? His forces were being split and fighting on multiple "fronts" and the Union forces still had reserves to spare... Lee HAD to have known this... So was PA a futile move, even if the outcome had been different?Even if Lee had achieved victory, threaten Washington, one wonders if he really undertood the amount of forces that the Union had and that it would be a very short time before reinforcements made their way to Washington and once again force Lee's army into retreat again.
I think, as already stated, that the South had no chance from the get go by it's defensive stance. I also believe that their view that war should be fought in a “gentlemanly” way was, at this point in history, outdated. You had the likes of Sherman, Grant and Sheridan rising in influence and their view of “total war” put the South at a huge disadvantage.I think also, one has to look at the South's end state... they were not, as many wish to believe, out to conquer the North, this led to their defensive stance, and demise. Had they taken the agressive, as Jackson did early on one would think the outcome may have been different with the caliber of generals the South had, but again, as already stated, the sheer number of manpower the North had over the South would have made takent he agressive futile.I wonder if Lee actually had that in the back of his head when he made his move into Pennsylvania?
