bulletandpima

Dear Liable,

Have you ever been to Texas? More people there fly the Texas flag than the US. I understand that the confederate flag is insulting to you, however, to them it is still their flag. They hang that flag with the US and their state. I hope that you take my perspective and think about it. Keeping that flag shows our nation where we have been and where we never want to go again. It is a part of our history, not a shining moment, but should we forget it and pretend that it never happened?

bz2010

Just FYI - I was just kiddin' around.

Let's all lighten up!

Have some fun!
It's the weekend!

Cheers everyone!

bulletandpima

BZ2010,

I agree! Smile life is good!

AF6872

Dear Libel:

Just about everything posted has a little bit of factual evidence. A little bit of knowlege or fact can be a bad thing. As you are probably aware people in certain States are currently contemplating and proposing secessesion from the United States. They are using the same provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution as those used by the confederate states to justify their right to disolve the union and go their own way. They "don't like the war", they "don't like the administration" or they don't like daylight savings time. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

The "Confederate Flag" you reference is a battle flag as opposed to the Stars and Bars, the "official" flag of the confederacy. The well known and recognized battle flag was adopted because the Stars and Bars was, in the fog of war, confused with the Union Colors. Hate when you rally on the enemy's colors.

bz2010

Read something recently (on CC?) that shed some new light on the whole secession issue for me. Not sure how factual this is, but the author stated that the CSA didn't intend to sever ties completely w/ the USA upon secession. The idea was merely to become sort of an alternate group of states which gave the states themselves the utimate authority rather than the central government. The idea that the CSA would continue to cooperate w/ the USA was not something that I'd contemplated previously.

rjrzoom's point about the winners of wars writing the histories might have merit in this instance - perhaps if the above assertion were commonly known, then the South's secession plan wouldn't have seemed like such an outrage.

As I said, this was a new perspective for me - and interesting.

Would this be the time/place to point out that the "Civil War" was not really about slavery. It was initially about whether the states or the federal government had the ultimate authority. Obviously the southern states asserted that the federal government should take a back seat to laws/ rulings by the states. Slavery eventually became "the issue" because that allowed the USA to take the "moral high ground". I would further suggest that Reconstruction caused as much or more economic downfall in the South than the war did.

Just some "Southern Insight" for liable. Don't believe ALL the "Yankee Propaganda" you read!

shogun

Don't kid yourself. The southern states chose to secede precisely because of the slavery issue. They were upset about the election of Lincoln whom they considered an abolitionist, and were worried that he would abolish slavery during his term of office. When the secession occured, the North's primary reason for going to war to prevent it was to preserve the Union. The North's cause was tied to slavery in late 1862 after the Battle of Antietam when Lincoln announced that slaves in the rebelling states would be freed. THEN it became tied to the Northern cause, but for the South it was ALWAYS the primary motivating issue behind secession---the elimination of slavery would have been an economic disaster from their point of view. The South's argument of "states rights" vs. the national government had slavery at it's core.

bulletandpima

I agree with shogun...however, we need to remember the basis of this thread....1 mil members and/or is fred thompson politically incorrect with his gen. sherman comment.
If you live in the south (I do) the civil war is still being debated. It amazes me that we still have so many views on why and how the civil war started

bz2010

Ah shogun, thank you for the Southern California perspective!

I'm writing from South Carolina where the ramifications of the decisions made in the 1860's are still being felt and lived with every day. Judging from what I see around me, and knowing what I know about the culture here, I feel there are (at least) two points that are often overlooked. First of all, I think "slavery" as a way of life in the South would not have continued much longer whether the war had been fought or not. I think eventually the arrangement would've progressed to a hired labor situation if left to evolve naturally. The war and resulting economic situation was a catalyst for abrupt change which was further complicated by carpetbaggers & reconstructionists who moved into the area with no knowledge of the Southern Culture. (Need I emphatically interject that "slavery" is deplorable and no one should be able to own, buy or sell another person?). Consequently, the result has been deprivation for Southern freedmen & their descendants on a scale much worse than it would have otherwise been - in my view. Many of the slaves lived in much better conditions back then than local african americans do now - at least in our area (where 40 acres & a mule was implemented & heirs still live on that property).

The other point that is often overlooked is that the North had a VERY strong economic interest in the preservation of the union. The south controlled all the cotton at that time as well as the textile mills. If secession had taken place, the North would've lost access to all of that - might not sound like much now, but at the time, as I'm sure you know, "Cotton was King". The South didn't need the North nearly as much as the North needed the South. THAT's why they wanted to preserve the union. Whether the South feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery or not might have had something to do with it, but only insofar as the Southern states didn't want the federal government TELLING them what to do. As I said, I think slavery would've evolved very soon anyway. Southern resistance to Northern dictum is what prevented the full success of reconstruction as well. We Southerners just don't take kindly to anyone coming down here and telling us what to do; hence the proliferation of bumper stickers that say, "I don't care how you did it up North!". I submit that Yankees didn't love or care about the freedmen nearly as much as the Southerners did; after all, many "slaves" had practically been part of Southern families for decades, even as nursemaids - you don't get any closer than that! MOST slaves were treated well - it was of no benefit to do otherwise - and they were then all but abandoned once the northerners got down here with THEIR "plan" of reconstruction.

