The American Civil War

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited June 2010 in A Moving Train
I just watched the 9 part PBS series again by Ken Burns. I'm gonna read Shelby Foote's 3 volume history of the war. Anyone else here have an interest in the Civil War? Anyone visited any of the battlefields? I'm definitely gonna visit Gettysburg in a year or so's time, along with Antietam and possibly Shiloh. This war threw up so many fascinating stories.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • InsideManInsideMan Posts: 261
    If you want excellent Civil War reading material, pick up anything by James McPherson.
    2009: Philly 3 & 4
    2010: Newark, MSG I
    2011: EV Philly
    2012: Philly MIA
    2013: Wrigley, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Philly 1 & 2, Baltimore
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    i am a pretty big civil war enthusiast. i have been to shiloh and several minor battlefields such as wilson's creek in southwest missouri. i did the 21 mile march in one day that the confederates did from corinth mississippi to the battlefield at shiloh. it was pretty awesome. i would love to see gettysburg and antietam as well. ken burn's series was amazing. i remember i watched it when it first came out and i tried to get the book by elijah hunt rhodes but it was out of print. that was maybe 12 years ago or so before i became internet savvy. one can probably locate it now if they dug deep enough. i also love that time frame around the end of the war with sherman's march to the sea and the very end of the war with lincoln's assassination and the trials of the conspirators. there is a website about the conspirators that has complete transcriptions from the trial and also there are newspaper articles from that time that chronicled the manhunt and the trials. amazing stuff if you dig history. to me the civil war is the most fascinating time period in all of US history. i know prfctlfts is pretty knowledgeable on the civil war as well so he will probably have some insights for the thread as well.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    not really a fan but i grew up in northern virginia and there are battlefields around where we'd go on field trips or to harper's ferry which is a really pretty area.
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    i am a pretty big civil war enthusiast. i have been to shiloh and several minor battlefields such as wilson's creek in southwest missouri. i did the 21 mile march in one day that the confederates did from corinth mississippi to the battlefield at shiloh. it was pretty awesome. i would love to see gettysburg and antietam as well. ken burn's series was amazing. i remember i watched it when it first came out and i tried to get the book by elijah hunt rhodes but it was out of print. that was maybe 12 years ago or so before i became internet savvy. one can probably locate it now if they dug deep enough. i also love that time frame around the end of the war with sherman's march to the sea and the very end of the war with lincoln's assassination and the trials of the conspirators. there is a website about the conspirators that has complete transcriptions from the trial and also there are newspaper articles from that time that chronicled the manhunt and the trials. amazing stuff if you dig history. to me the civil war is the most fascinating time period in all of US history. i know prfctlfts is pretty knowledgeable on the civil war as well so he will probably have some insights for the thread as well.

    I traveled through Harpers Ferry and the Shenandoah valley in 1991, but I didn't know much about it back then.

    The story of Wilmer McLean is pretty amazing. He was a grocer who happened to own a house in Virginia at Bull Run, where the first engagement took place between the Rebels and the Unionists. One of the first shots fired in the war landed in his front parlor, and after the battle he moved with his family 120 miles away to Appomattox, also in Virginia. Four years later, Ulysses S. Grant was on his horse looking for a suitable place to administer the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and Wilma Mclean's wife happened to be walking by. She offered Grant the use of her house for the purpose.

    Later, McLean is supposed to have said "The war began in my front yard and ended in my front parlor".
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    therk17 wrote:
    If you want excellent Civil War reading material, pick up anything by James McPherson.

    Just checked his book 'Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era' on Amazon. Looks good.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Thomas Hardy

    The Man He Killed



    "HAD he and I but met
    By some old ancient inn,
    We should have sat us down to wet
    Right many a nipperkin!

    "But ranged as infantry,
    And staring face to face,
    I shot at him as he at me,
    And killed him in his place.

    "I shot him dead because—
    Because he was my foe,
    Just so: my foe of course he was;
    That's clear enough; although

    "He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
    Off-hand like—just as I—
    Was out of work—had sold his traps-
    No other reason why.

