Battle of Gettysburg [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Yerdaddy

07-03-2003, 09:17 PM

Yeah, come on dude! What do you hate America or something? Just because over 50,000 Americans died in three days of fighting doesn't mean we have to take time out of internet chatting to think about it!

<a href="http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/9/index.htm" target="_blank">NPS Historical Handbook: Gettysburg</a>

<a href="http://www.cr.nps.gov/features/gett/page2_01.htm" target="_blank">The Battle of Gettysburg - Anniversary</a>

<a href="http://www.nps.gov/gett/soldierlife/soldiers.htm" target="_blank">Gettysburg National Military Park- Civil War Soldier Life</a>

<a href="http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/44gettys/44gettys.htm" target="_blank">Choices and Commitments: The Soldiers at Gettysburg</a>

<a href="http://www.nps.gov/gett/getttour/main-ms.htm" target="_blank">Gettysburg National Military Park Virtual Tour </a>

Grant's <a href="http://www.nps.gov/vick/vcmpgn/siege.htm" target="_blank">Siege of Vicksburg</a> ended on July 4th, 1863, with almost 20,000 dead.

<a href="http://www.civilwar.org/historyclassroom/hc_vicksburghist.htm" target="_blank">Civil War Battle History of Vicksburg Campaign, Mississippi</a>

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

Snoogans

07-03-2003, 09:19 PM

no, i dont hate and i know it came out harsh. i just hate duke, he is 12 and i know its only cause he just learned it in school and i dont know, he bothers me

Silent Bob you one rude motherfucker, she like to go down on you, suck you. line up 2 other guys and make like a circus seal

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg

eww you fuckin faggots, i hate guys, i LOOOOVE WOMEN!

TheGameHHH

07-03-2003, 10:01 PM

I think that's a pretty cool thing to point out. Truly a historic moment in American history..

<IMG SRC="http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnetTheGameHHH2.jpg">

Duke

07-04-2003, 09:08 AM

thank you all the people that have backed me up against snoogans.........

THINK ABOUT IT SNOOGANS AMERICAN FIGHTING AMERICAN.....

SNOOGANS PLEASE STOP POSTING ON MY THREADS U BEING REALY ANNYOING...I DONT Write THE STUFF U DO ON YOUR THREADS...BUT I THINK I SHOULD....
:)

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sig-pic-11.gif

Duke

07-04-2003, 09:15 AM

and snoogans i didnt learn that in school..last year i was studing greek civilzations....duh!!!

actully i learned about the civil war in second grade where i started to study President Licoliln (i cant spell it right) and i started to study the civil war...

battle of Gettysburg it was throght July 1-3 1863 it also carried out the tide of the civil war....

and snoogans one more thing just becuse i watch the history channel does mean i learn it in school.

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sig-pic-11.gif

Duke

07-04-2003, 07:57 PM

snoogans u can post on my threads i dont care.

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sig-pic-11.gif

IrishAlkey

07-04-2003, 08:22 PM

God Bless social studies.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee><font color=r

El Mudo

07-04-2003, 08:42 PM

Actually, Gettysburg really didn't "turn the tide" of the Second War of Independence....

Sharpsburg, which took place a year earlier in 1862, gave Lincoln the "victory" he needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which turned the war into a fight to free the slaves, and pretty much kept England and France out of the war(their public wouldn't support it). The only way the South could win the war, like the first war of independence, was with foreign intervention, the possibility of which ceased to exist after Sharpsburg, the bloodiest day in American history. But heck, they almost won without foreign intervention anyway, if Jeff Davis had left Joe Johnston in command down south, they would've held onto Atlanta long enough to get the Democrats into the white house and victory.

Plus on a personal note, I find Sharpsburg to be more beautiful than Gettysburg, it still looks exactly as it did in '62(they were even planning to take all the pavement up at one time). Also there are fewer "tourists" there, and people who actually know a little bit about what they are seeing.

There's been so much written on Gettysburg, you could probably fill a library. One of the more tragic stories of the battle was of Wesley Culp, who was a Confederate soldier in my ancestor's brigade killed on the hill he grew up on(Culp's Hill).

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Heavy

07-05-2003, 06:32 PM

this board rreally need a history Forum

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">

DC Reed

07-05-2003, 07:08 PM

Sharpsburg

Antietam...its Antietam in the south. The South names all thier battles after the river it was closet to.

