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)
 
Old 10-06-2017, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,660,890 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Actually, I've studied many of the battles of the Civil War. The forced marches of the Union Army during the Appomattox campaign were exceptional.

Read James McPherson's comments in the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Battle of Cry of Freedom" about the Union's campaigning in the spring of 1865. Describing the April 2 all-out assault that broke the Confederate line at Petersburg, McPherson wrote: "it came, with more elan and power than the Army of the Potomac had shown for a long time." (Chapter 28 "We Are All Americans;" Part III)

If you actually had read anything about the spring 1865 campaigns you likely would draw a similar conclusion rather than dismiss my informed statement as "fluff."

<<The lead units of the infantry columns reached Appomattox Station about 2:00 a.m. on April 9, although most of the infantry came up later in the morning while the cavalry were holding back the Confederate escape attempt.[113]

The marches and movements of the Union cavalry and the XXIV Corps, V Corps and African-American men of the XXV Corps on April 8 to get ahead of the Army of Northern Virginia on their route west, as well as the efforts of the II Corps and VI Corps to press the Confederates from behind, led to the Confederate army being effectively surrounded on April 9.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...Tremain233-138

These forced marches of entire Union Corps of infantry were more than worthy of Stonewall Jackson's famed Confederate "foot cavalry."

<<The Union infantry was close, but the only unit near enough to support Sheridan's cavalry was Maj. Gen. John Gibbon's XXIV Corps of the Army of the James. This corps traveled 30 miles (48 km) in 21 hours to reach the cavalry. [Emphasis added.] Maj. Gen. Edward O. C. Ord, commander of the Army of the James, arrived with the XXIV Corps around 4:00 a.m. while the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac was close behind. Sheridan deployed his three divisions of cavalry along a low ridge to the southwest of Appomattox Court House....

Gordon's troops charged through the Union lines and took the ridge, but as they reached the crest they saw the entire Union XXIV Corps in line of battle with the Union V Corps to their right.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ox_Court_House

It's a good idea for posters to know what they're talking about before writing dismissive comments about other posters' statements.

What motivated the Union soldiers during the spring of 1865? Surely, the chance to finally end the war was an overriding motivation. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the numbers of abolitionists and "practical abolitionists" in the Union army, let alone African Americans, who, with the Thirteenth Amendment in the pocket, knew that their final victory also would mean the end of slavery in the United States.

There is a theme in these C-D Civil War threads to dismiss the general abhorrence of slavery in the North, despite the reality that many, including Lincoln, saw slavery as a great evil but were willing to let slavery die a natural death if such restraint avoided a war to preserve a Perpetual Union. However, once the great sacrifices of four years of costly war to quash the rebellion were added to the equation, the Thirteenth Amendment would put an end to the "Slave Power" which had instigated the bloody cataclysm which had so wounded the nation. To say that Thirteenth Amendment wasn't added motivation for the Union armies, that the issue of slavery would be dead for forever with final victory, is just wrong-headed IMO.
Appreciated.. but IMO, fluff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2017, 09:33 PM
 
716 posts, read 393,221 times
Reputation: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
So full disclaimer to get my background where I'm posting from.... I have a "northern perspective and education"

So I've really become interested in the civil war lately and the more I've been learning the more interested I've become.

I remember in school basically being told more or less the war was about slavery and related issues and that's the way it was. Never gave a 2nd thought about it and just thought that's that.

The more I read and learn I'm really challenging what I thought I knew. And I'm curious to get some more opinions on this topic or get some more books or documentaries recommended to me.

I also just visited Gettysburg this year and that's what really got me down the rabbit hole of the civil war.

Looking at everything I've learned so far it seems the cause of the civil war is so much more complex than I realized. Even reading Lincoln's inaugural address in 1861 he specifically mentions not trying to stop slavery in the South and its not his intention (I'm paraphrasing)

And that most people in the South readily admitted that they feel slavery would have naturally ended on its own.

The union still allowed border states like West virginia, Delaware, Kentucky to stay in the union and support the union cause AND remain slave states. That right there says the war did not originally start as a means to end slavery when the union allows its own states to continue on with slavery.

Like 97% of southern soldiers were far to poor to ever have slaves. Even some of the more aristocratic ones, for example Thomas Jackson actually went out of his way to teach slaves to read and write and helped build a Sunday school for them. I couldn't believe when I learned one of the confederates most famous generals was teaching slaves to read and write and with respect. It was quite a surprise for me to learn.

Lincoln only gave the emancipation proclamation addrssing slaves in confederate territory deliberately to undermine the south's economy, and to sow discontent and unrest.

Definitely didn't learn these things in school.

It's really changed how I look at the war.

I am really thinking that American civil war Was the South being angry and feeling mistreated over states rights issues. It's far more complex than I realized. And I am now viewing the confederacy differently than I did before. The North invaded to beat the South back into submission to preserve the union not to stop slavery, that became a method to inflict pain on the southern economy.

I've read/watched all the usuals...the killer angels, God's and generals, gettysburg, glory, (still have to read the last full measure) and I think It's called blue and grey? And others Etc..

If you guys have any interesting points or feedback let me know. I'm always willing to reevaluate and learn.

If you have any book or movie / mini series recommendations let me know
Try Birth of a Nation by Griffith, it sounds like it would confirm your current line of thinking...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 09:47 AM
 
5,544 posts, read 8,314,247 times
Reputation: 11141

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrXxz4iniRs

OP

you might look at Army War College classes such as the above. you will get a pretty reasoned explanation.

enjoy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 07:46 PM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
For the billionth time ....