    "Yes; quaint and curious war is!
    You shoot a fellow down
    You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
    Or help to half-a-crown."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Byrnzie wrote:
    i am a pretty big civil war enthusiast. i have been to shiloh and several minor battlefields such as wilson's creek in southwest missouri. i did the 21 mile march in one day that the confederates did from corinth mississippi to the battlefield at shiloh. it was pretty awesome. i would love to see gettysburg and antietam as well. ken burn's series was amazing. i remember i watched it when it first came out and i tried to get the book by elijah hunt rhodes but it was out of print. that was maybe 12 years ago or so before i became internet savvy. one can probably locate it now if they dug deep enough. i also love that time frame around the end of the war with sherman's march to the sea and the very end of the war with lincoln's assassination and the trials of the conspirators. there is a website about the conspirators that has complete transcriptions from the trial and also there are newspaper articles from that time that chronicled the manhunt and the trials. amazing stuff if you dig history. to me the civil war is the most fascinating time period in all of US history. i know prfctlfts is pretty knowledgeable on the civil war as well so he will probably have some insights for the thread as well.

    I traveled through Harpers Ferry and the Shenandoah valley in 1991, but I didn't know much about it back then.

    The story of Wilmer McLean is pretty amazing. He was a grocer who happened to own a house in Virginia at Bull Run, where the first engagement took place between the Rebels and the Unionists. One of the first shots fired in the war landed in his front parlor, and after the battle he moved with his family 120 miles away to Appomattox, also in Virginia. Four years later, Ulysses S. Grant was on his horse looking for a suitable place to administer the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and Wilma Mclean's wife happened to be walking by. She offered Grant the use of her house for the purpose.

    Later, McLean is supposed to have said "The war began in my front yard and ended in my front parlor".
    that is an awesome story. probably the most coincidental thing to happen to anyone other than the japanese salesman that survived the atomic bombs of BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    what is everybody's thoughts on Sherman's march to the sea? that was the first time total war had been used. those armies pillaged and burned most of georgia and south carolina. sherman was an interesting guy. he believed in "a hard war, but an easy peace". him and grant had a very close relationship and when lincoln offered sherman the job of heading the union forces to replace grant he declined because he valued grant's friendship too much. the history channel had a 2 hour show on sherman's march last month. it was quite good.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    what is everybody's thoughts on Sherman's march to the sea? that was the first time total war had been used. those armies pillaged and burned most of georgia and south carolina. sherman was an interesting guy. he believed in "a hard war, but an easy peace". him and grant had a very close relationship and when lincoln offered sherman the job of heading the union forces to replace grant he declined because he valued grant's friendship too much. the history channel had a 2 hour show on sherman's march last month. it was quite good.

    I doubt Southerners think too highly of him.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Byrnzie wrote:
    what is everybody's thoughts on Sherman's march to the sea? that was the first time total war had been used. those armies pillaged and burned most of georgia and south carolina. sherman was an interesting guy. he believed in "a hard war, but an easy peace". him and grant had a very close relationship and when lincoln offered sherman the job of heading the union forces to replace grant he declined because he valued grant's friendship too much. the history channel had a 2 hour show on sherman's march last month. it was quite good.

    I doubt Southerners think too highly of him.
    i can't say i blame them. i'm a yankee and he is revered up here, he is reviled in the south. he wanted to punish the south for their treason and i think he did a fair job of it. burned atlanta to the ground and pillaged south carolina after he made it to the sea in savannah, ga. i think what he did would be against all the rules of war today, but if he hadn't completed the march the war might have taken another 3 or 4 years. what are your thoughts?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • TravisTheSkyTravisTheSky Posts: 615
    Oh, Byrnzie, I didn't think you meant the first civil war. AMT is labelled "Politics and Current Events," so I was expecting your post to say "Coming Soon" or something to that effect.

    That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.
    "May you live in interesting times."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited May 2010
    Byrnzie wrote:
    what is everybody's thoughts on Sherman's march to the sea? that was the first time total war had been used. those armies pillaged and burned most of georgia and south carolina. sherman was an interesting guy. he believed in "a hard war, but an easy peace". him and grant had a very close relationship and when lincoln offered sherman the job of heading the union forces to replace grant he declined because he valued grant's friendship too much. the history channel had a 2 hour show on sherman's march last month. it was quite good.