And its funny duke posts about Time periods he wasnt in, and wars he did fight in.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

<marquee behavoir

Yerdaddy

07-06-2003, 02:10 AM

The South names all thier battles after the river it was closet to.
Actually that's reversed. The south named them after a nearby town or landmark, and the north after nearby bodies of water.
the Second War of Independence
Somebody actually has to win thier independence in order to call a war a "War of Independence" What's wrong with "The Civil War," isn't it neutral enough?
Sharpsburg, which took place a year earlier in 1862, gave Lincoln the "victory" he needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which turned the war into a fight to free the slaves,
I thought about this and I've decided there's enough original source evidence available to hash this point out without wasting too much time, so: The South seceded from the United States in order to protect slavery. Therefore, Lincoln did not turn the war into a war over slavery, it already was over slavery. It certainly wasn't the only issue of contention, but it was the main issue. Also, it wasn't started by northern aggression.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

El Mudo

07-11-2003, 07:19 PM

I thought about this and I've decided there's enough original source evidence available to hash this point out without wasting too much time, so: The South seceded from the United States in order to protect slavery. Therefore, Lincoln did not turn the war into a war over slavery, it already was over slavery. It certainly wasn't the only issue of contention, but it was the main issue. Also, it wasn't started by northern aggression.

Do you honestly think in 1861 they would have gotten anyone in the North (besides those in New England) to fight to free the slaves? Heck, once the proclamation was passed a whole Illinois regiment said they would rather lie in the woods and grow moss on themselves than fight to free the slaves. Most soldiers went to war in the North to "preserve the union" (you can read their letters) and not to free the slaves. And after 62 most of the slaveowners went home with the passage of the "20 Negro Law" which said if you owned more than 20 slaves you could go home.

And do you think any southerners would've gone to battle to protect something most of them did not possess? I refer you to the prisoner captured by the Feds in early 62 i believe, when asked why he was fighting said simply "im fighting cause you're down here".

The South simply felt it was being unfairly taxed(which it was), and simply did not want to be part of the Union anymore(which eliminates a "rebellion"; rebellions seek to overthrow the government, the south wanted to form their own). Do you believe anyone would've joined up with the Original United States if they didn't think they could get out of it?

Besides, at that time the North and South were almost two entirely seperate countries and were bound to clash at some point.

Actually that's reversed. The south named them after a nearby town or landmark, and the north after nearby bodies of water.

That works with armies too. The feds named theirs after bodies of water (The Army of the Potomac, the Army of the Tennessee, Army of the Cumberland, etc.) and Southerners named theirs after areas(Army of Northern Virginia, Army of Tennessee, etc.)

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

This message was edited by El Mudo on 7-11-03 @ 11:22 PM

Melrapuo

07-11-2003, 07:34 PM

The Civil War was pretty much just over state's rights. Slavery played a major role, but it wasn't why the two sides clashed. They had major differences in their ideas for government and politics (South wanted states to govern themselves, North wanted a strong central government), as well as other shit. Slavery came into huge affect during the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln declared that the slaves in all states to be free, except for Maryland and Delaware (i think im missing a state...) simply because if they turned to the Confederate side (which they most likely would have because they had many slaves and supported slavery) then Washington would be practically screwed. It would've been surrounded by the Confederacy.

"I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that fucked-up bar."

Ah...the greatness of Jay & Silent Bob

canofsoup15

07-11-2003, 07:36 PM

Antietam was FUCKING AWESOME...ahem...sorry im a bit of a war buff. The battle was crazy, First Bloody lane, which was the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel, then the Union needing to cross a bridge (I forget its names) with hundreds of rebels in hidden positions on the other side, you can call it sniping but they werent very accurate. Some 19,000 Men were wounded, unaccounted for, or dead, 9 times that of Omaha Beach on D-Day( which was 2000 something if im not mistaken). Hopefully ill be going there this summer, not sure yet though.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/rad-45.gif>

Yerdaddy

07-11-2003, 09:27 PM

First, let me preface all the gobbly goop that follows with this: what you are avoiding is the central question of - what was the reason for the causitive act of the civil war, the secession of the south?

Do you honestly think in 1861 they would have gotten anyone in the North (besides those in New England) to fight to free the slaves?
They fought to preserve the union, like you said. That would not have been a question for the northerners except that the southern states seceeded from the union. At that point it became a question of the legitimacy of the secession. In the eyes of the north, generally, the south was seceeding because they were unhappy with the election of Lincoln through the democratic process. Northern leaders, like Lincoln, in deciding the question of wether or not to accept the secession considered it a threat to the remaining union to allow it, and that it undermines the very concept of a democratic republic to legitimize a secession based on the outcome of a single election. The people of the north who fought the war were most drawn to the cause of nationalism, which had grown since the founding of the United States.

