The American Civil War

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Foinikas, Aug 18, 2010.

  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 was wondering if this matter is still kind of a taboo in the U.S. and I just wanted to talk with you guys about it here.As I have already said in some posts before I have read a very good article(a big article)about the American Civil War from a greek magazine which is about history and stuff like that.

    Now,I don't think the magazine is biased or anything,but I read a lot of things that take the mask off the Northern leaders and generals and their motives and they did made me like the Confederacy.When I was a kid and I didn't know anything about this whole war I was with the North.Why?For simple reasons.Because I liked the uniforms more,because I thought they wanted to liberate the black people,because I kept watching on movies and on TV that these were the "good guys" of the story.

    But now I like the Confederacy more.Actually,this is a sad story where a big country came into conflict and THOUSANDS upon thousands of men died.

    Well let's get to the main subject.I read in that magazine that Lincoln,the "symbol" of American democracy and freedom,had never actually defended a slave,but on the contrary when he was a lawyer he helped a rich guy to get a slave of his back from another State where he had run.

    I also read that Lincoln's speeches used to end completely different from how they begun contradicting his words and not saying anything specific but still earning the favor of the crowd and making them love him.

    During the war,Lincoln started behaving like a dictator.Imprisoning more than 13,000 or 13,500 people with the allegation of being "sympathetic towards the enemy",he had about 300 newspapers of the North shut down,during the war the promised the freedom of the slaves of States that he couldn't reach but didn't free any of the slaves of the lands the Union had already taken.

    The black people of the North were still considered as second class citizens.I read in the magazine that the Southerners were saying something like "At least in the South Old Thomas has a hut,in the North the white slave doesn't even have that".

    And when Lincoln ordered the recruitment of 400,000 more men there were riots which were violently suppresed.Although that's another story.

    Now as for Jefferson Davis,the president of the Confederacy,he is described as a very good,straightforward man,honest and generally a good president.

    About the Union generals well there's Sherman who is described as a psychotic guy and Grant who although was a good general and man,was an alcoholic.And there's that case about some Brown guy who invaded Southern territories before the war and started shooting white slave owners and raiding villages or something like that.



    So...after all that,I went to wikipedia tried to check some stuff quickly and wikipedia was kind of contradicting what I read about Davis.But anyway,can someone tell me if all the above are valid?

    Recently I downloaded some Confederacy songs which I really like and I want to buy a Confederacy flag,but I know that must be kind of a taboo in the U.S. and many other countries in the world,due to the misleading propaganda about "racist Southerners" that had been going on for years and due to its use by racist groups in America.
     
  2. Jingojolene

    Jingojolene Wayfarer, heartlander

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Deep Space
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    Are you trying to deny that southern america is racist?
    Because that's so obviously truth and I refuse to believe that somebody with your brain, Foinikas, could be won over to the south with some article in a magazine.

    So freedom from slavery - even if it means being homeless like thousands of other Americans anyway - is *not* better than being hung from a tree, sliced, diced and whipped without anyone causing a stir?

    So supporting the side that forced black people to do tough manual labour for no pay and threat of death is better than supporting the side who did fight for the liberation of slavery and who obviously did make progress against slavery, even if the leader of the party was a popularity crazed liar?

    I honestly don't believe that Lincoln was as bad as that article made out :/ He probably was a liar and a waffler and all the other bad things - most American politicians are and that's something the rest of the world has to accept. Still, that's no reason to support a bunch of racist, ignorant and clearly backwards people.
     
  3. Cascador

    Cascador Who's Anakin?

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    30,512
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +383 / 0 / -0
    Sure the South and the North too was racist. But the North didn't have blacks as slaves. Though the North practically treated them as slaves, so I do wonder what's the difference in that? You're led to believe 'oh South is racist, the black were slaves! The North didn't have slaves! They're not racist!'. But they were, I don't think you can deny that. But considering the time it was I don't think it's... Well let's say abnormal... Cause you can say it was normal, but that doesn't justify it. I mean the thirties now in the last century, pretty much racist thinking too. How long did it take when black people became like the equels of white and even to this date they're not. Not that I say they aren't, but if you just look around you, you can see that people are trying to act 'oh we are more civil, we are all human, so colour doesn't make a difference." But it still does... And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just look around you....
     
  4. 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
    That was a good post Anakin.Plus,I think the North was using the black men more like "cannon fodder" sometimes and they in no case wanted to give them equal rights.

    I just got the magazine here so let me find some numbers:

    "However,from the 6,000,000 of the white population of the South only a 3% was consisted of rich landowners who had more than 100 slaves.The rest 97% of the population consisted of poor farmers(micro-landowners?I can't translate that word)who couldn't afford the luxury of having slaves,because the cost of even one slave was too much for their financial capacities."