    I doubt Southerners think too highly of him.
    i can't say i blame them. i'm a yankee and he is revered up here, he is reviled in the south. he wanted to punish the south for their treason and i think he did a fair job of it. burned atlanta to the ground and pillaged south carolina after he made it to the sea in savannah, ga. i think what he did would be against all the rules of war today, but if he hadn't completed the march the war might have taken another 3 or 4 years. what are your thoughts?

    I think the war could have been brought to a close in 1861 if George MCclellan hadn't been so hopelessly lackluster and incompetent.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.

    The right to enslave black people.

    Maybe the federal government is needed to keep such yahoo's in place. The same kind of yahoo's who are now causing trouble for ethnic minorities in Arizona.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Oh, Byrnzie, I didn't think you meant the first civil war. AMT is labelled "Politics and Current Events," so I was expecting your post to say "Coming Soon" or something to that effect.

    That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.
    what is past is prologue. are you the board police? i think it is relevent to current topics...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I think the war could have been brought to a close in 1861 if George MCclellan hadn't been so hopelessly lackluster and incompetent.
    yes mcclellan was kind of an enigma. he constantly overestimated the size of the enemy forces and failed to act decisively even when victory was all but guaranteed. im sure mcclellan was not very happy about being replaced by burnside and a later the drunk that was U.S. Grant...

    by the way, grant's farm is about 15 miles from my house. it is pretty cool to see the home of the former leader of the union forces and later the president of the united states. he was a pretty simple man. the home has been restored, but the land and most of the property has been preserved so a lot of it is like it was when grant lived there.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yes mcclellan was kind of an enigma. he constantly overestimated the size of the enemy forces and failed to act decisively even when victory was all but guaranteed. im sure mcclellan was not very happy about being replaced by burnside and a later the drunk that was U.S. Grant...

    by the way, grant's farm is about 15 miles from my house. it is pretty cool to see the home of the former leader of the union forces and later the president of the united states. he was a pretty simple man. the home has been restored, but the land and most of the property has been preserved so a lot of it is like it was when grant lived there.

    You live in a nice part of the country. I love places with history. Any place with old traditional buildings. I love seeing the old Ming and Qing Dynasty buildings here in China too. I don't really have much interest in the modern world as it pretty much all looks the same. I like old stuff. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia e.t.c, have plenty of nice old buildings.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Byrnzie wrote:
    yes mcclellan was kind of an enigma. he constantly overestimated the size of the enemy forces and failed to act decisively even when victory was all but guaranteed. im sure mcclellan was not very happy about being replaced by burnside and a later the drunk that was U.S. Grant...

    by the way, grant's farm is about 15 miles from my house. it is pretty cool to see the home of the former leader of the union forces and later the president of the united states. he was a pretty simple man. the home has been restored, but the land and most of the property has been preserved so a lot of it is like it was when grant lived there.

    You live in a nice part of the country. I love places with history. Any place with old traditional buildings. I love seeing the old Ming and Qing Dynasty buildings here in China too. I don't really have much interest in the modern world as it pretty much all looks the same. I like old stuff. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia e.t.c, have plenty of nice old buildings.
    i wouldn't call it a nice part of the country. there are some nice areas and there is a lot of history here, but i would rather live on one of the coasts. i love seeing old buildings as well. for some reason i am particularly drawn to old cemeteries. to me it is very interesting to see all of the headstones that are 100 to 200 years old, and each one of them has a story and each one represents a life long dead and gone. all of those places you listed have some erally nice old historical areas as well.
    i forgot to tell you, if you go to shiloh be sure to visit everything. there are hikes you can do where you can see the old heavy guns and cannons that are green like the statue of liberty. they are copper and you can actually use a pocket knife or something to scrape of the green coating and reveal the copper surface like it looked in 1862. you can also visit the major areas of the battle, the church, the sunken road, the hornet's nest, bloody pond, the field hospital, hte cemetaries, the mass graves with nothing but cannonball borders on the perimeter of the graves to mark the location. also, each state that had troops fight there has their own monument to those particular troops. soe are nicer and more elaborate than others, but they are all really cool. it is a cool place that is screaming with life and you can really appreciate the struggle that occurred there.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    Byrnzie wrote:
    That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.

