American Civil War poll!

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Foinikas, Aug 20, 2010.

?

Union or Confederacy?

  1. Union-The North!

    10 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. Confederacy-The South!

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  1. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I don't like such kind of people and I definetely don't like racism.

    Thank you for telling me about that stuff.Unfortunately there are people who take advantage of a war to plunder and murder and try to get rich by taking part in battles or attacks against the enemy or raid villages and cities.

    But I do have a lot of respect for General Lee.

    It's also unfortunate and bad that the Confederate flag became associated with racism because some racist or other groups use it at their gatherings or celebrations.

    It should be a flag that represents an entire people who only wanted freedom and indepence and fought for it until the end.And I'm talking about good people too not just bad people.Good people with families and homes and good values who just wanted independence and freedom and friendship with the North.

    By the way,Greybeard you know how much I respect you and like you and I consider you as a friend of mine here,so don't get angry with anything I say about this war,ok man?
     
  2. Greybeard

    Greybeard Geezer

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto the Good
    Ratings:
    +58 / 0 / -0
    Foin,

    Don't worry, you're not making me mad over this.

    I, too, have a great respect for Lee, for Jackson, for Johnstone, for Longstreet, for several others, just as I have a great respect for Eric von Manstein and Gerd von Runsdtedt. It's just that if I'd had any of them in my sights I'd've pulled the trigger. Nothing personal, just war.

    But for all their flaws, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Hancock, Meade, are worthy of respect. Unlike Lee, none of them could be mistaken for the reincarnation of Belisarius, but they were first-class fighting men and leaders and did a tough, nasty job to the best of their considerable ability.

    Really, I think Grant's the most underrated general in American history. He was never in a position where he had to display tactical genius like Lee's - although Vicksburg comes close - but he took an army that had been shoved and bullied by Lee for almost two years and convinced them that they could win. Any general can inspire with victory, but with Grant every battle, tactical defeat or not, became a strategic victory.
     
  3. Greybeard

    Greybeard Geezer

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto the Good
    Ratings:
    +58 / 0 / -0
    Actually, I'm Canadian. But I'm a lifelone history and military buff, and I've read a fair bit on the American Civil War and on slavery. It all began when I picked up The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth M. Stampp at a church bazaar about thirty years ago. It's in one of these boxes.

    C'mon, how many people know Delaware was a slave state?

    Here's a useless trivium: the last Confederate general to surrender his sword was Stand Watie, a part-Cherokee and commander of the Cherokee Militia.
     
  4. Lord Yuan

    Lord Yuan Death-Thousand+

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Crystal Prison (space crime)
    Ratings:
    +162 / 0 / -0
    My resources say that there were about three million slaves in the south, and about four hundred thousand in the north. Like I said some southerners probably fought for freedom for good personal reasons, but others were preserving the right to keep their property of people as slaves.

    Leaving the grip of a country to escape taxes is one thing, but to escape it to keep slaves is kinda out of hand. The southerners were very strong people who honorably fought for what they thought was right, however I think what many of them fought for was preserving slavery for agriculture profit.


    In response to your response to mine Foi.
    And Greybeard knows more about what he is talking about.


    Bah, clicking on the latest post took me to the second page so I missed all of this being sorted out. I respect both the north and south for different reasons. Just the south leaning more towards slave usage grinds my gears a bit. In a war no side is really good or bad because either side would claim to be good and often have a legitimate reason to explain why.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2010
  5. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I read that Grant was a good general too or at least an inspiring man if I'm not mistaken.But anyway,he proved to be a good general in the end.

    About Sherman...I don't know.I read that he was psychotic and according to the magazine I have it says that "Sherman was the first war criminal with the modern sense of the term and the first one who used the tactics of total war and "scorched land".It also says that he was the most hated general of the Civil War.

    It also says some bad things about Edwin Stanton the minister of war of the North,who had "unlimited power" and was involved in illegal acts and that he disliked or hated Lincoln.
     