The same went for the south. As the abolitionist movement grew, so did the defensive rhetoric of the slave states. The idea of a "way of life" began to become a common concept in the 1830s. And there were growing differences among the two societies in the period. The industrial revolution was concentrated in the north, while the south depended on the cotton boom to maintain its economy, which reinforced its dependence on the slave labor system. So "way of life" was essentially code for preservation of slavery. If the north had come down south banning white suits and slapping mint juelips out of peoples' hands, then I'd reconsider the "preserving our culture" argument. But when southern leaders argued that they were protecting their liberty, they meant their right of property, meaning slaves. So there was that fundamental question of the principles of the Declaration of Independence that had separated the two sides: the concept of "all men are created equal." It almost broke up the Constitutional Convention several times, only being prevented by compromises by northern states. And the conflict remained, reignited by the Louisiana purchase, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.

Heck, once the proclamation was passed a whole Illinois regiment said they would rather lie in the woods and grow moss on themselves than fight to free the slaves. Most soldiers went to war in the North to "preserve the union" (you can read their letters) and not to free the slaves. And after 62 most of the slaveowners went home with the passage of the "20 Negro Law" which said if you owned more than 20 slaves you could go home.
The Illinois regiment story is an anecdote. I've never seen figures that show that reenlistment in the northern armies Dr0pped off after, or because of the Emancipation Proclamation. And anyone who owned more than 20 slaves had an economic interest to protect at home and should be expected to take the first opportunity to leave a war of misery, amputations, hunger, diarhea and death to go home and save his "business".

The South simply felt it was being unfairly taxed(which it was),
I've seen this claim before, but never any evidence. There were records.

and simply did not want to be part of the Union anymore(which eliminates a "rebellion"; rebellions seek to overthrow the government, the south wanted to form their own). Do you believe anyone would've joined up with the Original United States if they didn't think they could get out of it?
This is a valid point, which was central to the decision to prevent secession, (the term "rebellion" isn't important). But for the reasons stated above, (that it undermined the concept of democratic government), and the fact that most of the republics that had been founded since the American Revolution had fallen apart, the decision had to be made whether the

Yerdaddy

07-11-2003, 09:48 PM

ANTIETAM:

-*NPS Historical Handbook: Antietam [ http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/31/index.htm ]

-Why Lee Invaded Maryland [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/why_inv.htm ]

-Lee's Proclamation to the People of Maryland [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/lee_proc.htm ]

Battle of Antietam [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/battle.htm ]

-Casualties at Antietam [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/casualty.htm ]

-Battle of Shepherdstown--Sept 19 & 20, 1862 [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/shepherd.htm ]

-Artillery at Antietam [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/artilery.htm ]

Six Generals Killed at Antietam [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/6_gener.htm ]

Major General Joseph K. F. Mansfield Monument at Antietam [ http://www.nps.gov/anti/monuments/Mansfield.htm ]

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

grlNIN

07-12-2003, 05:38 AM

Who wants to cut this class with me and smoke a joint in the woods??

<center>
<img src="http://members.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/```````````.gif">
</center><center>Thanks Pants! <3
Fifteen blows to the back of your head
Fifteen blows to your mind
<marquee behavior=advertant>110% Shenannigans</marquee></center>

DC Reed

07-12-2003, 05:44 AM

I dont know what all the commotion is, all i know is Antietam is a bitching battle, and if you have ever been to the Battlefield its a cool tour.

But then again Gettysburg was cool, and Richmond has a cool site too.

Basically heres the politics on both sides, not what the soldiers thought.

Basically before Antietam and Gettysburg, the North was fighting to maintain the union, or in other sense get the south back. But that fight wasn't doing so well and there was no moral value to the fight. So it was changed to freeing the slaves. Which makes the south look bad in the foriegn policy because they are fighting to own people, and gives the north a legitamate moral cause to fight.

If you dont understand it just read what yerdaddy said, he knows his stuff. I know that the North had some animosity that they had to die to free men they had never met or maybe never cared about.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

<marquee behavoir

This message was edited by DC Reed on 7-12-03 @ 9:51 AM

El Mudo

07-12-2003, 05:36 PM

But that fight wasn't doing so well and there was no moral value to the fight. So it was changed to freeing the slaves.