So you all can read all the books, watch all the movies and t.v. shows, etc., but you will never understand what really happened in the War Between the States (and before and after) unless you are truly enmeshed in Southern culture. Few people outside of the South understand the relationship that existed & exists between Southerners & African-Americans. Most of the problems w/ integration have occured because of non-Southerners trying to tell Southerners what to do! That just doesn't go over that well down here!

One last note about Sherman - he is reviled in the South because of his tactics - burning innocent civilians out of their homes. looting, and leaving women and children to starve. Had he determined only to engage soldiers on the battlefield instead of resorting to a "scorched earth" policy, there might have been a different ending to the story.

P.S. Shogun, I never kid myself!

bulletandpima

OMG!
I live in the south and believe me I was born and raised in the north. In my current town there is no difference between southener and African Americans. Or we really still discussing integration? The only segregation in my area is townie or military.

bulletandpima

BZ
I just realized something...u like to put the hook in our mouths and reel us in

bz2010

Yes, bandp - we're all in this together!

Our area is probably unique because there are several islands where "heirs' property" is located, resulting in areas which have high "gullah" population. Most other things are pretty well integrated tho'.

I think there are better race relations here than in many places because of the common heritage. That is changing however, because we have so many new residents and retirees moving into the area.

There is - and always has been - a lot of love and understanding between the races here.

bz2010

What do you mean? Is that a bad thing?

bulletandpima

Think of fishing...not a bad thing at all!
Afterall, my dog is named after an old afb ...she's a girl...can u guess the name?

Luigi59

There would be no different ending of "the story" (I assume you mean the outcome of the war?) even if Sherman never set foot in SC. The CSA lost the war the minute it started. The end was never in doubt, only the length of time.

There were no innocent civilians in South Carolina and Georgia in 1864-1865.

His scorched earth policy did exactly what it was intended to do.

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over....”

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war....”

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out....”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking....”

“But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.”

Sherman is a hero in the USA, considered to be one of the greatest military strategists of all time, and would have easily been elected President if he had chosen to run.

“If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”

shogun

BZ--you are right--slavery wouldn't have lasted in the south forever, Northern public opinion as well as that of the world would have ended it eventually---but even it was destined to die a very SLOW death as evidenced by the survival of Jim Crow until the 1960's. The South would have eventually given it up, not because it was wrong but because it would have been economically unfeasible to sustain, should the rest of the world have eventually resulted in an economic boycott or other anti-slavery sanctions against the south (something the Union Naval Blockade achieved in a few short years)--Even the British shyed away from full support of the South because of the slavery issue, and they were a MAJOR importer of cotton prior to the war.
Being in Southern California has little to do with undertanding history 150 years ago--my family is from the North and had serving officers in the Union Army who were engaged in both the Eastern Theatre and in Atlanta, Nashville, and the general Alabama area--their experiences are well documented. The embracing of slavery as a way of life for Southern (and to a great extent Northern) 18th and 19th century culture was a dark (parden the pun) part of all of our history and caused a war in which both sides suffered and as is usual, the losing side always suffers more, no matter what the virtues of the winning side may be. That war went on for nearly 5 full years in America's own back yard. The decision to end it as quickly and decisively as possible in late 1864 and early 1865 was one similar to decisions made my most countries (including our own) in other wars. That we had to make our own population suffer the consequences is all the more trajic, but the secession should never have occured at all---in retrospect, the issue of slavery got us into the mess, getting out of it would take a war and then another 150 years to get us where we are now. The Southern idealistic notion that this was somehow a "War for Southern Independence" is a dog that "don't hunt". Independence based on the right to enslave others without interference hardly compares to a war of independence to "end taxation without representation."
"Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" vs "Give me my slaves"?

I imagine Sherman is reviled in the same way that I am sure British Lancaster crews are reviled by some German citizens for the fire-bombings of WW2, and American crews were not well thought of by the Japanese citizenry following the firebombing of Japanese cities--we won't talk about the atomic bomb---

"War is Hell."---the idealistic notion of only having two armies meet on the battlefield as the means to solving differences went out the window long ago (if it ever really existed)---9/11 reminds us of that.

"Most slaves were treated well"---Im not gonna touch that one.


Again, for the North, it was about preserving the Union, and then later the end of slavery became tied to the cause.
For the South, it was ALWAYS about protecting the institution of slavery.