Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > How did the civil war divide the country?


How did the civil war divide the country? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jan 25th, 2011 12:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Robert E Lee condemned the Mexican War as a slaughter of native people.



 Posted: Tue Jan 25th, 2011 12:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

as a southern gentleman i must admit that you are right and i will do better in the future



 Posted: Wed Jan 26th, 2011 12:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

RE Lee forbid his troops from Guerilla war at the end. Five years later he said that was a mistake.  He never invisioned the malace the north would perpetrate on the south in reconstruction.  My personal experience is that my relatives whose parents had lived through the war were much more bitter about reconstruction than the war itself.  The war was a defeat of an army by an army .  Recostruction was vengeance by victors on the vanquished.  Thats why it is difficult for southerners to forget.  We are all US citizens and would defend the country to death.  That has been proven over and over.  VMI and the Citadel bastions of Confederate military provide officers for the US Army every year.  Many southerners fought for the Union and still went through reconstruction.  I guess we are right back to 1861 in that we just want to be left alone to be southern.



 Posted: Wed Jan 26th, 2011 11:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 547
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Wardenerd,

Well said!!!!



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 12:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
Doc Ce
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jan 3rd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 76
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Reconstruction was also very political as well as punitive. The republicans, lacking enough of a power base, proposed reconstruction in order to disenfranchise the white population and enfranchise the the black population. Just look at the voting history of the the state and national elections in those states which had reentered the union. Also, after Grant, there would no longer be any further Republican majorities in the south. This coincided with the removal of the federal troops in the south.

Doc Ce



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 01:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

wardenerd, you might try looking at it another way... it could be argued that reconstruction was fairly lenient. There were never more than 2,000 troops in the south—the regular army was too busy fighting Indians in the West, and most of those in the South were stationed in coastal forts. No Confederate political or military leaders were tried, let alone executed for levying war against the United States (with the exception of Henry Wirz, of course, but that was not for treason). The states were readmitted fairly quickly as long as they agreed to respect the voting rights of freedmen (which they ignored immediately upon the end of reconstruction). In the grand scheme of history, that is pretty easy going for such a costly insurrection. Just something to think about.

Cheers,
Mark



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 03:29 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 547
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In my opinion, I see nothing leinient in Reconstruction. For example, Gov. Parson Brownlow in Tennessee......



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 11:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yes it was the treatment after the war that resulted in the south being behind the north in development.  It was 1933 before electricity came to the mountains where I grew up. Not far from cold mountain.  Many of the things that the south is condemned for were the fault of the north.  Andersonville was the result of the north refusing to parole prisoners.  The south would have gladly sent them home.  No southerner ever brought a single slave across the Atlantic.  Those ships were owned by entrepeneurs from Conn and Mass.  Abolition was not in the picture until importation of slaves was forbidden by law in the early 1800's.  It is always about power, control and money.  The war between the states was no different.  nice to meet you



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 11:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Well the question was why the country remained devided.  The American Pharoah would not let the south leave peacably.  The south offered to feed Ft. Sumter the US gov't refused.  The south offered to pay for the federal facilities in the south and were rebuffed.  At the end of the war the gov't refused to seat southern reps. because the states had left the Union when the war was fought because the north said the south could not leave the Union.  The northerners who came south were the defacto overseers of reconstruction and the seizing of farms and the economic punishment was not done by the army but rather under the auspices of the conquerors.   The undeveloped rural south was abandoned by the overnment.



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 01:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

wardenerd-

  I am considered by some on this board to be a southern partisan, but I find myself to be annoyed by your repeated emotional postings that are inflammatory (such as calling people: "hipocritical(SIC) bigots" on this thread) and offer no documentation to support your statements. I have refrained from answering any of them but your posting here at 6:38 AM on Jan. 27, 2011 cannot go unchallenged.

  Worst of all is your statement: "No southerner ever brought a single slave across the Atlantic." That is an absurdity. While places like New York and Boston were major ports importing what eventually became millions of slaves, so was Charleston. From about 1670 right up to the beginning of the Civil War, slave ships kept arriving in America.

  While most slave ship owners tended to be northerners for most of that time, not all were. As you say, many were rich merchants from places like CT or MA (And Great Britain), but there were also southerners. If you need an example, I would present Colonel Charles Augustus Lafayette Lamar, the godson of the Marquis de Lafayette.

