OT:Tommorow 150 Years Since the First Shot of the Civil War

Here in Charleston the celebration begins in the morning with a reenactment of the first shot fired at Fort Sumter. Those Northern Folks at the fort don't know we are using live ammunition.

Don't think it should be called a celebration,but a Remembrance.
Not one of the better periods in US History, IMO.

PBS just finished broadcasting "The Civil War". I think it was 10 or 12 hours. Way more detail than I learned in school. I probably pay a little more attention now that I am older.

Not a big fan of PBS' abundant views but they do produce decent history shows.

Rick

let us further South know if they get past yall...we're ready this time

Not such a great time, I agree. However since one of the biggest reasons for the war was states rights -vs- federal control, we're probably not as far from it happening again, in one way or another, as we'd like to think. Maybe we won't have a full scale war again but if you'll notice over the past few years how many states are filing suite against the feds over things like external_linkcare, etc, it's already happening. If the feds can't get their collective heads out of their a$$es I can't see it doing anything but getting worse......

Nothern War of Aggression by the Barbarians from the North looting and robbing the South at least thats the way my Great Grandmother described it.

Bingo!

Revisionist history teaches us that the US Civil war was about slavery but the fundamental issue was states rights.

Dean

I agree, Rick.

PBS is much too abundant for me but the Civil War serial is quite well done aside from a bit too much focus upon slavery.

Dean

I've read the declarations of secession of the southern states. Every one of them cites slavery as the reason for secession. And firing on federal troops started the war.

Wow!, 150 years! dosen't seem like that long.lol

Hitler would have been proud of the actions of the Army or the Potomac around Petersburg . they done everything that an army should have been prosecuted for. they won the war they started,and wrote the history . local history is the only way you'll find the truth . if you were born in the south you're a subject of the federal system not a citizen. forced into a union with the states your government and your great-grandfather Voted to leave. look around Va. your grandparents left clues to they're feelings at every local courthouse not been able to win the Second American Revolution.

Thanks for the reminder.
I'm just about to finish U S Grant's memoirs.
At this point in his life he had failed as a farmer, failed as a merchant, failed at most everything he had put his hand to as far as making a living. Then the war came and he found his place in it and in life.

Time to let it go man.
As I was told once; the only person your resentment can hurt is you.

Some folk still fighting that war.

Would you know what I mean when I say that I heard "battery practice" when I was there about 1935? Those big gun were loud. Can't be too many people remember that. Momma came from there.

Here is an interesting bit of info about the US Civil War for the Canadians. Quite a number of Canadians came south into the Northern US and enlisted in the US Army to collect the bounty. They would then disapear with the money and do it again and again in different locations. They then hightailed it back to Canada to buy nice farms with the money.

You know Mr.President, I may give you a nice city and some cotton and arms for Christmas. But first I have to make Georgia howl!

What are the odds THIS thread will stay up all day long?

Just a piece of history.. let it go.. life is too short.

Just like folks thought the "earth was flat" and like the "church burning witches".. its old history and nothing more. Lots of folks died to make changes happen. Cant change it, cant redo it, cant apologize for what a bunch of dead people did or didn't do. Nor am I or you responsible for what they did. Strictly history, nothing else. Today there are groups of people killing other people every day and it hardly makes the news anymore. Civil and religious wars go on every day with entire villages being wiped out. If you dont care about that then why get worked up on something that happened 150 years ago. Let the dead rest in peace. Bury your old predujices along with the dead.

Almost comical when you talk about not being a citizen...considering that Southerners considered slaves to be property- not even a human being. Some folks need to get over it- the South lost, and should have....look at the human misery they imposed with their support of slavery. There, but for the Grace of God, go I...what if your soul had ended up in a black body?

Fun times on thread ahead. For a slightly different viewpoint that was article in English paer some years back- the comparison of English Emancipation/abolition acts and compensation given to former owners as to the "steal the slaves" actions of "abundant/abolitionists" and legislative proposals contrary to US constitution "takings" clause ( I know, long intro, but original was couple paragraphs) The English Abolishinist were willing to pay for freed slaves, American abolishinists were willing to steal, obstruct and get army to steal under color of law, legislative acts as an expression of political power. IF the abolishinist had pushed for a law that said Abolishinist societies could compulsary purchase slaves at a close to market rate and free them, the war might have been avoided- but would have cost the Liberals money. A tax bill to provide government money to purchase slaves at a reduced price with a tax break for former owners would also have reduced the tensions. Note that a lot of the "pro-slavery" articles were based on the loss of property- the slave- by a government decree-- with no compensation noted as Constitution required. One of the first Lieburals in Congress talking about the future theft got thumped by southern legislature- "thumped" meaning hit several times with walking stick and long time recovery- so the Lieburals decided to get the Army involved since they couldn"t fight themselves. (teasing/sarcasm Alert!) Think of government " Buying" the slaves and moving them to Washington DC, some manumission ceremony and then using tax money to support the "freed" slaves who would vote for them and be able to party as they pleased- that might not have passed the voters check.(Did something like that happen anyway?) RN

All I will say I believe the world is a better
place after the war.. Also am very glad I wasn't
alive to witness the slaughter on both side &
I didn't see the evil committed by the North
& the South. It truely was a ugly time in our
History.

If that was truly the case, then why did the north not count them as a full citizen? If they really wanted the slaves to be treated equally, they would have counted them as a full citizen and given the south the representation in congress that it deserved based on population.

Lincoln suggested compensated emancipation but the Confederate states rejected it, they were confident they would win the war. There was compensated emancipation in the border states that remained in the Union. There were some curious situations in those states of free black men who owned their wives and children recieving handsome sums of money to free them.

The "revisionists" are those who want to make the war about "states' rights". Yes, the south seceded to preserve a particular right: The right to own other human beings as property. John Brown didn't raid Harpers Ferry or murder pro-slavery settlers in Kansas because he wanted to stop "states' rights". To claim that slavery played little or no role in the secession is historical revisionism of the very worst and most malevolent kind.

(quoted from post at 23:01:36 04/11/11) Bingo!

Revisionist history teaches us that the US Civil war was about slavery but the fundamental issue was states rights.

Dean

Click to expand...

Yea, states rights, that's it! Some states wanted the right to have slaves. That was the issue. Holding other humans as slaves does not sound like something to fight for, but "states rights" sounds like a noble cause. Trying to avoid slavery as a Civil War cause is absurd. PS - If the ones that fired the first shot had won the war, do you think they would still be excercising their right to have slaves?

chuck f,MarkB_MI, Spook
Thanks for your intelligent comments, was starting to get a little worried.

funny how little folks know,, nothing about slavery at the start of the war,even lincoln himself was against freeing slaves.AND there were just as many slaves in the north as the south..states rights,yes it was an issue,north wanted to put tariff on imported goods so southerners would have to buy their goods,south wanted(and needed) to trade with england and europe for low cost goods. not much politics involved at the start,(simply money of all things)first thing the north did was to blockade the ports.plantation way of life was on its way out anyway,soil was depleted,and it took too much money to feed the work force to remain profitable.