The American Civil War

gimmesometruth27

Pepe Silvia wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

Pepe Silvia wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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."

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

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.

gimmesometruth27

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.

gimmesometruth27

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

WaveCameCrashin

I live about 2 miles from here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Shawshank

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).

gimmesometruth27

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.

Shawshank

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

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.

gimmesometruth27

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

how is that for bad luck?

gimmesometruth27

Shawshank wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

i completely agree with all points mentioned here. i think reconstruction would have been much more favorable for the south had lincoln lived and served a second term. there were many in the north that never forgave the south for their treason and causing the war, but i think lincoln would have been more compassionate. i often wonder how things would have been different had lincoln and kennedy served their full terms.

gimmesometruth27

can you imagine firing this bad boy into a sea of humanity at Shiloh? i can't...

this is confederate artillery aimed at the hornet's nest just as it was during the battle..



also here is an interesting soldier's letter to home from the battle of shiloh...
http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/20 ... at-shiloh/

WaveCameCrashin

I got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWkvUdj ... re=channel

If you guys really want to see some civil war history, Beautiful gardens,Historic homes,Old graveyards,The Beach,great food,and Beautiful people then you need to come to Charleston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHotS9-oofA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqIDDpOH ... re=related

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

I got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWkvUdj ... re=channel

If you guys really want to see some civil war history, Beautiful gardens,Historic homes,Old graveyards,The Beach,great food,and Beautiful people then you need to come to Charleston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHotS9-oofA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqIDDpOH ... re=related

the hunley is another great story from the war. those guys were brave to go into a hand crank powered submarine. i could not imagine the hell of sinking in that thing. were they able to restore it? i saw that they had a funeral for the soldiers, which was the right thing to do. charleston looks very nice. i love old cities like that.

gimmesometruth27

here is a link for byrnzie, or anyone else interested in the actual battlefields as they are today. most are preserved pretty well. this site has thousands of pics from many of the battlefields. you can see strategic positions, landmarks, graves both mass and individual, monuments to the soldiers of every state that fought at that battlefield...its quite impressive to see all of these pics. i have spent the last 2 hours looking around the site....

http://www.battlefieldportraits.com/battlefields.htm

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

I lived near Vicksburg for a few years. last i checked, they had a lot of civil war stuff there (and thats pretty much it).

gimmesometruth27

MrSmith wrote:

I lived near Vicksburg for a few years. last i checked, they had a lot of civil war stuff there (and thats pretty much it).

that seige lasted 47 days. i heard that the union drummer boy Orion Hatch (i think that is his name), age 13, was shot in the leg and wounded and still managed to find general sherman to request more ammo for the unit he was in. there is a monument for him there.

the pics on that website that i posted a few posts ago are amazing. they erected stunning monuments at vickeburg. did you go see any of it when you lived there?

he still stands

Vicksburg's battlefields and memorial are great. I think I enjoyed that even more than Gettysburg.

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

here is a link for byrnzie, or anyone else interested in the actual battlefields as they are today. most are preserved pretty well. this site has thousands of pics from many of the battlefields. you can see strategic positions, landmarks, graves both mass and individual, monuments to the soldiers of every state that fought at that battlefield...its quite impressive to see all of these pics. i have spent the last 2 hours looking around the site....

http://www.battlefieldportraits.com/battlefields.htm

Cheers, I'll check it out.