Yerdaddy, have you ever actually read the Emancipation Proclamation? It wasn't designed to free the slaves. It declares free those slaves who were held "within any state or designated part of a state the people whereof should be in rebellion against the United States" In other words, he declared freedom over slaves whom he had no control. But no word is said about those slaves within states or portions of the states or parts of where Lincoln had control and supposedly could have declared them free. For example, the six parishes of Lousiana under fed control at that time were excluded from the document, as were the 48 counties of Virginia that had seceeded and become West Virginia. The proclamation states that these excepted areas are "left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued" So this backs up my argument that the war did not become a war to free the slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation, a politcal move entirely, made it one to keep England and France out of the war

And here's a quote from Lincoln in an 1858 debate as to how he felt about blacks

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this there is a physical difference between the white and black races. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

(Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858", edited by RW Johannsen...Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1965; pp. 162-163)

And lets also elaborate that Northern hands were just as dirty on slavery as were Southern.

-Where do you think they built most of the slave ships? Heck, more than a few in NE got rich on that. In the 1700's, they had such a big rum-slave trade running out of Massachusetts that the British wanted to tax it, but Massachusetts raised so much hell that the British backed off.

-Slavery would've died in the early part of the 19th century(it was too unprofitable) but was saved by a Northerner, Eli Whitney

And I still have a hard time believing men would have gone thru the hell they went through for four long years for something 70-80% of them didn't own...

Major General Joseph K. F. Mansfield Monument at Antietam

Mansfield's such a sad story. Guy waited his whole career for a significant command, got XII Corps for 3 days and was out of it early in the fight..

What happened to Sedgwick's Division in the West Woods(which don't exist any more) was downright scary and was one of the things that cost the feds the battle. His division wandered into fire from 3 sides from Jubal Early's men, plus the soldiers in the rear ranks began to fire into their own front ranks and the whole division lost about 5000 men in less than 20 minutes and was hors de combat, which spooked II Corps commander General Sumner into shifting right his remaining troops and hitting the Bloody Lane. McClellan's mismanagement of the battle is sickening. From Middle Bridge(not Burnside's Bridge), some US Regulars and Cavalry could see no Confederates for miles, and things got so desparate for the south at one point Gen'l Longstreet's staff was working some artillery. 400 Georgians held up IX Corps(an entire Corps!!!) for almost two hours, which is just indefensible...

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

This message was edited by El Mudo on 7-12-03 @ 9:46 PM

TheGameHHH

07-12-2003, 05:41 PM

Who wants to cut this class with me and smoke a joint in the woods??
oh........me, me, me!!!!!!

<IMG SRC="http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnetTheGameHHH2.jpg">

canofsoup15

07-12-2003, 05:51 PM

Who would win on jepordy (i think thats how you spell it) HK, or Yerdaddy. Yerdaddy is a fucking genious when it comes to anything, granted this wasnt hard, but other things hes said to are mind-boggling. In the words of Jon Stweart: Dude, you just blew my mind.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/rad-45.gif>

Yerdaddy

07-12-2003, 06:39 PM

You'll get no argument that the Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery outright, but he was openly opposed to the expansion of slavery, and that was a major part the <a href="http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html" target="_blank">1860 Republican party platform</a>, and for the founding of the party in 1856. That coupled with the fact that from 1789 to 1861 2/3 of all the Presidents, Speakers of the House and Presidents pro-tem of the Senate were southerners, the election of Lincoln threatened the south with the end of the expansion of slavery to acquired territory. Given that in 1803 the Louisiana Purchase doubled the US territory, and the acquisition of Florida, Texas, Oregon and territories gained in the Mexican War almost doubled it again; and that the population of the United States went from 6 million in 1803 to 26 million in 1853, the South was entering a period of a permanent minority in the House and the general election of the President. So in 1860, with the election of Lincoln, the South knew that the days of slavery were numbered. Maybe not immediately, but there was no prospect for maintaining it within the Union.

An anecdote about the racism of the north: For work I'm presently turning a copy of "Frank Leslie's Illustrated History of the Civil War," published in 1895, into a CD ROM, and it's awful in its bias against the South, and its racism against blacks. On the South, the written history builds John Brown up as hero, never mentioning that he killed slave-owners. But for racism, here's an example of one of the image captions: (It's an image of blacks and whites in a marketplace)
Our artist accompanied his sketch of the soldier's market by observing that at a bargain a contraband was as good as a gentleman of the Rothschild persuasion, and a great deal better, as the most liberal soldier, could have no compunction in giving finally a quarter for what the darky originally asked fifteen dollars, since it was strongly suspected the contraband did not come honestly by the goods he sold. It was a source of considerable amusement to our soldiers to spend an hour in marketing. Sometimes a conversation like this took place: Soldier (after having paid for his chicken, which he firmly grasps) - "Sambo, where did you steal this?" Truthful Contraband - "From Marsa Drayton's farm. Dis chile will not lie; marsa, dis chile b'long to de Baptist pursuasion."
So awful! It's been enlightening how condescending and openly racist the Northern press was at the time, (and this was 20 years after the war).