The South was not for state right
The South was angry that theNorthern states used "State rights" to not have to comply with oro-slavery federal laws

That's gilts be the biggest myth in history
They were against state rights
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:28 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,244,033 times
Reputation: 10141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
For the billionth time ....

The South was not for state right
The South was angry that theNorthern states used "State rights" to not have to comply with oro-slavery federal laws

That's gilts be the biggest myth in history
They were against state rights
The South was against States Rights? I do not agree.

I will agree that SLAVERY was the main issue of the Civil War, most comments at the time about States Right are actually about protecting slavery. But not all, some people were actually concerned with the legality and theory of States Rights in its own right.

Earlier in the thread, someone provided links to secession declarations of some of the Southern states to show they were concerned about slavery. Well I looked at a couple of them and they also mentioned States rights.

Like I mentioned, before the Civil War South Carolina was arming itself against the Federal government on the issue of tariffs and their "State Right" to "nullify" the tariffs. That was a state right issue and had very little to do with slavery.

And even during the Civil War, states rights undermined the Southern war effort. Governors like Brown in Georgia and Vance in North Carolina repeatedly clashed with Jefferson Davis on legal issues and the use of state troops. In a similar way, States Righters in the North, like Cooperheads Long and Vallandigham, clashed with the Lincoln administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 02:09 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,431,928 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
The South was against States Rights? I do not agree.

I will agree that SLAVERY was the main issue of the Civil War, most comments at the time about States Right are actually about protecting slavery. But not all, some people were actually concerned with the legality and theory of States Rights in its own right.

Earlier in the thread, someone provided links to secession declarations of some of the Southern states to show they were concerned about slavery. Well I looked at a couple of them and they also mentioned States rights.

Like I mentioned, before the Civil War South Carolina was arming itself against the Federal government on the issue of tariffs and their "State Right" to "nullify" the tariffs. That was a state right issue and had very little to do with slavery.

And even during the Civil War, states rights undermined the Southern war effort. Governors like Brown in Georgia and Vance in North Carolina repeatedly clashed with Jefferson Davis on legal issues and the use of state troops. In a similar way, States Righters in the North, like Cooperheads Long and Vallandigham, clashed with the Lincoln administration.
Secession documents repeatedly stated opposition against northern state rights to enfranchise African Americans, as well as to thwart the Fugitive Slave Law.

Read about Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Rockwell Swan's political suicide by ruling in favor of the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act. Also, consider the light sentences given to individuals who rescued a fugitive slave who had been apprehended by U.S. marshals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberli..._Rescue#Appeal

The South was right that the political will in the North no longer was tolerant of slavery and soon likely would target the right of Southern states to maintain the institution of slavery.

In other words, the South was selective in its support for states' rights, favoring states' rights which they supported, but opposing the states' rights in other states.

Of course, the big states' rights issue in the South was slavery. So even with states' rights, slavery was a root cause of secession and revolution.

You are right that an insistence on states' rights, and opposition to Confederate federal power, did impede the Confederacy's war effort. E.g., states' rights proponents in the South opposed the Confederate conscription laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 08:13 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,244,033 times
Reputation: 10141
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Secession documents repeatedly stated opposition against northern state rights to enfranchise African Americans, as well as to thwart the Fugitive Slave Law.

Read about Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Rockwell Swan's political suicide by ruling in favor of the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act. Also, consider the light sentences given to individuals who rescued a fugitive slave who had been apprehended by U.S. marshals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberli..._Rescue#Appeal

The South was right that the political will in the North no longer was tolerant of slavery and soon likely would target the right of Southern states to maintain the institution of slavery.

In other words, the South was selective in its support for states' rights, favoring states' rights which they supported, but opposing the states' rights in other states.

Of course, the big states' rights issue in the South was slavery. So even with states' rights, slavery was a root cause of secession and revolution.

You are right that an insistence on states' rights, and opposition to Confederate federal power, did impede the Confederacy's war effort. E.g., states' rights proponents in the South opposed the Confederate conscription laws.
Bingo, you just answered what my next post would be if Bopo came back and said "states rights is a myth".

We need to remember that in politics or in ideology, people's beliefs sometimes contradict themselves. Even today, both our major political parties have major contradictions to their supposed core values. And people often ignore ideas and evidence that does not fit with their already existing beliefs.

Is it really surprising that people who had been shouting about state's rights for themselves since 1790 might ignore other people's states rights issues when it was inconvenient for them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 04:54 AM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Bingo, you just answered what my next post would be if Bopo came back and said "states rights is a myth".
Tell me where in the secession articles it says something about "state rights"

You say that slavery was the main issue
That issue was cause by Northern states passing anti-slavery state laws
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 01:21 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,244,033 times
Reputation: 10141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Tell me where in the secession articles it says something about "state rights"

You say that slavery was the main issue
That issue was cause by Northern states passing anti-slavery state laws
Ok. The first state to secede was South Carolina. First paragraph.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession



The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 03:11 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
18,526 posts, read 18,744,531 times
Reputation: 28767
Tell me about it........Scotlands part in the war was well covered up for years.. its only recently were being told about what went on... shameful when we should have been impartial.... money talks however.. sadly. https://history4everyone.wordpress.c...can-civil-war/

https://sonofskye.wordpress.com/2014...es-of-america/
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 AM.

© 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