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.
Good post! Much of my study of the Civil War was during officers training while in the USAF so there were many other deeper issues discussed! Much of the BS that is passed off as truth nowadays is shallow revisionist garbage. Many of the soldiers on both sides were forced to take up arms! They had no choice. Most - the vast majority - were dirt poor and never owned slaves. They barely owned shoes!
Too much blood was shed by both sides with the result being a divided nation today that wastes tons of money coddling anarchist criminals that rarely contribute anything positive to society while trying to eliminate history as if that will make things better for them! It won't. The "diversity experiment" is a costly failure!
Exactly right. The common, low-level men and boys who actually fought on both sides were not fighting for any cause other than "defending their country." Very few CSA soldiers had anything to do with slavery and were farmboys who'd likely hardly ever been off their farm. Many men on both sides didn't even have shoes on their feet when they were fighting those battles. If you read of the actual conflicts and fighting, it's horrifying and heartbreaking and only a truly soul-less individual could help but to have profound sympathy for the common soldier on both sides of the conflict. They were victims of two different societies and systems that clashed. For me, that is what it boils down to. It's always the the common man that simply wants to live his life who pays the highest price in these sorts of conflicts--and he is always propagandized and indoctrinated until he is willing to raise his fist in anger against "the other."
Basically, you had a bunch of rich and powerful politicians on both sides causing the war. A lot of wealth was being made off the backs of slavery and they were arguing about who got to keep most of it. Neither side wanted to give the black slaves any of it. The soldiers were the ones duped into doing the fighting. Rich mans war, poor mans fight.
Not necessarily. If you read the constitution, the original intended relationships between states and the federal government, and the state charters of Virginia and other states in general, there are certainly questions, if you are honest enough to admit it. You are oversimplifying it, and you know you are.
Let me ask you something: if your state, and half the country decided to split away from the US, what would you do when asked where you allegiance lies? Let's say your half of the country wanted to become the "Liberal States of America," and the other half fashioned itself as the "Conservative States of America." Are you going to go fight for the conservatives and blast your liberal friends through the head with an AK?
Addressing only the part in bold.
I do not believe I could take up arms against my neighbors, but I couldn't take them up defending their position, either, if I believed it to be wrong. I certainly wouldn't be able to lead them in battle against people whose values more closely matched my own.
Exactly right. The common, low-level men and boys who actually fought on both sides were not fighting for any cause other than "defending their country." Very few CSA soldiers had anything to do with slavery and were farmboys who'd likely hardly ever been off their farm. Many men on both sides didn't even have shoes on their feet when they were fighting those battles. If you read of the actual conflicts and fighting, it's horrifying and heartbreaking and only a truly soul-less individual could help but to have profound sympathy for the common soldier on both sides of the conflict. They were victims of two different societies and systems that clashed. For me, that is what it boils down to. It's always the the common man that simply wants to live his life who pays the highest price in these sorts of conflicts--and he is always propagandized and indoctrinated until he is willing to raise his fist in anger against "the other."
You have just described almost all wars ever fought.
And a piece of cloth excuses everything that was done under that cloth? Tell the Native Americans about that.
Just how many things are we talking about here? To return to it: We're talking about a general who turned down the top position in the US military, resigned from the army, and then led an army against the United States of America. And that's not even to bring up when these monuments were erected in the first place.
War is hell, I get it. No angels, sure. He is nothing more than a traitor who led many poor souls to their premature deaths. He deserves a memorial at his own grave site and to be written about and studied, but this is not a person to be proud of.
I do not believe I could take up arms against my neighbors, but I couldn't take them up defending their position, either, if I believed it to be wrong. I certainly wouldn't be able to lead them in battle against people whose values more closely matched my own.
I appreciate your honesty in response. I doubt many here would be willing to see past their political mindset.
Personally, if I were a resident of a state in what became the CSA, I really don't know what I would have done. I certainly would never have supported slavery. But on the other issues of the time, I honestly don't know. I wouldn't have supported war. But I also strongly support state's rights, whether they agree with my own views or not. And I don't believe the federal government had the rights to do in many cases what it did, under the constitution (or has the right to do what it does today). So... as I said, I have no idea where I would have ultimately stood on the matter.
Just how many things are we talking about here? To return to it: We're talking about a general who turned down the top position in the US military, resigned from the army, and then led an army against the United States of America. And that's not even to bring up when these monuments were erected in the first place.
War is hell, I get it. No angels, sure. He is nothing more than a traitor who led many poor souls to their premature deaths. He deserves a memorial at his own grave site and to be written about and studied, but this is not a person to be proud of.
Exactly.
After the surrender, Lincoln, Grant, etc. treated Confederates with dignity and respect. No one was hung or put on trial. Even let them to take their horses with them for the spring planting.
I suspect that after that horrible war, they just wanted everyone to get on with their lives.
But Confederates wouldn't have it. They lied about what happened. But up monuments all over creation to the noble South. ... and here we are 150 years later with the Klan marching with torches and assaulting people.
I do not believe I could take up arms against my neighbors, but I couldn't take them up defending their position, either, if I believed it to be wrong. I certainly wouldn't be able to lead them in battle against people whose values more closely matched my own.
You can't compare today's culture to that of 1862. Hell you can't even compare it to 1962. The nation has evolved.
In 1862 States rights were a big deal, loyalty to state was a big deal. Today I don't know a whole lot of people who feel States rights are a priority in their lives.
In 1862 if you declared that the Federal government should pay welfare to those who don't work, no matter what state you were in, they would have laughed at you. The same goes for many of our current taxes.
WE were a different people in 1862. How people viewed others was different.
Would they take up arms over a difference in politics? Evidently they would because they did.
1962 there was a loyalty to country that doesn't exist today, a least not as compared to then or even 30 years ago. Yet you attempt to compare today's mentality to that of 1862?
Put good old REL in a museum where he belongs and then go gaze at thim as long as you want. See no reason why public money and my tax dollars should go to finance a monument to slavery,hate, murder, rape, lynching and treason.
Just saying - got it!
Yes, you want to control over everything and you're not able to reason or logic anything in historical context....plus you're butthurt over the results of the election.
If you read my post, I said I don't care anything about Confederate statues, they mean nothing to me other than memorializing the history of wrong thinking. But in Seattle, I don't want to control what statues they have in Alabama or Tennessee...not my business or concern. Also, General Lee thought slavery was the most vile institution ever concocted...he was very enlightened man.
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.