So I agree that the North was not fighting to abolish slavery, or that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was anything other than a strategic move. But the threat to slavery that Lincoln, and other events in antebellum America, posed threatened the slavery-based system that the South had banked on earlier in the 19th century, and that's why it seceeded.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

Yerdaddy

07-12-2003, 06:49 PM

Yerdaddy is a fucking genious when it comes to anything

translation: Yerdaddy is a mutant shut-in with no social skills and a huge porn collection.

Thanks for reminding me.

Bart: Is this cel worth anything? [gives him cel with arm on it]
Dealer: [looks at it, sighs] Let me show you something. This -- this is a Snagglepuss drawn by Hic Heisler. It is worth something. This -- this is an arm, drawn by nobody. It is worth nothing.
Bart: Can't you give me anything for it.
Dealer: I can give you this telephone. It is shaped like Mary Worth.
Bart: Oh...
Dealer: No groaning in my store.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

El Mudo

07-13-2003, 08:33 AM

If the South wanted to keep slavery, then why didn't they just stay in the Union, where slavery was legal? You said yourself that the republicans had no intention of ending slavery, just limiting its expansion. With no voice in the Government in the 1860's, with Lincoln still being elected despite him not even being on the ballot in several southern states, the South felt that the federal government was not going to work for them anymore. They sought basically the original Articles of Confederation government, with a weak central government and all the power with the states.

The North had gotten too powerful, and too different from the South. Like I said before, they were basically two different countries.

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

DC Reed

07-13-2003, 10:36 AM

I know how to solve this problem, El Mudo dresses up in a General Lee outfit and Yerdaddy gets in a Grant outfit. Then they box.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

<marquee behavoir

Snoogans

07-13-2003, 10:40 AM

If the South wanted to keep slavery, then why didn't they just stay in the Union, where slavery was legal? You said yourself that the republicans had no intention of ending slavery, just limiting its expansion

are you serious. lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and slavery was a big reason why the south left. but money, power, and many other things were involved.there were many differences between the 2 that led to it

Silent Bob you one rude motherfucker, she like to go down on you, suck you. line up 2 other guys and make like a circus seal

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg

eww you fuckin faggots, i hate guys, i LOOOOVE WOMEN!

This message was edited by Snoogans on 7-13-03 @ 2:40 PM

El Mudo

07-13-2003, 11:23 AM

are you serious. lincoln wanted to abolish slavery

Its already been established that the abolition of slavery only appealed to Lincoln when he could use it to keep England and France out of the war. Neither Lincoln nor his party wanted to abolish it, just didn't want to expand it because it would cost them power...

Heck, if Lincoln had his way, he'd have sent all the blacks back to Africa, thats how Liberia got started...

Hey DC I love General Lee to death, but i'd rather be General Jackson....

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Yerdaddy

07-13-2003, 12:05 PM

If the South wanted to keep slavery, then why didn't they just stay in the Union, where slavery was legal? You said yourself that the republicans had no intention of ending slavery, just limiting its expansion.
...with the long-term goal of ending it. In fact, the wisest southerners knew that slavery in the United States could not last. The British had abolished slavery in 1833, the slave trade had been outlawed, and the economic system that required slavery had proved inferior to industrialization, free-labor and capital investments in agricultural technology. Eli Whitney wasn't the only notherner to get rich off the South, the majority of those running the transportation, financing of seed crops, and marketing of the cotton industry were northerners and British. Growin food crops in the North was more efficient and less labor-intensive because of the willingness of the northern farmers to invest in technology and diverisfy its crops. The South was run by such a small number of wealthy plantation owners that it was resisitant to change, it stunted its own growth by banking on the slave system and digging in instead of opening itself to change. That's why losing the Civil War was the best thing for the South. It would have been like a second Mexico, and we just took land away from them when we wanted it.

Lincoln on slavery:
Speech at Chicago, Illinois
March 1, 1859

I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.
Speech at Chicago, Illinois
July 10, 1858

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all.
Sixth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
Quincy, Illinois
October 13, 1858

I wish to return Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you "why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that as a matter of choice the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that; when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

East Side Dave

07-13-2003, 12:34 PM

Did you know that the Battle of Bulge Hill was also an important battle in the American Revelationary War? In that battle, George Washington swam across the Pennsylvania River in World Record time (until Mark Spitz broke the record in the '87 Olympics) in order to fight the...I believe...yes, I believe it was the Russians who he fought and destroyed which "won us our freedom"*.