    The right to enslave black people.

    Maybe the federal government is needed to keep such yahoo's in place. The same kind of yahoo's who are now causing trouble for ethnic minorities in Arizona.

    but didn't lincoln say he didn't care about slavery and had the majority of the states voted to keep slavery he would've fought the war to protect that right?
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    but didn't lincoln say he didn't care about slavery and had the majority of the states voted to keep slavery he would've fought the war to protect that right?
    that is a common misconception. going back as far as the 1850's lincoln is on record as having "sympathy for the plight of the negro" and being anti slavery. by the time the war broke out, slavery was an antiquated notion in the north and was pretty much out of fashion and virtually non-existant. lincoln did not want to use an executive order and issue the emancipation proclamation due to the potential political fallout, but it was clear that the south was not going to allow slavery to die out as it was too vital to the southern economy. lincoln was hoping that the south would acquiesce and outlaw slavery on its own but they never did, so the bloody war continued. some people will say that the war was over state's rights, but that is not entirely true. southern states were threatening to secede if lincoln won the presidency for many months before the election and he won, so their hand was forced. the south knew that lincoln was anti slavery and it was just a matter of time before he either issued an executive order, or the northern members of congress would pass a bill making slavery illegal. as a result, the writing was on the wall and rather than have the northern politicians dictate to them that they had to pay those that worked their cotton fields, they left the union. northern freed slaves wanted to take up arms against the south so the emancipation proclamation was a way of making it legal for them to join the union army.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    but didn't lincoln say he didn't care about slavery and had the majority of the states voted to keep slavery he would've fought the war to protect that right?
    that is a common misconception. going back as far as the 1850's lincoln is on record as having "sympathy for the plight of the negro" and being anti slavery. by the time the war broke out, slavery was an antiquated notion in the north and was pretty much out of fashion and virtually non-existant. lincoln did not want to use an executive order and issue the emancipation proclamation due to the potential political fallout, but it was clear that the south was not going to allow slavery to die out as it was too vital to the southern economy. lincoln was hoping that the south would acquiesce and outlaw slavery on its own but they never did, so the bloody war continued. some people will say that the war was over state's rights, but that is not entirely true. southern states were threatening to secede if lincoln won the presidency for many months before the election and he won, so their hand was forced. the south knew that lincoln was anti slavery and it was just a matter of time before he either issued an executive order, or the northern members of congress would pass a bill making slavery illegal. as a result, the writing was on the wall and rather than have the northern politicians dictate to them that they had to pay those that worked their cotton fields, they left the union. northern freed slaves wanted to take up arms against the south so the emancipation proclamation was a way of making it legal for them to join the union army.


    yes, he was anti-slavery but pro-colonization.

    he also wrote

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

    he was against slavery but what did he want to do with them?
    "I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation.

    Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body."
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    but didn't lincoln say he didn't care about slavery and had the majority of the states voted to keep slavery he would've fought the war to protect that right?
    that is a common misconception. going back as far as the 1850's lincoln is on record as having "sympathy for the plight of the negro" and being anti slavery. by the time the war broke out, slavery was an antiquated notion in the north and was pretty much out of fashion and virtually non-existant. lincoln did not want to use an executive order and issue the emancipation proclamation due to the potential political fallout, but it was clear that the south was not going to allow slavery to die out as it was too vital to the southern economy. lincoln was hoping that the south would acquiesce and outlaw slavery on its own but they never did, so the bloody war continued. some people will say that the war was over state's rights, but that is not entirely true. southern states were threatening to secede if lincoln won the presidency for many months before the election and he won, so their hand was forced. the south knew that lincoln was anti slavery and it was just a matter of time before he either issued an executive order, or the northern members of congress would pass a bill making slavery illegal. as a result, the writing was on the wall and rather than have the northern politicians dictate to them that they had to pay those that worked their cotton fields, they left the union. northern freed slaves wanted to take up arms against the south so the emancipation proclamation was a way of making it legal for them to join the union army.


    yes, he was anti-slavery but pro-colonization.

    he also wrote

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

    he was against slavery but what did he want to do with them?
    "I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation.

    Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body."
    yes that is how he felt. but you have to remember that he is not the only man making decisions here. those things would have had to have been debated in the congress. do you really think that the congress would vote to pay for sending the slaves back to africa while they had to pay for the war as well? i am sure there would have been some firebrabds for and against tht proposition. but this is what lincoln's thoughts were. its one thing to have an idea of what you would do, and an entirely different thing when members of congress and their opinions, and an entire region of the country leaving the union over this issue are thrown into the mix.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    but didn't lincoln say he didn't care about slavery and had the majority of the states voted to keep slavery he would've fought the war to protect that right?
    that is a common misconception. going back as far as the 1850's lincoln is on record as having "sympathy for the plight of the negro" and being anti slavery. by the time the war broke out, slavery was an antiquated notion in the north and was pretty much out of fashion and virtually non-existant. lincoln did not want to use an executive order and issue the emancipation proclamation due to the potential political fallout, but it was clear that the south was not going to allow slavery to die out as it was too vital to the southern economy. lincoln was hoping that the south would acquiesce and outlaw slavery on its own but they never did, so the bloody war continued. some people will say that the war was over state's rights, but that is not entirely true. southern states were threatening to secede if lincoln won the presidency for many months before the election and he won, so their hand was forced. the south knew that lincoln was anti slavery and it was just a matter of time before he either issued an executive order, or the northern members of congress would pass a bill making slavery illegal. as a result, the writing was on the wall and rather than have the northern politicians dictate to them that they had to pay those that worked their cotton fields, they left the union. northern freed slaves wanted to take up arms against the south so the emancipation proclamation was a way of making it legal for them to join the union army.


    yes, he was anti-slavery but pro-colonization.

    he also wrote

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

    he was against slavery but what did he want to do with them?
    "I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation.

    Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body."

    The black abolitionist Wendell Phillips made a funny comment when he referred to Lincoln as "a 1st-rate 2nd-rate man."
  • interesting that slavery was on the decline in the South before the cotton gin was invented and probably would have faded away like it did in the North without it.

    I think the most interesting thing to me is that it was the first real modern war, yet it was fought with revolutionary period tactics. the reason it was such a brutal bloody war was because the generals could not adapt to use modern weapons properly.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    MrSmith wrote:
    interesting that slavery was on the decline in the South before the cotton gin was invented and probably would have faded away like it did in the North without it.

    I think the most interesting thing to me is that it was the first real modern war, yet it was fought with revolutionary period tactics. the reason it was such a brutal bloody war was because the generals could not adapt to use modern weapons properly.
    yes, the trench war strategy of WWI is a direct response to the impact of technology on the battlefield tactics. can you imagine what was going through the mind of the common soldier charging across a battlefield throught a hail of miniballs, or running to engage the enemy in hand to hand/bayonet combat? i can't even imagine what it would be like.

    the civil war saw the advent of the miniball, probably the most brutal type of ammo ever used until the automatic rifles that most soldiers carried in WWII. those miniballs would basically destory whatever they hit. there were some of the most brutal fractures ever seen, guys with their jaws blown clear off their heads and they survived, and there was no way of salvaging arms or legs hit by the miniball. that is why there were so many hundreds of thousands of amputations. the bones would splinter and even modern orthopedic surgical techniques can't fix splintered bones. if you get hit my a miniball you were probably going to die, not so much from the wound, but the infection that was sure to follow with the unsanitary surgical techniques of the field hospitals at the time.

    also the gatling gun and land mines were invented during the civil war. one time towards the end of the war sherman was marching through georgia and they found landmines on the roads planted by retreating confederates. sherman made confederate pows go ahead of the union army and clear the mines off of the roads. word of sherman's cruelty spread and the roads in the south were never mined again. this was surely against the rules, but sherman had no other alternative and there was no geneva convention then.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    i found that link to the lincoln conspirators website if anyone is interested...one can spend hours reading through all of the info on there...