    The North was angry because the South had the biggest and most fertile agricultural areas and exported incredible amounts of products to the rest of the world,while the North was mostly an industrial area were Europe was already beating them on that part I think and they couldn't find jobs for the white people and mostly for the thousands of immigrants who kept coming from Europe.

    Did you guys also know that Black people fought on the side of he Confederacy as well?

    I mean all these years Hollywood has been brain-washing people that the South were bad,evil,twisted,racist people who started a war.Although the war started because of the North.
     
  5. Bard

    Bard Erchamion

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,874
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    I get where you are coming from, but the South did decide to secede from the Union knowing that it would cause a war and they did indeed fire on Fort Sumter which was an attack on the US government.
     
  6. 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
    Are you talking about that small isolated fortress in Southern territory that had no strategic value but Lincoln used it as an excuse to attack the Confederacy?

    Maybe that's the one...I don't remember the name.
     
  7. Bard

    Bard Erchamion

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,874
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    Yeah that's the one brah.

    Regardless, it was a fortress of a government. If you attack a government, you should expect to go to war. The South didn't seem to have a problem going to war, it just didn't turn out as expected.
     
  8. 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 I guess the Northerners wanted to leave that post there to provoke the war.It was in Confederate territory anyway.

    Funny how,from what I was reading last night as well,the capitals of the two enemies were so close to each other.
     
  9. Bard

    Bard Erchamion

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,874
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    Indeed...I believe that at one point the Confederacy's forces were very close to Washington and could have taken it.
     
  10. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    Only in the South.

    As which is the law. He was a lawyer, he follows the law.

    Don't recall this.

    Yep, he did some crazy things during the war. Nothing irreversible, but still bad.

    Up until a few decades ago they were second class citizens.

    The white slave?

    Don't see this to be a big deal, tbh. There've been plenty of drafts during the war, and plenty of riots. I'm not familiar with civil war history but I don't recall anything being violently repressed.

    He was a racist, separatist prick.

    Sherman is the one who did the Total War against the South and broke their backs so they couldn't continue the war. He was a scum general, I agree.

    So?

    Hahah yeah. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. He wanted to raid the federal armory and give slaves weapons so they can rebel. Too bad slaves didn't know how to use guns.

    A lot of it, some of it might be but I can't be sure.

    LOL oh yeah. Don't do it dude. It's a symbol of white supremecy like the Nazi swastika.

    They do have a tendency to smear things.

    Back this claim up.

    I'm not sure how the rest of this babble is relevant to the post.

    No, the Confederacy was never recognized as a sovereign state by the Union, and they were the ones that opened fire.

    Ridiculously close. Washington D.C., the capital, is bisected by the Maryland and Virginian borders. Maryland was a Union state, and Virginia was a confederate state. The confederate capital was in Virginia. So basically the capitals of both sides of the war were in the same state. LOL, turns out weird.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2010
  11. 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
    Lol I see you're a Union supporter! :p
     
  12. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    The Union made us a better country.
     
  13. 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
    So....is Lincoln still considered a fatherly figure that freed slaves or...?
     
  14. Heaven's Cloud

    Heaven's Cloud Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0
    Generally he is, though it depends greatly upon what part of the US you're raised in, I guess.
    More and more people are becoming aware that US history isn't exactly what we were led to believe it was back in our elementary school days.
    Unfortunately, most people don't care about things that happened 150 years ago, so most people are just willing to accept that Lincoln was a hero.

    But generally, there were heroes on both sides of the war, and evil was everywhere. The North wasn't fighting to save slaves, so much as they were fighting to
    keep the southern states from seceding. In many parts of the US, It's generally accepted that the Southern States would have eventually freed the slaves without being made to, but there's no telling how long that would have taken, or how many more slaves would have been mistreated and murdered.
     
  15. 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 have a lot of respect for General Lee,I have read some of his quotes and he looks like a great man and a great general.And I read a lot of bad stuff about Sheridan,Grant and some guy who was something like a nutcase preacher and started attacking Southern citizens?The one who had a song written for him....the Glory Glory Hallelujah?I don't remember.
     
  16. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Foin, if you're serious about learning more, you could start by watching the Ken Burns documentary:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_(TV_series)


    There's also this companion book which answers some criticisms that people had:

    http://www.amazon.com/Ken-Burnss-The-Civil-War/dp/0195115813

     
  17. Dreamscaper

    Dreamscaper Royal Hamster Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -0
    Battle Hymn of the Republic?
     
  18. 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 think that's it!
     
  19. I Man

    I Man New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    This is actually pretty interesting as the New York draft riots were especially fierce and their suppression was fierce as well. In addition to the Army being brought in to suppress it (mostly federalized militia), the Navy ended up training its guns on part of the city at a suspected hot point. They ended up not firing, but the act alone lets you know how crazy everything was. Imagine a riot so frenzied in the modern day that they bring in the Army and it is so bad then end up firing Naval guns into the city. That is serious disorder. Once the draft resumed, they staged soldiers and Artillery to keep the peace (and it worked).