*quote borrowed from the movie DragonHeart in which the lead character, a Scotsman named William Wallace, led his rebels against the...yes, I believe it was also the Russains who they battled against in order to free Wales.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia Edits- Skim

This message was edited by East Side Dave on 7-13-03 @ 4:36 PM

Yerdaddy

07-13-2003, 01:07 PM

Washington swam the Navajo River in the Battle of Constantinople in St. Kitts & Nevis against the Germans after they bombed Pearl Harbor, and his record was beaten by Tanya Harding in the '84 White Trash Olympics. It was featured in the movie "The Nude Bomb" starring Don Adams as George Washington, saying "Missed it by that much." Get your facts straight, this is serious history we're talking here.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

reeshy

07-13-2003, 01:28 PM

Did you know that the Battle of Bulge Hill was also an important battle in the American Revelationary War? In that battle, George Washington swam across the Pennsylvania River in World Record time (until Mark Spitz broke the record in the '87 Olympics) in order to fight the...I believe...yes, I believe it was the Russians who he fought and destroyed which "won us our freedom"*. *quote borrowed from the movie DragonHeart in which the lead character, a Scotsman named William Wallace, led his rebels against the...yes, I believe it was also the Russains who they battled against in order to free Wales.

Thanks a whole bunch, Dave. I just passed a whole bowl of ice cream through my nose as I read your post!! Thanks again!!

<IMG SRC=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:d__VUO7X8cMC:n.ethz.ch/student/baumamar/waits/w_p1.jpg>

Se7en

07-13-2003, 05:01 PM

Basically before Antietam and Gettysburg, the North was fighting to maintain the union, or in other sense get the south back. But that fight wasn't doing so well and there was no moral value to the fight. So it was changed to freeing the slaves. Which makes the south look bad in the foriegn policy because they are fighting to own people, and gives the north a legitamate moral cause to fight.

Finally, some kindred spirits.

I hate having to occasionally defend my respect and admiration for Mr. Robert E. Lee.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Is the Captain a member of the proud 2%?

El Mudo

07-13-2003, 07:54 PM

I hate having to occasionally defend my respect and admiration for Mr. Robert E. Lee.

Give Gen. Lee the resources US Grant had...and he'd have conquered the whole world...

One of the best people America ever produced...

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/books/0011/lee.side/robert.e.lee.jpg

I guess we should just agree to disagree Yerdaddy...cause I still don't buy a whole people going to war for something most of them didn't have...

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Yerdaddy

07-13-2003, 09:09 PM

If it's the motivations of the individual southern soldiers you're worried about then there is one thing that they all had to protect - superiority over the blacks. The alternative to slavery was to have them free, and that was a great fear to all southerners. John C. Calhoun again, 1848: "With us, the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals...and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them."

William L. Yancey, Alabama representative to the House of Reps, and Sentator to Confederate Senate: "Your fathers and my fathers built this government on two ideas: the first is that the white race is the citizen, and the master race, and the white man is the equal of every other white man. The second idea is that the Negro is the inferior race."

And with almost half the population of some of the states being slaves, there was always the fear of abolition to motivate.

On a side note - what did you think of Ang Lee's "Ride With the Devil"? I love that movie, but I can't get my boss and his wife, (who both know more about the Civil War than anyone I've ever met), to watch it and give me a review.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

A.J.

07-14-2003, 03:07 AM

Antietam was FUCKING AWESOME

She sure is.

http://navysite.de/cg/Image173.jpg

It was featured in the movie "The Nude Bomb" starring Don Adams

Holy Shit! I haven't heard that movie mentioned in years!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

El Mudo

07-14-2003, 06:47 AM

If it's the motivations of the individual southern soldiers you're worried about then there is one thing that they all had to protect - superiority over the blacks. The alternative to slavery was to have them free, and that was a great fear to all southerners.

It also would've been a great fear to anyone up north that wasn't a big business owner. The last thing a poor irishman wanted to see was a black that would work cheaper come up North and take his job. That's why in the Draft Riots of 63 the Irish went around and basically killed all the blacks they could find. Big Business wouldve loved abolition, if just for the cheaper labor...

On a side note - what did you think of Ang Lee's "Ride With the Devil"? I love that movie, but I can't get my boss and his wife, (who both know more about the Civil War than anyone I've ever met), to watch it and give me a review.

I've never seen it or heard of it...maybe ill find out more about it...

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Bigden

07-14-2003, 11:03 AM

The people of the north who fought the war were most drawn to the cause of nationalism, which had grown since the founding of the United States.