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... iracy.html
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
  • ShawshankShawshank Posts: 1,018
    The Civil War is definitely one of, if not THE biggest interest I have. I have been fascinated by it, since I was very young. Byrnzie, definitely make an effort to get to Gettysburg if you ever have the opportunity. I had read so much about that battle, that when I finally arrived the first time, it was almost like I had been there before. I recognized land marks, and areas of the battlefield mainly because they were so well preserved.

    I know there are hundreds and hundreds of stories of valor, but my favorite figure in the war has to be Alonzo Cushing. He commanded a battery on Cemetery Ridge, which was the focus of Longstreet's assault (Pickett's charge) on the third day of the battle. Here's a 21 year old kid, who was facing an overwhelming force. As the battle raged, he was hit by a shell fragment that went clean through his shoulder. Yet he stayed at his post. Shortly after he was hit by another shell fragment. This fragment tore through his groin area, and split open his lower abdomen. Not trying to be too graphic, but the would actually exposed his intestines which he held in place with his hand. He was ordered to fall back, but due to the fact that the confederates were quickly approaching the ridge, and many of his men where killed, he refused to give up his command. He remained on the field, and since he couldn't yell out his orders he passed them along to his 1st. Sgt. When the Confederates hit the High Water Mark, Cushing was killed by a bullet that entered his mouth.

    War is tragic no matter what, and there are so many elements of this war that made it even more tragic than most. The friends and family that were on each side fighting against each other. Armistead and Hancock for example at Gettysburg. The way the battles were fought. I mean, it just is beyond our comprehension, and no movie or documentary could ever begin to do it justice.

    I definitely could go on and on with this subject. Here in my office I have a nicely framed New York Times newspaper from late June 1863 that talks about the troop movements and things going on around Gettysburg just before the battle took place. I also have a framed display dedicated to Lincoln which includes a signature, a piece of the flag that draped his funeral procession, and a lock of his hair (I know the hair sounds creepy but that was a big deal back in that day, people did that all the time).
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    Shawshank wrote:
    The Civil War is definitely one of, if not THE biggest interest I have. I have been fascinated by it, since I was very young. Byrnzie, definitely make an effort to get to Gettysburg if you ever have the opportunity. I had read so much about that battle, that when I finally arrived the first time, it was almost like I had been there before. I recognized land marks, and areas of the battlefield mainly because they were so well preserved.

    I know there are hundreds and hundreds of stories of valor, but my favorite figure in the war has to be Alonzo Cushing. He commanded a battery on Cemetery Ridge, which was the focus of Longstreet's assault (Pickett's charge) on the third day of the battle. Here's a 21 year old kid, who was facing an overwhelming force. As the battle raged, he was hit by a shell fragment that went clean through his shoulder. Yet he stayed at his post. Shortly after he was hit by another shell fragment. This fragment tore through his groin area, and split open his lower abdomen. Not trying to be too graphic, but the would actually exposed his intestines which he held in place with his hand. He was ordered to fall back, but due to the fact that the confederates were quickly approaching the ridge, and many of his men where killed, he refused to give up his command. He remained on the field, and since he couldn't yell out his orders he passed them along to his 1st. Sgt. When the Confederates hit the High Water Mark, Cushing was killed by a bullet that entered his mouth.

    War is tragic no matter what, and there are so many elements of this war that made it even more tragic than most. The friends and family that were on each side fighting against each other. Armistead and Hancock for example at Gettysburg. The way the battles were fought. I mean, it just is beyond our comprehension, and no movie or documentary could ever begin to do it justice.