  6. Greybeard

    Greybeard Geezer

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto the Good
    Ratings:
    +58 / 0 / -0
    Sherman and Sheridan both practiced scortched earth strategies, but they were nothing new. The Russians had used the same technique on their own land in 1812 to starve the French out. The Thirty Years War could be seen as a scotched earth policy carried out on the same land by both sides, so really it was nothing new. Sheridan's goal was to strip the Shenandoah Valley so clean that "a crow flying over would have to carry its own provender." (I think I got that quote right.)

    Sherman's campaign through Georgia and South Carolina was essentially calculated banditry, with the exception that civilians were not to be molested, and farms were to treated according to their wealth and hostility, i.e. rich plantations were to be stripped bare, poor farms could only be looted of a mule or a horse, and then only if the family could survive without it.

    The actual effect of the both campaigns - Sherman's and Sheridan's - was that it reduced the ability of the Confederacy to feed the army, destroyed needed military infrastructure - railways especially - and broke the South psychologically. It also liberated tens of thousands of slaves, although that was not its primary goal.

    Sherman wasn't psychotic, although he did have a depressive episode early in the war when he understood how bloody an affair the whole thing would be and no one else did. Really, he was was a ruthless and calculating fighting man who understood that war is a contest of will, and diliberately broke the enemy's will to fight by stealing his food and burning his barns and scaring the crap out of his family.

    Stanton and Lincoln were enemies from the start, Lincoln was a Republican, Stanton a Democrat. Like a lot of other people, Stanton thought Lincoln an idiot and a buffoon at the beginning of the war, but came to understand his intelligence and ability by the end of it. Stanton's treatment of the conspirators in Lincoln's assassination was excessive. He has been accused of witness tampering in the affair, but I doubt that accusation holds water.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2010
  7. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Hehe I was playing Call of Juarez 2 today,I just got it today and at first the McCall brothers start as soldiers of the Confederacy and you take part in a battle.

    Here's a pic I took from the game:

    [​IMG]

    And I think this pic shows the bitter feeling of the Civil War...
     
  8. Kakashi

    Kakashi The Fighters Guide House Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    15,018
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    In the hearts and minds of us all
    Ratings:
    +306 / 0 / -0
    but the largest one...

    and even as your friend i have to say this is a very ignorant statement.. i really see no parallels at all
     
  9. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Well that was the main excuse for the war,wasn't it?Although there were many other motives as well.

    Personally I don't think that the Confederacy were the bad guys.And I'm not blaming the simple Northern people either.It was a bitter war were thousands of people died.

    One amazing thing was that during that war most of the soldiers used muskets and the time of the rifles and revolvers was coming since many of the officers and other soldiers had rifles and revolvers,you know...like the Winchester kind of rifles.

    Wasn't the "Gangs of New York" final scene about the riot in New York against the black people were they tried to lynch them because the government wanted to enlist about 400,000 more men?Or am I wrong?

    Can someone tell me about this please?Wasn't that the riot that was put down with cannon shots and musket fire and soldiers killing people etc.?

    And DiCaprio and his gang fighting the other gang at the same time? :p
     
  10. Greybeard

    Greybeard Geezer

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto the Good
    Ratings:
    +58 / 0 / -0
    I'd say slavery was the reason, the others were excuses. The Union government, and the Union in general, was a rough coalition of hard abolitionists, soft abolitionists, federalists, Republicans, Democrats, probably still Tories and Whigs - I don't think either party was quite dead yet - and who knows what all else. A lot of Northerners wouldn't have fought over slavery, a lot wouldn't have fought over anything else. So the government continued to give people options so they could fight for what mattered to them as long as they fought for the North.

    But slavery was the reason the South seceded. They wanted to preserve states' rights, but the only right that was directly threatened in 1860/61 was the right to own another human being.

