|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 25, 2002 10:37:19 GMT -5
Hello,
This week I am watching Ken Burns "Civil War" 15 hours long documetary on PBS. It's very interesting...
If they are any civil war buffs amongst us, I'd like to discuss a few points that remain obscur to me.
Like this one: What is the cause of the civil war? Emancipation is BS: Abe only came up with that idea in 62, while the war erupted in 61.So what was it ?
The central Government? The free acess to the Missisipi?
Question 2, why didn't england help?
Question 3: best General? Lee? Grant? Sherman? Sheraton?
Worst General? Anyone in the north?lol
I've got many more, but I'd like to know if anyone is interested before going any further.
FYI: During the civil war 7 million man were actually called to serve. 600 000 of them died. Although blacks represented only 1% of the northern population, they were 10% of the unionist army. It is estimated that the south formed over 150 000 infantry men who served in the north.
Srrh
|
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Sept 25, 2002 11:58:16 GMT -5
If they are any civil war buffs amongst us, I'd like to discuss a few points that remain obscur to me. Nope- I know diddly-squat about the civil war- but I'm answering anyway... LOL I'm not a huge fan of the US civil war- and so I apologise if my facts are a little off- but I shall reply as I remember being taught in history and thru private reading. Slavery was a major problem between the North and the South pre-civil war- but not the cause of the civil war (although it was used as a rallying cry by the North once Abe said he would oust it). As a compromise- so that neither slave states nor non-slave states would have a stronger balance of power in the Senate- during the US expansion westward, for each new territory converted to a state that was non-slave supporting they would add one new slave supporting state to the union. Before the breakout of the civil war America had run out of slave supporting territories to convert to states- so the non-slave supporting states threatened to become numerically superior. Thus tensions in the South increased because they felt like their bargaining power in the Senate was about to be lost and that they would have no say in the government. What happened next was the federal government passed a law that placed a tarriff on machinery coming from outside the US- to protect the manufacturing industry in the North- this helped the North- but meant the agricultural South which depended on overseas built farming equipment had to pay much more- thus the South was hit a 1-2 blow. They had lost their power in the Senate- and the government had passed new laws favouring the Industrial North over the Agricultural South. The South began to feel like they had no power in the US government- so they wanted to split and form a new country that they DID have power over. After all- there was no law against succession- they joined of their own accord- they figured they had every right to leave the union of their own accord. There was also a difference of philosophy over the role of the federal government in the North and the South. In the North the federal government was seen as the all important power- and states were mere administrative districts- The South believed in States Rights- that the State had the power to do whatever it wants- and the federal government was only there to serve a common defense. Re Slaves: an important thing to note... USA generals Grant and Sherman were pro Slavery and owned many slaves. CSA generals Lee and general Jackson were opposed to slavery. So please- no one tell me this was about slavery alone! They did- they sent monetary help to the C.S.A. - but they were cautious- they didn't want to overtly sponsor a side that would lose. They didn't know who would win- and didn't want to embarrass themselves and become diplomatically isolated from the quickly growing Americas. No clue: BUT- I will say this, considering the fact that the CSA lacked man power and Industry- I think overall, despite losing eventually- the South did have better military leadership. I don't know facts and figures: but many black southerners joined the struggle for independence- and were an important part of the CSA army too! Overall- I think people have the right to choose who leads them- and the South had every right to split away. (although I am totally against slavery). All said and done though- I think its all for the best that the North did win. |
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 25, 2002 13:02:55 GMT -5
Nope- I know diddly-squat about the civil war Thank God. What would your answer have been otherwise? A book?lol Srrh |
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 25, 2002 13:14:04 GMT -5
In the North the federal government was seen as the all important power- and states were mere administrative districts- The South believed in States Rights- that the State had the power to do whatever it wants- and the federal government was only there to serve a common defense. Isn't it part of why the south lost? Every time Davis would try to impose a unifying idea, every governor would go his own merry way. BTW At the time, people from a town or a village would be drafted together and stay together in the same regiments throughout the conflict...Once in a while, one of those regiment would be decimated, and you'd end up with 95% of the family in a given village greiving over the lost of a son (or more) at the same time.... Srrh |
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 25, 2002 13:17:22 GMT -5
I don't know facts and figures: but many black southerners joined the struggle for independence- and were an important part of the CSA army too. That's strange...I thought that by the end of 62 they were actually scared to arm them... Lee, did after all, throughout his northern campaigns, send back every free black man he could encounter to be enslaved back in the south... Srrh |
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Sept 25, 2002 16:19:36 GMT -5
LOL- I didn't mean my reply to be that long- I thought I was just responding to a few comments quickly- and somehow it turned into "War and Peace"
Re: Southern Black Soldiers: I've no clue as to details- as I said- US civil war isn't my strong point...
Re: The CSA states agreeing:
Indeed- there was little agreement amongst the CSA other than the Yankees were a load of scum... LOL- Each state fought as its own unit- under its own flag (or at least its own version of the CSA's flag).
*As a side note*
The Confederate Battle Flag, that most people think most Southerners flew going into battle, was used by less than half the regiments.