I have studied the war, and I recall that most of the soldiers fought because they didn't have the $300 to buy out of the draft. The argument of states rights would certainly have been an alien concept to a New Yorker out of the Bowery. In addition, many northerners resented the blacks because they had many of the good jobs at the time, and would not have fought to end slavery. America did not have the national identity we have now, it was very much a country of small communities.

BTW great thread.
:)

El Mudo

07-14-2003, 11:12 AM

I have studied the war, and I recall that most of the soldiers fought because they didn't have the $300 to buy out of the draft.

Conscription didn't come in until after Lincoln's second call for 300,000, i believe in late 63. I know draftees really started to make themselves felt in 64 after most of the original 1861 volunteers were dead or had mustered out. Then they began to issue bounties for men to join up, which led to the practice of "bounty jumping", joining up long enough to get the bounty, then deserting and joining another unit and getting another bounty.

You had the option to "hire a substitute" for 300, which on a side note, Teddy Roosevelt's dad did, and the substitute was killed, which really haunted Teddy's dad and made Teddy himself very patriotic to his country, not only did he serve in the Spanish-American War, but his sons Quentin and Teddy Jr. both served in the Army(Quentin was killed in WWI)

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Bestinshow

07-14-2003, 11:28 AM

Give Gen. Lee the resources US Grant had...and he'd have conquered the whole world...

General Lee, was neither motivated for or against slavery. In fact Lee. a West point graduate, as were many Southern Generals, was offered the commission of leading the Army of the Potomac as well. Until the end he agonized over deciding on which way his loyalties were strongest, to his country or to his native Virginia. In the end, Virginia won out.
And as a side bar, his name escapes me, but a Northern General swore that he would bury the bodies of Lee's victims in Lee's front yard. And that is what they did. That was the start of Arlington National cemetary, where the Custice-Lee mansion still stands.

Duke, great topic and keep watching the history channel

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Bigden

07-14-2003, 11:29 AM

You had the option to "hire a substitute" for 300, which on a side note, Teddy Roosevelt's dad did, and the substitute was killed, which really haunted Teddy's dad and made Teddy himself very patriotic to his country, not only did he serve in the Spanish-American War, but his sons Quentin and Teddy Jr. both served in the Army(Quentin was killed in WWI)

Good point- sometimes good things come out of bad decisions. I am from Long Island so I know all about the Roosevelts. Teddy Jr. was at D-day, and was decorated if I remember correctly. Quite a great American family.

This message was edited by Bigden on 7-14-03 @ 3:32 PM

El Mudo

07-14-2003, 11:38 AM

And as a side bar, his name escapes me, but a Northern General swore that he would bury the bodies of Lee's victims in Lee's front yard. And that is what they did. That was the start of Arlington National cemetary, where the Custice-Lee mansion still stands.

Montgomery Meigs. He was a Viriginian who stayed loyal to the Union, and his son John was killed in 1864 by Mosby's men in the Valley, and Meigs held Lee personally responsible for his death, so he got "revenge" by burying Federal war dead at the Lee house so they couldn't live there any more..

He buried John in Mrs. Lee's rose garden...

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Yerdaddy

07-14-2003, 11:39 AM

Ride With the Devil is about two childhood friends joining up with the Jayhawkers at the outset of the war. They fight for the cause, fall in love with Jewell (who gives a fine performance, with the help of her 19th century crooked teeth), and join up with a freed slave fighting on the Confederate side (played by the best young actor in the business Jeffrey Wright of Boycott, Basquiat, and Shaft). They join up with Quantrill in his raid on Lawrence, Kansas, they deal with the mistrust being outsiders, (Tobey McGuire being of German descent). I think it's one of the best human stories about the Civil War, especially since it's done by a for-ner. It's got its facts straight, its got great action scenes, great acting and characterization, we almost see Jewel's rack, gore, comedy, it's not patronizing, and it doesn't have the shitty Country Bear Jomboree beards that Gettysburg had.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

TheMojoPin

07-14-2003, 11:49 AM

the Second War of Independence....

http://www.spnm.org/about/images/laughing.jpg

http://www.politik-digital.de/fun/images/laughing.jpg

http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/jonal/wedding/laughing.jpg

http://www.fredonia.edu/honors/images/laughing.jpg

http://www.ssta.sk.ca/graphics/laughing.jpg

http://www.jfed.org/images/old-guy-laughing.jpg

Yeah, sorry, but that was just too funny.

The war was NOT "about slavery", as so many here have explained much better than I.

Neither side could have existed long without the other...the North probably a few decades longer, but the South would undoubtably have splintered into smaller states by the century's end. In that regard, I have no sympathy for the lost "honor" or "glory" of the South because, quite simply, they were the ones that left, effectively killing the country. Slaves, shmaves...they tried to kill America. Awful.

