Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

1 of 3 - Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None:

Comments

10 comments

  • Sam06
    What about the slaves?

    [xx(]




    That looks like a good book I think I will check it out. I doubt the library will have too controversial.
    0
  • HandLoad
    Thus the Rancor remains in the Sons of The South.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by HandLoad
    Thus the Rancor remains in the Sons of The South.


    There are a huge number of books and articles that modern-day historians have written about this era. I'm just passing this along to those of us that are interested in helping to set the record straight. Nothing more, nothing less, HL.
    0
  • iceracerx
    I like the description "War to Prevent Southern Independence"

    I believe it to be more accurate than "War of Northern Aggression" (although that is fitting too)

    I'm curious about the picture painted (here and in many other articles) about the South 'winning' the war. I don't believe that was the South's intent. Wasn't the intent to have the North (West, etc) withdraw?

    A 'draw' can bring both sides to the negotiations table.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by Sam06
    What about the slaves?

    [xx(]




    That looks like a good book I think I will check it out. I doubt the library will have too controversial.


    I'm going to have to get that book too, Sam. I'll probably order it today or tomorrow. I just finished reading an outstanding book titled, "A Disease in the Public Mind, A New Understanding of Why We Fought the C*ivil W*r," by Thomas Fleming. This book won an award for being the book of the year. Fleming is a New Englander with over fifty books under his belt. It's an interesting and fast read. He blasts the puritans of New England and likens them to their witch hunts in the 17th century who see John Brown as their God instead of the racist, murderer he was. A total nutcase, if you ask me! The book has some short comings, but it should be a must read for all school children. I very seriously doubt that you will find this book in a library either. The one I have was used and initially belonged to The Thomas Ford Memorial Library of Western Springs, Illinois...at least until someone went so far as to read the inside-cover.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
    I like the description "War to Prevent Southern Independence"

    I believe it to be more accurate than "War of Northern Aggression" (although that is fitting too)

    I'm curious about the picture painted (here and in many other articles) about the South 'winning' the war. I don't believe that was the South's intent. Wasn't the intent to have the North (West, etc) withdraw?

    A 'draw' can bring both sides to the negotiations table.



    I very much like that description as well. I think the South, their politicians and slave holders, primarily, expected that the territories being annexed by the U.S. would be split 50-50 among the free-states and the slave holding states. Even when the war started a significant minority of the northerners backed the south from a constitutional point of view. Is that what you are getting at D?
    0
  • iceracerx
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
    I like the description "War to Prevent Southern Independence"

    I believe it to be more accurate than "War of Northern Aggression" (although that is fitting too)

    I'm curious about the picture painted (here and in many other articles) about the South 'winning' the war. I don't believe that was the South's intent. Wasn't the intent to have the North (West, etc) withdraw?

    A 'draw' can bring both sides to the negotiations table.



    I very much like that description as well. I think the South, their politicians and slave holders, primarily, expected that the territories being annexed by the U.S. would be split 50-50 among the free-states and the slave holding states. Even when the war started a significant minority of the northerners backed the south from a constitutional point of view. Is that what you are getting at D?


    When I typed 'West' I was referring to the "Army of the West" initially led by Grant, that which laid siege on Vicksburg and fought @ Shiloh. I miss 'spoke' (typed?) when I 'said' North, meaning the Army of the Potomac.

    I'm sure there was support from northerners concerning States Rights.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
    I like the description "War to Prevent Southern Independence"

    I believe it to be more accurate than "War of Northern Aggression" (although that is fitting too)

    I'm curious about the picture painted (here and in many other articles) about the South 'winning' the war. I don't believe that was the South's intent. Wasn't the intent to have the North (West, etc) withdraw?

    A 'draw' can bring both sides to the negotiations table.



    I very much like that description as well. I think the South, their politicians and slave holders, primarily, expected that the territories being annexed by the U.S. would be split 50-50 among the free-states and the slave holding states. Even when the war started a significant minority of the northerners backed the south from a constitutional point of view. Is that what you are getting at D?


    When I typed 'West' I was referring to the "Army of the West" initially led by Grant, that which laid siege on Vicksburg and fought @ Shiloh. I miss 'spoke' (typed?) when I 'said' North, meaning the Army of the Potomac.

    I'm sure there was support from northerners concerning States Rights.



    Regarding the description of the war. Read Thomas Fleming's book. After rethinking the description and giving thought to Fleming's book, Warr of Northern Aggression seems to be a much better fit. The hate toward the Southern people that the abolitionists fomented since revolutionary war time took its toll, what with the puritan elite and the press agitating in the same manner that the commies and press do today, it was only a matter of time before all worthwhile communicaitons broke down. They were some very evil people.

    I'm embarrassed to say that I still do not follow where you're coming from with the South winning the war, and the Army of the West. Please clarify this for me in detail. Thank you.
    0
  • iceracerx
    Kimi - many writers mention 'if the South had won the war'. I don't believe that the South intended to 'win' the war (nor did 'they' intend to lose either - there's a conundrum!). That's my point.

    "[H]ad the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.?

    ~ Lee Kennett, Marching through Georgia: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman, p. 286

    As far as the Army of the West, I was taught that 'The Army of the West' was part of the Union Army originally under Grant (Shiloh, Vicksburg). Apparently 'The Army of the West' is now what was the Army of Mississippi.

    Likewise, Lee led The Army of Virginia (not Thee Confederate Army) which fought The Army of the Potomac (Which wasn't Thee Union Army).

    However, I seem to be uninformed, uneducated, misguided, and just plain ignorant of late. Feel free to (try to) educate me.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
    Kimi - many writers mention 'if the South had won the war'. I don't believe that the South intended to 'win' the war (nor did 'they' intend to lose either - there's a conundrum!). That's my point.

    "[H]ad the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.?

    ~ Lee Kennett, Marching through Georgia: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman, p. 286

    As far as the Army of the West, I was taught that 'The Army of the West' was part of the Union Army originally under Grant (Shiloh, Vicksburg). Apparently 'The Army of the West' is now what was the Army of Mississippi.

    Likewise, Lee led The Army of Virginia (not Thee Confederate Army) which fought The Army of the Potomac (Which wasn't Thee Union Army).

    However, I seem to be uninformed, uneducated, misguided, and just plain ignorant of late. Feel free to (try to) educate me.


    What do we have here, Bud?! The blind leading the blind! [:D][:D][:D]

    Man, that is a conundrum way beyond my present thoughts. Care to explain a bit?

    To my knowledge you are correct about the armies. I don't recall the Army of the Trans-Mississippi being referred to in any other manner, but I did not get into this sort of study until about 20 years ago when I paid a bundle of money to the folks at the national archives to get service records on some of my people...and all records show those in the deep south as being members of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi, except when some of Lee's units travelled to Chickamauga.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity