Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’ll give you Gettysburg, but calling Antietam a “decisive victory” is laughable. It stopped his invasion of the North...but the actual battle was a stalemate.
Vicksburg fell on the same day as Gettysburg and between the 2 events, The South was toast.
*War starts in '61. Goes well for The Confederacy at first.
*Farragut takes New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi in '62. Now, no more goods can leave via the all important river.
*Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July, '63, on the same day. Now, The Union has full control of the entire river. And no more supplies will be coming across from Texas and points West.
*Farragut takes Mobile in August, '64. That was the last seaport.
Most people focus on the important land battles. A different view of the war can be taken through the coastal battles. Few people talk about David (Damn The Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead!) Farragut these days. There should be more recognition for him, I think.
*Farragut takes Mobile in August, '64. That was the last seaport.
Hope you do not mind a small nitpick for the sake of accuracy. In August of 1864, Admiral Farragut destroyed the rebel defensive fleet and forced the surrender of the forts guarding the entrance to Mobile Bay. That gave the Union control of all traffic in and out of the bay, but Mobile itself remained in Confederate hands until taken by a land assault in April of 1865.
The problem was that the Freedmen were betrayed and subjected to Jim Crow as the price of healing those wounds. No good.
I wouldn’t have hanged anyone but I would’ve given Wilson orders to shoot Davis out of hand upon his capture. I would’ve banned from political office, at any level, all who had taken up arms against the United States or been part of a rebel government at any level. Had recalcitrant rebels remained in arms after the destruction of the main rebel armies I would’ve had them hunted down and destroyed down using Freedmen and southern Unionists as anti insurgency forces. No quarter given.
You appear to be unaware that those who had supported the Confederacy were required to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before having their vote restored or even drawing rations in war-ravaged areas - this included civilians. There's even a famous piece of "parlor sculpture" entitled "Taking the Oath and Drawing Rations", showing a sad-faced young mother, evidently a widow, with her hand on a Bible held by a Union officer as she takes the oath, while two small children, one black, one white, cling to her skirts. Once the oath was taken, U.S. citizenship was restored, a very wise move.
If you eliminated all who'd supported the Confederate forces or government from political office, you would eliminate most of the educated people of the South, NOT a wise move. The resentment would have been massive and resulted in increased division and resentment between North and South.
My g-g-grandfather was a field officer under Armistead and was injured in Pickett's Charge. He served throughout the war and was at Appomattox. Yet afterwards, he served his community well as a business leader and later became a member of his state's legislature. He said the war "was all a big mistake", and refused to talk about it afterwards. Instead, he and other community leaders supported a biracial ticket which successfully ran for state office, a most remarkable occurrence in his time and place.
A black member of that biracial ticket served as my ancestor's body servant during the war, saw action, and also drew a Confederate pension, so by your standards, he also would have been ineligible for elective office.
Banning such men from holding office would have been vindictive, a waste of intelligence and a rejection of reconciliation.
Read the biography. Lincoln fell far short of sainthood. But all of them do.
Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the plight of the enslaved.
And if you think it was Lee's idea to pit brother against brother on the battlefield.....no.
I don't think Lincoln is a "Saint". In fact, I do not believe in "saints". Metaphorically or religiously.
Lincoln was not a perfect person. Few of us are.
Would you provide some evidence for this statement?
Are you serious?
Quote:
Sears Holdings, which operates Kmart and Sears, will no longer allow third parties to sell Confederate-themed merchandise online. (June 22, 2015)
The world's largest retailer (wal-mart) has taken down reproductions of the Confederate flag from its physical and online stores. "We don't want to offend anyone with the products that we offer," spokesman Brian Nick said in a statement. (June 22, 2015)
The online auction site (ebay) has vowed to ban the listing of Confederate flags and items. (June 23, 2015)
On Tuesday afternoon, a spokesperson confirmed the company (amazon) would pull Confederate flag merchandise. (June 23, 2015)
You appear to be unaware that those who had supported the Confederacy were required to take an oath of allegiance....
...A black member of that biracial ticket served as my ancestor's body servant during the war, saw action, and also drew a Confederate pension, so by your standards, he also would have been ineligible for elective office...
...Banning such men from holding office would have been vindictive, a waste of intelligence and a rejection of reconciliation.
I’m aware of the oath.
Your uncle’s servant (was he enslaved?) was probably not a citizen nor serving of his own volition nor a soldier. But if he were, yeah, no office for him.
Being vindictive has it’s uses as is seen in the aftermath of many rebellions in which the question was settled for a long time. It was for the rebels to reconcile themselves to the United States, not the other way around. After the rebellion social and economic revolution was needed in the South, absent that the Freedmen got the shaft when the white southern elites regained power. The screwing of the Blacks is a fact.
War Generals are supposed to be saints now? Hmmm.....seems to be asking a lot.
iv`e been waiting for this post .. google up who said >> " the only good Indian is a dead Indian "an tell me how that is less worse than what R.E .LEE may have or have not done ...
Martin Luther King Jr. was no saint either, but I don't see his statues being taken down, or street names being changed.
Indeed, MLK had plenty of extramarital affairs. Hardly anyone in history was perfect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.. google up who said >> " the only good Indian is a dead Indian "an tell me how that is less worse than what R.E .LEE may have or have not done ...