And slavery was moot. Most northern states, while technically free, were practically as racist as the southern states. And slavery would have died a natural economic death within 20-40 years had the South won. Whoopdy-doo.

Fuck those goofy-ass America-killers.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 7-14-03 @ 3:59 PM

Yerdaddy

07-14-2003, 12:21 PM

From today's Wash Post - <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51705-2003Jul13.html" target="_blank">Mission at Gettysburg - Back From Iraq, a Marine Lays a Civil War Mystery to Rest </a>

TheMojoPin
Who?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

El Mudo

07-14-2003, 08:04 PM

Neither side could have existed long without the other...the North probably a few decades longer, but the South would undoubtably have splintered into smaller states by the century's end. In that regard, I have no sympathy for the lost "honor" or "glory" of the South because, quite simply, they were the ones that left, effectively killing the country. Slaves, shmaves...they tried to kill America. Awful.

Gotta disagree with this. After Sharpsburg the whole war basically became a moot point(except for a brief glimmer of hope in 1864 if George McClellan had been elected President, but thats another subject), so we can never know what may have happened after the war, and its wrong to assume what possibly could have occurred. Shelby Foote himself said when asked what may have happened if the South had won the war, that that question was such a can of worms, nobody can say for sure what would have gone on. I know Gov. Joe Brown of Georgia kept threatening to secede, but maybe the Confederacy would have worked, maybe it wouldn't have. There's no way to know. How do we know there wouldn't have been some form of reconciliation later in the century, or maybe the US would've bought Canada to make up for the loss.

People think the South was some poor backwater, but although she wasn't as powerful as the North was economically, she was still more powerful than most of Europe...

So i'm saying, the South wasn't out to destroy America, they were out to form their own America, and not to have any more dealings with the Government in Washington. But there's no way we can really know if America would have been destroyed as you say....

Glad you found the term "Second War of Independence so funny. Frankly I find the term "Civil War" to be funny because it wasn't a "Civil War". In a "Civil War" one side is trying to take over the government or destroy it, which wasn't the South's objective(it was to form their own separate government). But I gotta call it something, so i usually stick with "Second War of Independence", "War Between the States", and when i'm feeling agitated "War of Northern Aggression"..

http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Images/29th.gif
States Rights are dying

Yerdaddy

07-14-2003, 09:23 PM

I like to call it the "Civil War," since Webster defines that as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." But when I'm feeling feisty I like to call it the " War of Classic Neutral Power Colors."

http://www.zouave.org/images/ells23.gifhttp://www.19th-century-us-history.com/wardrobe/inc/images/qm_1004_frock-coat_surgeons_cs-m.jpg
http://www.middlebury.net/civil-war/images/trooper.jpghttp://www.19th-century-us-history.com/wardrobe/inc/images/qm_1027_shelljacket_2nd-lt_cavalry_cs_w_lapels.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 7-15-03 @ 1:37 AM

Melrapuo

07-14-2003, 09:26 PM

wow. to think its 140 years since the war ended and people still can't figure out why the hell the war really happened.

"I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that fucked-up bar."

Ah...the greatness of Jay & Silent Bob

TheMojoPin

07-15-2003, 09:05 AM

People think the South was some poor backwater, but although she wasn't as powerful as the North was economically, she was still more powerful than most of Europe...

North or South, neither side would have lasted without the other. The most likely option is that peace between the two would never have been possible, and further conflict would have been inevitable, especially as each side scrambled west to claim the rest of the country. Both sides' economies were also far too wound together, and one relied far too much on the other side. The North comprised the majority of the industrial economy at the time, and the South the agrarian. Both played essential roles in America's economy at the time, and both were bound together. It simply would have been impossible for a longterm "clean" break to occur. Hence why trying to maintain fractured economies as large as the South and North's at the time would have inevitably caused the states on both sides to break away into smaller factions and their own "national" governments.

And neither side could have hald out long against a well-financed and supplied European army, which I have no doubt would have attempted to invade and at least claim part of the quickly fracturing country for their own. Remember, WW1 was only 50 years away and WW2 less than a hundred. A broken America not reunited as we were wouldn't have been anywhere near prepared to even assist anyone in the World Wars with shipping, much less significant millitary support.

Splitting apart America would have killed it. America is indeed the sum of its parts, and suddenly stripping it of half of those parts would have no dobut destroyed it by the end of the century. At least that's my theory based on all the social and economic evaluations I've read of the time.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 7-15-03 @ 1:24 PM