The North Won the South got kicked around like a panzie so enough!!!

Oh boy. I can almost hear KenH, Dr. Bob Griffin, and Mark Osgatharp, already furiously typing responses!

 

Dallasdid, You're in over your head.

 

Actually, I think this discussion came about because of the Ten Commandments issue in the State of Alabama. I was discussing States' rights and somehow the discussion got hijacked into discussing slavery. I believe it was the Yankee supporters that brought up the subject. If they will shut up about it and stick to the issue of States' rights and the relationship between the federal and State government as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution we can move past the slavery issue.

But every time I bring up States' rights the Yankee supporters bring up slavery. Which is why I am opposed to what happened in the 1860's. People used to understand that the original ideal of the Founding Fathers was to have a republic composed of republics and not a national government that dictated to the States.

Plus the Founding Fathers would be absolutely appalled that we now work until about July 11 to pay for all of federal, State, and local government spending.

Besides, the Yankees won so I don't know why they keep wanting to bludgeon we Southerners over the head about slavery. Slavery doesn't exist in the U.S. anymore(except for the slavery of taxes as I have already mentioned). If we Southerners want to complain about the outcome of the War for Southern Independence, let us. It doesn't hurt the Yankees any. There's nothing we can do about it.

Just let us bellyache about it, alright?

 

"the South got kicked around like a panzie"

Dallasdid: I don't think that you really believe that. Too many Union troops died with Confederate lead in them for that to be the case.

Roy

 

Before Gettysburg it was the North getting kicked around. If the CSA had had an equal population to the USA, I am convinced the CSA would have won. Or if the CSA had won at Antietam, the Europeans would have helped the CSA and I think the CSA would have won the war.

Also, in order to win the USA had to institute a military draft. Which is another form of slavery. Ironic isn't it? The USA had to institute a form of slavery in order to win a war that it allegedly fought to end another form of slavery.

And now we are all slaves to Leviathan through paying over half of our income for various forms of government spending.

 

Immature and inaccurate comments like this one do not add much to the conversation.

Strategically, the South had one major advantage--they only had to avoid losing, they did not have to win outright.

Logistically, the South had all the disadvantages--little industry, no shipyards, etc.

The South had a huge advantage in military leadership: Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Johnston, Forrest, Stuart, etc. This was only changed after Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Chamberlain, and Sheridan rose to the top.

The North had a similar advantage in political leadership--Lincoln over Davis.

As late as the Spring and Summer of 1864, the outcome was in doubt because the war was so unpopular in the North. And, the North narrowly avoided annihilation at the Battle of the Wilderness. Had Longstreet (whose flack attack was rolling up the Northern lines "like a wet blanket") not gotten shot at a critical time of the battle, that battle would have been Grant's first and last in the East.

A couple of victories by Grant, and the entire Army voting saved Lincoln's political hide and prevented a negotiated peace.

The bellicose and ignorant things that some have written on this board are unworthy of the men who fought on both sides. And, they do not sound at all like the things the men themselves wrote.

 

Oh Yeah?!? Well...

My daddy can beat the tar out your daddy!

That's a joke y'all

 

Easy fixed...

Rematch!

 

Are terms like "Yankee" still relevant 138 years after the end of the Civil War?

I guess I'm grateful that I don't live in an area that exists in a time warp.

(That's a joke...well, meant good humoredly anyway)

 

When the real issue is substituted the real problem only gets worse. Slavery was and is an economic question that was on the way out and would have gone the way of Texas Independence without a war; the real issue was centralized (federal power) lording over states, of which gave the federal govt. its authority from the start.

Who ratified the Constitution? The federal or the state governments?

Go get em' KenH.

Bro. Dallas

 

>>>>>>>>>>Slavery was and is an economic question that was on the way out and would have gone the way of Texas Independence without a war; <<<<<<

I have noticed that a number of people have posted here that slavery was on the way out, but I have never seen any evidence to that effect. Why do you think that?

 

Tanker, that is a theoretical question that really can't be answered. It seems based on several ideas - agricultural inventions, but probably mainly that all New World slavery was gone by 1890. Also, outside the Americas, in European areas and territories where slavery was not abolished, it generally played out due to economic changes. But, had the South won the war, the entire course of historical events would have been different (at least in the Americas), so who can really say what would have happened? It is all based on theory, opinion, and speculation, none of which really prove anything. Still it is my opinion that a separate Confederate States of America could not have flourished as an agrarian slave nation amidst industrial western/European counterparts, most of which would seem to have been opposed to the practice. If nothing else, it seems that progress would have swept it away.

 

Concerning the rematch...

...It would/will turn out just like the first bout - the winner will be based on whichever course furthers the ends of the God of this universe who is working out His will both in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. It is neither the strong nor the good nor the obvious that always win. Numerous Biblical and non-Biblical records of war testify to that fact.

 

England had outlawed slavery in all colonial possessions and cotton was being grown in India. Southern cotton was no longer king, IMHO then, slavery was on the way out.

If Southern cotton had been important to Europe there would have been more pronounced aid to the South from those nations.

Dallas

Bro. Vaughn,
I am in agreement with your last post.

 

It seems to me that no one can point to real evidence that American slavery was on the decline in 1860. All evidence seems to have been that it was quite vigorous. Lincoln knocked it for a loop though. If some other person had been elected in 1860, slavery might have lasted until now. Even now, there are several who post here who seem to be willing to accept slavery. I am sure there would be many more willing to support it if it still existed.

 

I think to be more accurate, the Confederacy wore itself out whipping the Yankees in the last year of the war.

 

I think to be more accurate, the Confederacy wore itself out whipping the Yankees in the last year of the war. </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely the case. In the series of battles beginning with The Wilderness, Lee won battle after battle, including the horrible slaughter of union forces at Cold Harbor. However, the horrible math was that Grant had plenty of men and materials to spare, and Lee did not.