    I definitely could go on and on with this subject. Here in my office I have a nicely framed New York Times newspaper from late June 1863 that talks about the troop movements and things going on around Gettysburg just before the battle took place. I also have a framed display dedicated to Lincoln which includes a signature, a piece of the flag that draped his funeral procession, and a lock of his hair (I know the hair sounds creepy but that was a big deal back in that day, people did that all the time).
    wow that is an awesome story about cushing. definitely very tragic. there are stories like that at every battle. those guys had to know that they were most likely not coming back alive so they could either go down fighting, which could have meant death, or dessert, which would have meant death if they got caught.

    it sounds like you have some awesome memorabilia there. i'm sure there are museums that would pay a large price for that lincoln item. i would like to see it. if you have a pic can you post it?

    i was just thnking, the country was so divided back then, imagine if there was the current talking head media that we have today back then. it would have just fueled the fire. what would beck, hannity, rush, olberman, malloy, maddow, etc have said? if they had our media today there might have been no reconstruction. it is certainly interesting to think about.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ShawshankShawshank Posts: 1,018

    it sounds like you have some awesome memorabilia there. i'm sure there are museums that would pay a large price for that lincoln item. i would like to see it. if you have a pic can you post it?

    i was just thnking, the country was so divided back then, imagine if there was the current talking head media that we have today back then. it would have just fueled the fire. what would beck, hannity, rush, olberman, malloy, maddow, etc have said? if they had our media today there might have been no reconstruction. it is certainly interesting to think about.

    I'll definitely try and post some pics. The media was pretty ruthless with Lincoln at times. The war obviously grew very unpopular as it went along, mainly due to the fact that photographers like Matthew Brady and Timothy O'Sullivan brought the war home to the people through their graphic images. Up until that point, war was thought of as a spectator sport. "Hey there's a battle going on just outside town, throw some ham in the picnic basket and let's go watch". When people started realizing that it wasn't glamorous, it wasn't exciting, and that it was infact a terrifying very bloody event, then it became not so cool.

    The longer the war went on, the tougher it became for Lincoln to maintain the war effort. He was under tremendous pressure to negotiate peace with the South. Eventually he started to try and take control of the situation by doing things that would seem unfathomable to us. Under his power, the Federal government made huge power grabs, suspended Habeas corpus, spent loads of money before congress every authorized it, and detained thousands of people without sufficient cause. This was the ugly side that many people don't associate with Lincoln, but in his mind it was all about the greater good, which of course was to preserve the Union. As was mentioned earlier, while he was a staunch opponent to slavery; slavery in and of itself was not the driving force behind the war. He would have never sacrificed the Union in order to free the slaves. It's also important to note that slavery was never the driving force behind the South's decision to leave the Union. It was a huge issue, but the bigger issue was that the southern states believed the constitution provided them the authority to govern themselves. They saw the north as becoming what England was to the Colonists.

    I've always felt that if Lincoln had not been assassinated, that this country would be a much much different place. I believe that had he served his second term, and oversaw the Reconstruction phase, that this country would have become much healthier as a result. Lincoln was, more than anything, a compassionate man. While others in his administration couldn't wait to "punish" the South, Lincoln couldn't wait to let them back into the family and reconcile. His attitude can be summed up by what he said to one of his Generals when he first visited Richmond after it fell. The general asked Lincoln how he should handle the defeated Confederates, and Lincoln's reply was to "Let 'em up easy". This was how he planned to deal with South overall after the war, and I believe had he been able to do so, the bitterness and hatred that raged through the South afterwards would have at the very least been lessened. It's like if you have a boxing match between unequal opponents, the smaller guy gets some good hits in, and the fight last longer than everyone expects, but inevitably the big guy knocks out the little guy. Now imagine the big guy kicks the little guy in the teeth while he's down. That pretty much sums up what happened after the war. Whereas Lincoln was the kind of person to kneel down next to the defeated opponent, give him some water, and then help him to his feet. I don't know, sometimes I just wonder how different things would have been.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Another story is how after the war 2000 liberated Union Prisoners of War boarded the steamboat Sultana to travel back home, and after a boiler exploded it sank near Memphis killing over 1200 men.
    Imagine, these men had spent months/years struggling to survive in concentration camp conditions in Confederate prisons and had finally made it out, only to drown on their way home.
Sign In or Register to comment.