Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


"Lost Cause" - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 01:47 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
Doc Ce
Member
 

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

  back to top

BHR - if I had known your yankee slant I would have never helped you out with your ancestor search, JK

Doc C



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 11:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas you are correct on the Lincoln reelection thing. If Hood had played defense around Atlanta would the South have been able to prevent its fall before the '64 election? It fell in August/September? Hood gets a lot of heat for his actions around the city but sometimes I wonder what choice did he have. It probably would have been another Vicksburg type of siege if he had retreated into the city defenses. He was definitely doomed in that situation.

My Grant comment about the war being over when he assumed command was a little exaggerated. But why I said it was because Grant was the general that Lincoln had been looking for since 1861. He delivered hard hits and was tenacious in going after Lee. He coordinated all the Union armies which was something Lincoln had pleaded with his generals to do since 1861. But they never would until Grant.



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 11:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Sorry Doc...but hey I just found out I had Rebs in the family tree....I'm still processing that info...lol



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 12:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62-

  You are correct that in 1864, Mr. Lincoln found the general that he had been looking for since 1861. In 1861, Grant was not yet that general- but he would soon grow to be.

  Some of the southerners who knew him expressed the fear that he would some day be: "Found," and even when he was, his rise to prominence was almost stopped by other Union generals who were jealous of his successes in the west. Fortunately for Mr. Lincoln, he saw the contrast between General Grant and many other Union generals in Grant's ardent desire to engage the enemy.

Last edited on Sat May 7th, 2011 02:06 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 12:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
Mark
Member
 

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

  back to top

Ironically enough, I think it is undeniable that the Confederate war department was initially better at concentrating their strength in space (Shiloh and Chickamauga) and time (Antietam/Perryville). Perhaps it was simply out of sheer necessity.

Mark



 Posted: Wed Jun 8th, 2011 08:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the lost cause reading these statements and replys have been very interesting.i have givin much thought on the subject.there as been much debate over the causes of the war,almost as soon as the war was over.i believe both sides feel they are right.and can use many books and quotes too prove their case.just as the young and old men did in 1861-1865.and fought and died.based upon those beliefs.but i must confess.i dont understand why so much oppistion to the lost cause beliefs.yes i have read jubal early,.and longstreet.i know all the books that calls us lost causers.if our southern cause was not just.answer these questions.1 oral tradition passed down the years from our southern forefathers.2 if the war was over slavery. then the south could have laid down its arms and returned to the union.keeping their slaves.remeber lincolns speech.i would free some.i would free none.3 why was president davis never tried.you all know they wanted him hanged.he himself wanted a trail.you think maybe they thougt he might win.4 why was it when asked the cause a southerner was afightin.most said too defend his home.though most did not own slaves

Last edited on Thu Jun 9th, 2011 12:55 am by pender



 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 01:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Mark
Member
 

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

  back to top

Pender, may I offer a couple thoughts?

1) Oral tradition is probably less accurate than historical documents (letters, diaries, contemporary speeches, etc)-I should think that former Confederates were just as (if not more) anxious to justify their struggle to their children and grandchildren as they would be to the public at large. The "lost cause" movement also helped white Southern children make sense of the awful destruction and abject failure of the Confederacy.

2) As you point out, Lincoln constantly admitted that he could do nothing to forbid slavery in places where it already existed as slaves were property and thus protected by the constitution. However, the Republican platform called for the restriction of slavery in the federal territories. Both sides considered this tantamount to destroying the institution. If you look at the Southern state's secession documents and the Confederate Constitution, they all have a common thread-protection of the right of a state to hold another person to chattel slavery.

3) I think you are partially right on the Davis trial. I think federal prosecutors would have had a hard time proving treason (as defined in the US Constitution) and that is why they did not press any charges. However, I also think that most Americans (both southern and northern) wanted to put the war behind them as soon as possible-there was no ground swell for hanging Jeff Davis after the war ended.

