1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

War Between the States Program This Sunday

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by KenH, Aug 3, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. blackbird

    blackbird Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Ratings:
    +2
    Thanks, KenH

    Not long ago I toured the Vicksburg Battleground

    There's a caption there somewhere in the Rebel defences that says

    The poor Yankees have us surrounded!
     
  3. Robert J Hutton

    Robert J Hutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    360
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please pardon my ignorance on this matter but I thought the correct title was the US Civil War, is there a difference of description depending where one lives in the US? I am not trying to be sarcastic but am asking a genuine question.

    Kind regards to all.

    Bob
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bob, here is my take on it.

    It is officially known as the "Civil War", because by definition, that is a war internal to a single nation. Southerners who many still strongly believe the CSA was legally a separate nation, also think by definition it was a war between two sovereign nations, thus NOT a civil war. However, the victors write the history, and the CSA lost its fight to be independent. To a southern mind, it may be that the CSA was reabsorbed into the USA. To those who think it was an illegal secession from the Union, those states never legally left the USA.

    Hence, many southerners prefer the term "War Between the States" over the Yankee "Civil War".
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bob

    There is more truth to my northern colleagues assessment than I would like to admit.

    Until after the Civil War - the states were under the impression that they could secede. Maybe this is where the war between the states came from.

    Only Texas was ever formally granted the status of being able to secede - the laws were changed after the civil war. And no one has tested the validity of Texas' ability to legally secede.
     
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Ratings:
    +0

    Courage, pride, hope, or ignorance . . . only God knows which they were thinkin'.
     
  7. Not_hard_to_find

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Ratings:
    +0
    To add to the confusion, you'll also find "The War of Northern Aggression", which is still used by some in southern states.

    Unless one lives in Mexico, where the same name is applied to what is usually referred to as the "Mexican-American War."
     
  8. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,725
    Ratings:
    +663
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here in the Salt City, there is a moumnet for the War from 1861-1865, and it is dedicated to the men "who fought in the War of the Rebellion":tear:

    Sgt Salty
     
  9. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Ratings:
    +0
    OK Salty

    Is that NV or NY?
     
  10. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,275
    Ratings:
    +437
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A Texas legend. The annexation treaty did not provide for a right of secession. It did allow Texas to form up to four more states — following the provisions of the federal Constitution. Thus, there was no guarantee that those states would be accepted into the union. That clause became largely moot before the Civil War because Texas ceded much of its land claims— parts of what are now Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Wyoming — to the federal government for $10 million.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    A civil war is when two(or more) factions are fighting to control the same government. The Confederates had no interest in taking over the government of the USA; they were fighting for the independence of the CSA to have a separate government.
     
  12. Robert J Hutton

    Robert J Hutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    360
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thank you to all those who replied to my question, these replies were helpful. However, I would have to say to the last post that a Civil War is not only when two or more sides seek to take over the govt., a Civil War can also be when one part of a country seeks to break away and form a seperate govt.

    Kind regards to all.

    Bob
     
  13. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Ratings:
    +408
    You could say that the confederates and the unionists were fighting over the same government--the government of the southern states.
     
  14. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bob, you are correct, of course. It is more a matter of pride for southerners than anything else. 141 years later, many of their descendants haven't got the word that their side lost, so instead of the Southern Revolution, we have the U.S. Civil War. :tongue3:
     
  15. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    And from my perspective, its a rotten shame that we lost. :tear:
     
  16. Robert J Hutton

    Robert J Hutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    360
    Ratings:
    +0
    As a student of the Civil War looking at it from an outsider's point of view I am able to examine the arguments of both sides without feeling any bias. I wonder if the last poster would like to clarify something for me. You say that is was a shame "that we lost". Assuming the CSA had not lost and they had continued as the CSA that would have meant that slavery would have continued, do you think that would have been a good thing? Again, I ask, not out of contention but in order to broaden my knowledge of the conflict and its aftermath.

    Kind regards to all.

    Bob.
     
  17. North Carolina Tentmaker

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Ratings:
    +1
    If the south had won slavery would have continued in the southern states for a period of time, but not forever. Every other nation was able to abolish slavery without the civil war the United States did. I am sure you are aware Robert that slavery was abolished in the British colonies in 1834. France followed suit in 1848. (There was a period of time when slavery was outlawed in France but it was reestablished under Napoleon. It is interesting that when both England and France emancipated their slaves the slave owners were financially compensated for their losses. At the time of the American war of independence all 13 colonies had slavery. Over time the northern states had abolished it, without bloodshed. (Most, but not all by 1804).

    After the U. S. Civil war slavery still existed in other western nations. Puerto Rico abolished slavery in 1873, Cuba in 1880, and Brazil in 1888. I have no doubt that without the civil war the southern U. S. States would have followed the same pattern, without the bloodshed and financial ruin.

    It is interesting how many nations passed laws outlawing slavery much later than those western nations. China outlawed slavery in 1910, Ethiopia in 1936. Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until 1962. Slavery is still a problem in many countries including Sudan, Mauritania, and Ethiopia. But these nations and this slavery is different than the imported African slave trade of the Western world in the 19th century.

    The U.S. Civil war was about a lot more than slavery.
     
  18. faithgirl46

    faithgirl46 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +4
    If you are wondering about Saly Lake, it iss in Utah. Nevada became a state on OCt 31, 1864 just in time for Nevands to vote.
    Faithgirl
     
  19. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Ratings:
    +0
    The best way to preserve slavery would have been to remain in the USA. There was no legal threat to slavery under the United States. It was held that the constitution protected it. The Dred Scott decision effectively held that slavery was legal in ALL states. We even have ole' Abe pushing for a constitutional amendment (Corwin amendment) to protect it.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=bizarre&id=4379128


    I spent a lot of time researching the matter. John Brown (and friends) had more to do with secession than is sometimes credited. It wasn't that Southerners were afraid of losing slaves but fear of a general slave uprising, such as attempted by John Brown, that finally triggered secession.

    Folks in the South took note of the bloody revolution in Haiti in 1843 where the slaves killed most of the whites. They noted that John Brown wanted the slaves to rise up and kill white people as in Haiti. They noted that Northern abolitionists were sympathetic to John Brown. They also noted that Lincoln's party had collected most of the abolitionists. With the election of Lincoln as president many Southerners were of the opinion that the terrorist attacks would increase and have the sponsorship of the Republican government.

    Keep in mind a few of other things:
    "Honest Abe" wasn't known for being all that honest until after he died. And Lincoln's party wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states (wouldn't that scare you?). The Republican party was completely a sectional party at the time.

    Now I am not saying that "states' rights" wasn't a large factor. States' rights as an issue was well demonstrated by the "nullification crisis." That, however, is another topic.



    As to the name of the war - my understanding was that "Civil War" was a term adopted in the spirit of reconciliation after "Reconstruction" (a.k.a. redestruction). The official Yankee term was "War of Rebellion."

    A.F.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I concur with the post of North Carolina Tentmaker in response to your inquiry.
     
Loading...