  Lamar was the owner of the slave ship WANDERER. Shortly before the war began, his ship was seized for illegally transporting slaves to America. In the end, he only paid a small fine, and then he bought the ship back when the federal authorities auctioned it off.

Lamar Bios 2

  There are many thousands of references on the history of the slave trade in America. Here is one:

Chronology on the History of Slavery 1619 to 1789

  The fact that transporting slaves to America became illegal in 1808 did not stop the practice. After the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed in 1823, it was mainly the British Navy that enforced it. The small US Navy (African Squadron, Home Squadron, etc.) spent a good deal of its time intercepting slave ships trying to reach southern ports.

  To address your other statements, I'll start at the beginning. It was not Reconstruction that caused the south to be: "Behind in development." That was the case all along. By 1860, the north had become an industrialized society with an expanding work force fed by great waves of immigration. At that time, the north had over 90% of the factory workers in America, and over 70% of the railroad lines in miles of track.

  The south was an agrarian society that depended on exporting its raw materials (mainly cotton) to exchange for manufactured goods. It was for this reason that the two sections became more and more different as time passed, and this eventually led to conflict.

  As for the end of prisoner exchange, this was a decision by General Grant because he thought that the war would last much longer if he had to fight the same southerners over and over again. Grant was right to want to use his huge advantage in manpower to force a war of attrition that the south could not win. If I had been in his place, I would have done the same thing.

  Prisoners suffered in places like Andersonville because the south eventually lacked the resources to adequately feed and house them. Prisoners in the north at places like Elmira also suffered. I've said on this board previously that the Union officers were more to blame for the suffering because they had adequate resources available to reduce it. But that is another story.

  As far as abolitionists go, they came into prominence in the north from the 1830s on. By then the northern section of the country was already becoming vastly different from the south. Their influence grew as time passed. The institution of slavery became less and less popular in the north because they had their own source of cheap labor (immigrants), and because the large plantation system in places like SC was not feasible in the north.

  The most accurate thing you say in your posting is that the war was: "Always about power, control, and money." "Money made the world go around" in 1861, just as it still does 150 years later.

 



 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 04:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I meant that the ships were owned by northeners who continued to import slaves even after it was illegal. Certainly these slaves were delivered because there was a market in the south. My relatives from Portugal via Connecticut who came to North Carolina were involved in the slave trade as sailors and captains before coming south when the trade was reduced by law. I just meant that we all gained and we all share in the blight of slavery. I have been to John Brown's grave in New York. A small but interesting little museum in his house.

I know why Grant did this but he also knew the price. It was a good strategic move. I did my senior thesis on prisoner of war camps in the war. Andersonville is the sight of a national cemetary and the National POW Museum I do not know about now but in 1973 I seem to remember their being a marker or historical sign post only in Elmira. I as only there a short time to visit the local newspaer and library. The memorials at Andersonville were there but the whole park was much less attended to in 1973 than the last time I was there ten years ago. Perhaps the government has erected a memorial in Elmira too. I do seem to remember the deaths in Elmira being at a higher percentage than Andersonville. Maybe I can find that old paper.
At least we agree on power and money. I am frustrated because I see the abuses of the constitution during the war as the start of the fedral government becoming unchalleged and intrusive in our lives. In the end I believe the Confederacy actually hastened the demise of the federal syatem rather than strengthening it. Just an opinion.



 Posted: Sat Jan 29th, 2011 11:37 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
Doc Ce
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jan 3rd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 76
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

With the end of the cw and reconstruction in place, there was unapposed industrialization (primarily in new england) and western expansion which pushed the country into the forefront of the modern countries while allowing the south to assume the position of a seemingly colonial holding until the the 1930's.

Doc Ce



 Posted: Sun Jan 30th, 2011 02:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I wonder if some of the current animosity directed toward the North in the Civil War is exacerbated because of many people's current feeling of Federal government overreach? I guess that is a clumsy way of saying that I think many, many people (of all political stripes) see history as a way to justify their current social and political beliefs. I think when that happens we stray away from the true goal of history, which (in my opinion) is to shed light on where humanity comes from--not as a guide to the future, but as a memory is to a human being.

Mark

Last edited on Sun Jan 30th, 2011 01:55 pm by Mark



 Posted: Sun Jan 30th, 2011 02:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

very well said. mark



 Current time is 07:01 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > How did the civil war divide the country?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1955 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 25 queries executed.