4) Consider the evidence produced in Joe Glathaar's book, "Soldiering in the Army of Northern Virginia." By considering the number of soldiers who owned slaves and adding those who came from families who owned slaves (remember that most soldiers were just starting out in life and had not had accumulated enough money to buy much chattel of any kind) you arrive at a figure of about 46% of soldiers in the ANV had a clear tie to slavery. I am not saying that every southern soldier was fighting to keep his slaves, however, I am saying that the vast majority would have said (and did say in their letters and diaries) that they were fighting to preserve a way of life (which was inarguably based on chattel slavery) from encroaching Yankeedom.

Just some things to think about.

V/R

Mark



 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 04:10 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark-

  I agree with much of what you've said, but I'd like to expand on some of it.

  It can be maintained that the Confederacy was an: "Abject failure" because some of its members resisted a strong central authority. They had sought to leave one central government that in their view had abused its power, and were suspicious about granting too much authority to their new one. Internal conflicts often acted to their detriment. But as far as what led to the final demise of the Confederacy goes, I would borrow a phrase once used by a former CSA general: "I always thought that the yankees had a lot to do with it."

  Many in the south distrusted Mr. Lincoln, and didn't believe that he would leave slavery alone, in spite of what he said. But, as you say, simply stopping its expansion to the territories would further lessen the political power of the southern states. Many southerners thought that the only recourse was to secede, which the majority thought that the Constitution gave them the right to do.

  The process of the capture, imprisonment, and trial of Jefferson Davis is an interesting sequence of events covering a period of almost four years. For the sake of brevity, I'll address it year by year. In 1865, he was captured and imprisoned. In 1866, he was indicted for treason by a Virginia grand jury. The government did intend to try the case, but there were disagreements among many high level officials as to whether or not it was wise to do so. In 1867, after the government kept postponing the trial, Mr. Davis was granted bail (Which was put up by mostly northern benefactors). He was allowed to travel, but had to be prepared to appear whenever the government might demand it. In 1868, the government refused to nullify the indictment. But in February of 1869, all charges were dropped, and the ordeal was finally over.

  Mr. Davis had planned to argue that secession was legal. The US Government was not completely confident that a conviction could be won. It would be the supreme embarrassment if Mr. Davis was acquitted, which would by extention support the idea of the legality of secession. Mr. Lincoln's position on secession was always that it was invalid, and the southern states had never actually left the Union. In the end, the US Government took the prudent course of action by quietly releasing Mr. Davis. Later that year, in the Supreme Court case Texas vs. White, secession was finally declared to be illegal.

  I haven't read the book that you mentioned, and so can't comment directly about what might be in it. But I doubt that the average Confederate soldier spent much of his time thinking about the institution of slavery. As you said, most were young and few owned slaves. I think that for most, the greater motive was to defend their homes, their people, and their territory. From the beginning, federal forces were invading or threatening to invade southern territory. They were viewed by most in the south as a foreign power, to be resisted by any means available. There was a famous story told of a young soldier captured near the end of the war. When he was asked why he was still fighting, his answer reportedly was: "Because y'all are down here."

Last edited on Thu Jun 9th, 2011 05:41 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 11:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
Mark
Member
 

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

  back to top

TD, do you know what the primary source is for that story about the captured solder? I've heard it told many times and I know it was popularized by Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, but I'm curious as to where it comes from.

Mark



 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 01:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark-

  Sadly, I don't. I would have liked to have found out last night.  :? I, too, remember Shelby Foote telling the story in the original Ken Burns production. I've seen it referred to many, many times in all kinds of places, but never with a footnote to the original source.

  Mr. Foote was a memorable story teller. Perhaps he could have told us the origin of the story, or perhaps not. Unfortunately, we're no longer able to ask him. Perhaps if the source exists, then some day we'll stumble onto it when we're looking for something else.



