Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2014, 03:36 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

This thread should be moved to Great Debates, Current Events or Politics and other Controversies since it is no longer (if it ever was) about history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2014, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,527,403 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This thread should be moved to Great Debates, Current Events or Politics and other Controversies since it is no longer (if it ever was) about history.

My purpose in choosing to put the thread here is because it seemed from all the current talk of secession I was reading about that many in the south were, in some ways still thinking about, and in their hearts still fighting the civil war . I wanted to ask why and discuss it.

Last edited by vanguardisle; 05-07-2014 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 09:39 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
I don't know if it is a result of the southern educational system because I wasn't allowed to go to the white folks school, but in that Negro schools, as the called them back in the day, we were taught that the Civil War was to preserve the union and in the course of the struggle Lincoln freed the slaves.

But I do know that the Daughters of Confederacy spent a great deal of time and money promoting this nonsense about the War of Northern Aggression.

The South still lies about the Civil War - Salon.com

Neoconfederate civil war revisionism | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 01:02 PM
 
6 posts, read 18,699 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I don't know if it is a result of the southern educational system because I wasn't allowed to go to the white folks school, but in that Negro schools, as the called them back in the day, we were taught that the Civil War was to preserve the union and in the course of the struggle Lincoln freed the slaves.

But I do know that the Daughters of Confederacy spent a great deal of time and money promoting this nonsense about the War of Northern Aggression.

The South still lies about the Civil War - Salon.com

Neoconfederate civil war revisionism | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.com
I have been taught that too, but I actually think it is revisionism.

Daniel McCallum was one of the leaders in the military on the Union Side.
He controlled the Union Railroad, and organized Lincoln's funeral..
http://www.saltcreekcwrt.org/newslet...ost%205.09.txt
In other words, he was way up the chain of command.

Read this poem, and deduce for yourself what he considered most important
preserving the union, or eliminating slavery...it is clear the latter was the proud moment.
THE WATER - MILL; AND OTHER POEMS - D. C. McCALLUM. - Google Books

You nailed it with your being segregated.
the South stayed segregated LONG after the north, and having lived in several areas of both portions of the country, any bigotry in the North is FAR less obvious or severe than in much of the South. In fact, they still have segregated cemmetaries in manny parts.

I think people who are descended from either northern or southern soldiers and military men of the Civil War have much of which to be proud. However, the rural South ESPECIALLY remains exceedingly racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 02:45 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmanatbac View Post
Read this poem, and deduce for yourself what he considered most important
Neither of these require much deduction.


"I do not think that many went into the war with the motive, distinctly and directly to overthrow slavery by force of arms. Our people were more accustomed to correct evils by reasons and conscience and law and equity. The destruction of slavery slavery was more than we dreamed of, - most of us. The attempt of the South to cary slavery into the free territory of the U.S. had made it a burning question. But the American Congress in 1861, by unanimous vote declared that neither the Federal government nor the people had the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slave-holding states of the Union. .And even President Lincoln, in his inaugural message, declared that he had no right, nor power, nor purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.

No, Friends, - we did no assume when we took the field and the sea in the country's defense, that we were going to settle by force a moral question which had baffled all the wisdom and patriotism of our fathers - but that was one of the results which the developments of the conflict and the ordering of the Divine Providence made greater than we had dared or dreamed. No; we did not take up arms for the conscious purpose of fighting slavery down; but God, - in his providence, in his justice, in his mercy to this country, consecrated to freedom, allowed the champions of slavery to set in the forefront of their defiance, and it was swept aside from the path as the might pageant of the people passed on to its glory."
Gen. Joshua Chamberlain, from an interview with the Peabody Press dated 1884.


I quote in part....
"There is an aspect in which the question at issue might seem to be of forms, and not of substance. It was, on its face, a question of government. There was a boastful pretence that each State held in its hands the death-warrant of the Nation; that any State had a right, without show of justification outside of its own caprice, to violate the covenants of the constitution, to break away from the Union, and set up its own little sovereignty as sufficient for all human purposes and ends; thus leaving it to the mere will or whim of any member of our political system to destroy the body and dissolve the soul of the Great People. This was the political question submitted to the arbitrament of arms. But the victory was of great politics over small. It was the right reason, the moral consciousness and solemn resolve of the people rectifying its wavering exterior lines according to the life-lines of its organic being.

"There is a phrase abroad which obscures the legal and moral questions involved in the issue,--indeed, which falsifies history: "The War between the States". There are here no States outside of the Union. Resolving themselves out of it does not release them. Even were they successful in intrenching themselves in this attitude, they would only relapse into territories of the United States. Indeed several of the States so resolving were never in their own right either States or Colonies; but their territories were purchased by the common treasury of the Union. Underneath this phrase and title,--"The War between the States"--lies the false assumption that our Union is but a compact of States. Were it so, neither party to it could renounce it at his own mere will or caprice. Even on this theory the States remaining true to the terms of their treaty, and loyal to its intent, would have the right to resist force by force, to take up the gage of battle thrown down by the rebellious States, and compel them to return to their duty and their allegiance. The Law of Nations would have accorded the loyal States this right and remedy.

No one of us would disregard the manly qualities and earnest motives among those who permitted themselves to strike at the consecrated life of the Union, and thus made themselves our foes. But the best of virtues may be enlisted in the worst of causes. Had the question of breaking up this Union been submitted to the people of the South as American citizens, I do not believe it possible that such a resolution could have been taken. But the leaders of that false cause knew how to take advantage of instincts deeply planted in every American heart; and by perverting their State Governments, and making their conspiracy seem to be the act and intent of the States, sprung an appeal to the sentiment of loyalty to the principle of local self-government; and the thrilling reveille of cannon swept the heart-strings of a chivalrous and impressionable people. There are times when it is more natural to act than to reason; and easier to fight than to be right. But the men that followed that signal made a terrible mistake. Misled by fictions; mistaught as to fact and doctrine by the masters of political history and public law; falsely fired by misdirected sentiment; mazed in the strange contradiction that they were at once the champions of democracy and the exponents of aristocratic superiority, they forgot the calm, true life rolling on above;--the mightier solution of differences,--the great coherence of affinity, stronger by counterpoise of attractions and interfusion of unlikenesses, than any mere aggregation of sameness in elements. They did not understand this rich, composite nature of the great People, born of the eternal energies of freedom; incorporate under the guarantees of highest law; dedicated to immortal life in the great covenants of mutual human faith.

There was no war between the States. It was a war in the name of certain States to destroy the political existence of the United States, in membership of which alone, on any just theory of the government, their own sovereignty as States inhered, and could make itself effectual. To this absurd pass did that false theory come, -- a war of States against the people; and if successful, the suicide of States.
General Joshua Chamberlain, given at Gettysburg, PA 3 October 1888.

I highly recommend that the speech be read in whole.

Two Speeches by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,378,269 times
Reputation: 24780
Default why does the south still threaten to sucede?

The south doesn't.

The lunatic fringe does.

We should let them go.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2014, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Florida
19 posts, read 21,802 times
Reputation: 47
Because we're not proud of what the United States is turning into, a socialist country that lets the liberal media run everything. I do wish the South would just secede already though. It's too bad we lost the Civil War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2014, 07:19 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida-Cracker View Post
Because we're not proud of what the United States is turning into, a socialist country that lets the liberal media run everything.
That's as daft as the rational the first time the South played this game. Either way the South isn't the South any more. Southern cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Miami are no more inclined to secede than any northern state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 02:02 PM
 
622 posts, read 941,844 times
Reputation: 292
How about we just give away New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and California to Canada. So the US would only have the Southern and the Midwestern states. The US would become a Republican Country while Canada would become Democratic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 02:36 AM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,046 posts, read 4,790,468 times
Reputation: 3544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

You are wasting your time studying the Civil War.

There is absolutely nothing....nothing...from the Civil War that is economically or militarily relevant today.

Mircea
Nothing militarily relevant? You are joking or else are truly ignorant.

In fact, even tactics used in the Revolutionary War are still studied today. Daniel Morgan's plan at the battle of Cowpens is widely considered to be the tactical masterpiece of the war and one of the most successfully executed double envelopments of all of modern military history (from Wikipedia).

Last edited by Weichert; 05-25-2014 at 03:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top