    The New York Draft Riots of 1863 were set off by the draft, because the people then and there didn't want to fight and die for much of anything. The rioters were the inhabitants of the New York ghettos, poor, immigrant, usually illiterate, prejudiced against people from the other side of a boundary in Europe let alone people with a different skin colour, and - as Gangs of New York accurately portrayed - often criminal. Those who weren't criminal were stuck in the same low-paying jobs that freed slaves worked in, and didn't want the competition. Immigrant Irish especially hated Blacks, largely for that reason. But those immigrants also had no interest in preserving the Union, in constitutional issues, in free navigation of the Mississippi River, or in anything else the war was about. Especially after viewing Matthew Brady's The Dead at Antietam, they weren't at all interested in fighting and dying in a Virginia they didn't know anything about for any cause that anyone was fighting the war about.

    The Draft Riots weren't about Blacks, or any other cause; they were about being too scared - or too sensible - to die hideous deaths for nothing that mattered to them.

    But even more than that, like all riots they were about disconnected people angry at the government, and destroying and killing at random.

    Yes, the US Army and Navy put down the riots with shot and shell. They had little choice, since people were dying by the hundreds, possibly thousands. And for the record, Bill the Butcher - who really did exist - died in 1855, eight years before the riots.

    Repeating rifles, Henrys (made by the company that was later renamed Winchester) and Spencers were newfangled devices and not really trusted. The "rifled musket" (actually Minie rifle) was proven and reliable and cheap. That was part of it. In part, the early repeaters used low-powered ammunition which led to shorter range and less stopping power. It's similar to World War II where most soldiers used bolt-action rifles, but some used less-powerful but faster-firing submachine guns. Most units that used repeaters were militia units that bought their own arms, although the government came to its senses late in the war and started buying Spencers as well.


    PS: You might be interested in googling "The Deat at Antietam". Read the Wikipedia article then look at some of the pictures. Grim stuff, but I suspect that played a large factor in the riots.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  11. Kelmourne

    Kelmourne The Savage Hippy

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,018
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international cyberspace
    Ratings:
    +117 / 0 / -0
    Although this is mostly true...

    ...this is complete nonsense.
     
  12. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    *sings*



    If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
    I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
    The day Elvis passed away would be our national holiday.
    If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
    I'd make my surpreme court down in Texas and we wouldn't have no killers getting off free.
    If they were proven guilty then they would swing quickly,
    instead of writin' books and smilin' on T.V.
    We'd all learn cajan cookin' in Luiousiana
    and I'd put that capital back in Alabama.
    We'd put Florida on the right track, 'cause we'd take Miami back
    and throw all them pushers in the slammer.


    Oh if the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
    I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
    The day young Skynyrd died, we'd show our southern pride.
    If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
    "Play alittle dixieland boys. Ah yes!"


    I'd have all the whiskey made in Tennessee
    and all the horses raised in those Kentucky hills.
    The national treasury would be in Tupilo, Mississippi
    and I'd put Hank Williams picture on one hundred dollar bill.
    I'd have all the cars made in the Carolina's
    and I'd ban all the ones made in China.
    I'd have every girl child sent to Georgia to learn to smile
    and talk with that southern accent that drives men wild.
    I'd have all the fiddles made in Virginia, 'cause they sure can make 'em sound so fine.
    I'm going up on Wolverton Mountain and see ole Cliften Clowers and have a sip of his good ole Arkansas wine.


    Hey if the south woulda won we'd a had it made.
    I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
    When Patsy Cline passed away that would be our national holiday.
    If the south woulda won we'd a had it made.
    Olay he hee hee . I said if the south wouda won we would a had it made!


    Might even be better off!
     
  13. wanderingmagus

    wanderingmagus Constantly Around :D

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    Ratings:
    +248 / 1 / -0
    if the south won i think california would've been able to become the Republic of California..

    That would've been cool!! I'd be living in a different nation, and that nation would be the 8th largest economy in the world! :D

    hmm.. except a large reason for the number of people here is because of the oklaholma migrations during the great depression....

    and then since we're a costal nation we'd accept immigration from asia and benefit from japan and china's respective booms... and maybe hawaii would've become a japanese state, and california becomes what america was kinda meant to be- a melting pot of nations ^_^
     
  14. XxJeremyxX

    XxJeremyxX The one and only.

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia.
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    my ancestors were all from the South... but... I'm voting North.