 Posted: Fri Jun 10th, 2011 01:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thank you Mark, for your thoughts on the four questions I asked. But may I point out 1) oral tradition.The generation born during or soon after the war. Say1860-1880.Too use an example: My grandfather was a World War 2 and Koren War veteran. My dad was a Veitnam war veteran.Though neither spoke a whole lot about the wars. I did believe what they told me. When they did mention something. So I tend to think that the children of confederate veterans believed their fathers and grand fathers. More so than those that blockaded,starved,stole from, and killed their families. I do agree with you that written documentation is our best source today. But, so many confederate veterans, left none behind. Except oral tradition. I think that is why the southern spirit still lives on today. I know in my own family there is little documentation, but orally.  I tend to believe my family heritage. Passed on. I would suspect it is the same with alot of southern families. Even yankees. If our great grand fathers told the reasons they fought ,we tend to believe them. Not the victors of aggression. I must also say,I believe the lost cause to be the truth. And the lost cause myth,so called.Made up to cover the truth. 2) Could not the confederates have laid down their arms, returned to the union and kept thier slaves? Especially,in 61 and 62. Before  Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. To keep Britan and France from recognizing the Confederacy. Though the few owned slaves. 3) I think we agree upon President Davis'trail. 4) I have not read Joe Glathaars book. But, I am interested in checking it out. I would suggest a few books on the subject: Macferson's "What they fought for", Springers "War for what", Kennedy's "The South was right" and Dilorenzo's "The Real Lincoln".  I would like to ask you a question on another matter. In the movie "Gettysburg", Longstreet made the statement,"We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." I have found no proof of this, do you know if this statement is fact or fiction? Thank you for your time.



 Posted: Fri Jun 10th, 2011 03:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

'why men fight' and 'causes' tend to 2 separate topics.

Men, especailly young men, enlist for a variety of reasons with ideals and principles not generally at the head of list.

the 'Lost cause' is created by the surviving confederate leaders to re-think their reasons and hopes behind secession and the war.

the war did not work out quite as they intended.

to justify their actions, which destroyed the south, it's institutions and many men, they attempt a rewrite of history...


HankC



 Posted: Fri Jun 10th, 2011 03:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
Mark
Member
 

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

  back to top

Pender, I appreciate you remaining so civil with me on this topic, as it tends to ruffle feathers! First off, you are quite right about emancipation as a wartime measure. There is no question that for Lincoln (and for most of the North) the preservation of the Union remained the primary war aim throughout the conflict. With this in mind, you are also correct that the Lincoln administration would have likely readmitted the Confederate states into the Union before mid-1862 with no change to their domestic institutions (though, it seems highly unlikely to me that the radical republicans in congress would have allowed this ). However, with this being the case, the fact that the Southern states did not quickly return to the Federal Union indicates to me the depth to which Southerners distrusted Lincoln’s guarantees to not meddle with slavery where it already existed. Even though Lincoln maintained he could not alter slavery in existing states, most Southerners believed that he would, and even if he did not, closing the territories to the expansion of slavery (which the administration did intend to do) would be tantamount to eliminating the institution itself. I certainly agree with you that McPherson’s book, “For Cause and Comrades” is excellent. As indicated in that book, most Civil War historians agree that the vast majority of northern soldiers were not fighting for emancipation and the vast majority of southerners were not directly fighting to keep slaves. However, most southern soldiers would tell you that they were fighting to preserve their way of life and democracy from encroaching northern civilization. All I am saying is that this way of life that southern soldiers fought and died for was based on the institution of racial chattel slavery. Antebellum Southerners, whether they owned slaves or not, held to an idea of democracy that roughly ran as follows: all societies require a class to do menial labor. If this labor is done by free men, it reduces them to an underclass of citizen and virtual slavery (as immigrants and the urban poor in the north). But, if slaves do the menial labor, it elevates and equalizes all white men by allowing them to become yeomen farmers and artisans. That explanation is based on Sean Wilentz’s book “The Rise of American Democracy.” All this is a very roundabout way of getting to your question about Longstreet’s comment in “Gettysburg.” I cannot find any contemporary sources to suggest that quote is accurate to any Southern thinking (whether from Longstreet or anyone else) before or during the war. In the southern mind of the 1850s and 1860s, asking the white southern population to lay aside slavery would be tantamount to asking them to give up their democracy and reduce the yeomanry to what they perceived as a state of virtual slavery. I hope that helps to clarify my position, and thanks again for the civility.
Regards,