Here in South Carolina the NAACP has been trying to get the state to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from the Confederate Memorial- they say it is a symbol of hate- the Friends of The Confederacy say it is a symbol of South Carolina Heritage...
I say they're both wrong- since not one South Carolina Regiment flew the Confederate Battle Flag- they used other various flags but not the Confederate Battle Flag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Sept 25, 2002 19:14:46 GMT -5
1. Blacks fought on both sides during the civil war.
2. that Rally cry for slave rights was BS. the south didn't like the fact that the north wanted to tell them how to run their plantations. So they decided to break apart. Well ol Abe put the rally cry and freed the slaves. Realistically it was economics that started the war, not slaves rights.
3. General Lee actaully wanted to fight for the north, however since he was from the south he thought it was his duty.
4. the statue of General Lee at the Smithsonian is turned backward so crowds cannot see Lee's name. Black activists complained.
5. Abe was not popular before the war, he grew that beard to disguise himself.
6. Plantatons ran better after slavery becuase the old slaves stayed and worked for nothing.
7. I think the 1st submarine was built during civil war.
8. southern states still have a confederates day (including Tennesee) even though Al gore bitched about that flag in like SC.
9. biggest loss of american lives is during the civil war.
10. people ate picknics and watched the battles.
I don't know much but that should some.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Sept 25, 2002 19:21:59 GMT -5
OK Wycco has confirmed a few things. However ask a typical kid what the Civil war was about and 99% say "to free slaves". It is sickening how something gets changed to fit what they want to hear.
Also i think maybe the french helped some.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cine_Man on Sept 25, 2002 22:53:33 GMT -5
There was some participation from North of the Border, as well.
John Wilkes Booth spent a large amount of time in Montreal, before finding other fame than as an actor.
(I'm not that fond of actors.)
It has been theorized that the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada was an after-effect of the Civil War, insofar as the five existing provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick feared repercussions in the form of "reparations" actions on the part of the Union after the war ended in 1865... Canada confederated in 1867.
And, isn't it ALWAYS about economics? With a little something to hang the dollar sign on?
Cine_...
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Sept 26, 2002 1:44:27 GMT -5
Can't say I know much about the Civil War, but in reading the the above comments, I began thinking about what the world would be like if the two had actually split. Interesting concept...
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Sept 26, 2002 8:42:36 GMT -5
The Submarine was called the Hunley. It was the first sub to sink a ship.
Wycco- In 2000 this made big new in SC. Remember those boys brought it up and are restoring it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 26, 2002 9:35:20 GMT -5
I think the 1st submarine was built during civil war. people ate picknics and watched the battles. I don't know about subs, but they builded the Miramach (spell?) and the Monitor. In both cases, the crew was actually below the water lines. The monitor was actually protected by 11 inches metal plates. People and Picnis: not only that, but some soldiers brought there entire families along for the ride, sometimes 2 or three years. Do you know why so many Unionists are burreid areound Lee's house? Because the North thought he was responsible for their death and that was a way to punish him: making sure he could never return to the familly mansion. Wyc. Grant didn't have slaves: his wife did: 50 of them. TC True about Abe, but he got re-elected anyway, didn't he? Henrik: No doubt the face of mordern geo-politics would have been different had seccession succeded. It is a facinating idea... Srrh |
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Sept 26, 2002 9:41:56 GMT -5
Right he is...
H.L. Hunley was a Confederate submersible that demonstrated the advantage and danger of undersea warfare. Although not this nation's first submarine, Hunley was the first submarine to engage and sink a warship.
Privately built in 1863 by Park and Lyons of Mobile, Alabama, Hunley was fashioned from a cylindrical iron steam boiler, which was deepened and also lengthened through the addition of tapered ends. Hunley was designed to be hand powered by a crew of nine: eight to turn the hand-cranked propeller and one to steer and direct the boat. As a true submarine, each end was equipped with ballast tanks that could be flooded by valves or pumped dry by hand pumps. Extra ballast was added through the use of iron weights bolted to the underside of the hull. In the event the submarine needed additional buoyancy to rise in an emergency, the iron weight could be removed by unscrewing the heads of the bolts from inside the vessel.
On 17 February 1864, the Confederate submarine made a daring late night attack on USS Housatonic, and 1800-ton sloop-of-war with 23 guns, in Charleston Harbor off the coast of South Carolina. H.L. Hunley rammed Housatonic with spar torpedo packed with explosive powder and attached to a long pole on its bow. The spar torpedo embedded in the sloop's wooden side was detonated by a rope as Hunley backed away. The resulting explosion that sent Housatonic with five crew members to the bottom of Charleston Harbor also sank Hunley with its crew of nine. H.L. Hunley earned a place in the history of undersea warfare as the first submarine to sink a ship in wartime.
With the civil right struggle and the race for space, this is probably some of US history at its best...
Srrh
|
|
|
|
Post by da_silva on Sept 26, 2002 9:56:33 GMT -5
Thanks guys, Interesting stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Sept 26, 2002 9:56:41 GMT -5
Yeah this is one of those things you hear about and say WOW. Imagine a sub with hand power. It scares me to believe that this simple machine has turned out to be one if not the most powerful weapon in the world.
|
|
Don't Die Before You Live...