Mark



 Posted: Fri Jun 10th, 2011 11:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark thank you for your reply.I would like to bring up one issue that you mentioned.That is,you knew of no thinking of southerners wanting to free the slaves during that time period.I would like to point out that in the year 1863 Patrick Cleburne proposed sending a bill to the confederate congress, in which many of his officers signed.Govan and  Lowery included. In this bill , Cleburne proposed the freeing of any slave that took up arms and defended the confederacy.And also the slaves immediate family would be freed at the end of the war. Though this proposal never gained any ground. Until March 1865. When it was to late.As Patrick Cleburne said and I qoute, "As between the loss of Independence,and the loss of slavery,we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter."I just wanted to mention this to show why I believe, that there where southerners ,on that line of thinking. Though not all, but some.My information for this came from Craig L. Symonds biography on Patrick Cleburne.(pages183-91,194-95). Thank you again for your time. As I said before in my first post this debate will probably go on for years to come. Its been 150 years. The issues and causes are still hot and controversial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 Posted: Sat Jun 11th, 2011 01:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
Mark
Member
 

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

  back to top

Good point Pender. However, I would suggest that the movement to arm slaves was born of sheer desperation. In 1861 the Confederate government refused the service of several black militia regiments in New Orleans. By late 1863, though, manpower predictions were so dire in the Confederacy that some were willing to consider a completely altered form of slavery, "if slaves will make good soldiers, our whole view of slavery is wrong" said Confederate legislator and onetime general, Howell Cobb. Even so, as you point out, Cleburne's proposal was quickly tabled and not brought up again until late 1864. With the endorsement of RE Lee, the proposal finally passed in March 1865. Even then, however, the final legislation did not include a provision to free blacks who fought for the Confederacy. In my dissertation I argue that a combination of desperation, devotion to RE Lee and the successful use of USCT by the Federals convinced many Confederate soldiers to accept the idea of enlisting blacks to fill the depleted ranks. At the end, Confederates had to decide whether having their own country or having slavery was more important. They chose their country, but it was such a tough choice, it was too late by the time they made it. I've found the Confederate debate to arm the slaves one of the most interesting stories of the war. My old graduate advisor, Dr. Phillip Dillard is in the process of publishing a book on the subject. I highly recommend it when it comes out next year! Cheers!

Mark



 Posted: Sun Jun 12th, 2011 12:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

While we are in the thread of the Lost cause. I would like to post some,Quotes of the men of the Confederacy. First off  A President Davis letter to his wife in February 1861. That no matter what the result of the conflict was, the slave property of the South will be lost. If I could take a moment here to ask a question. Why, in the name of sense. Would you fight a war to keep slavery, If you knew slave property, Would be lost no matter what the out come of the war?And still I must say, I can not imagine, eighty percent or more,of the confederate soldiers that did not own slaves. Going through four years of grueling  hell, to give a rich man his right to keep a slave. Even if forty six percent had strings attach to it. What about the other fifty four percent? Now I would like to quote Jubal Early.Writing in November,1866 Early says, Nevertheless,the struggle made by the people of the south was not for the institution of slavery, but for the inestimable right of self goverment,against the domination of a fanatical faction at the north.(A memoir of the last year of the war for Independence. Jubal A. Early). Now I would like to quote a soldier in the ANV. Quote: I was a soldier in Virgina in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson,and I declare I never met a southern soldier who had drawn his sword to prepetuate slavery.... What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self goverment. It was a very small minority of the men who were financially interested in the institution of slavery.(Kennedys The south was right). I would like to comment here, that many would say, The souths right of self goverment,was to keep a man in bondage. But I would argue, It was the souths right to throw off oppressive goverment, oppressive tariffs and opposing cultures.I have many more quotes I could share. But I will only use one more, for the sake of time and space. I keep it in my living room. I read it quite often, especially,when viewing a civil war program, or a civil war book.Which I do very often.  Especially, when on the program, or in the book a highly recognized historian is telling me the lost cause is a myth. I quote:Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy,that our youth will be trained by northern school teachers their version of the war,will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors,and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision. PATRICK CLEBURNE. Shortly, before he was killed in the battle of Franklin. DEO VINDICE.



 Posted: Mon Jun 13th, 2011 04:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pender, your note mostly reinforces ‘lost cause’ history.

Southern memory after the war collectively ‘lost’ the main and strongly stated 1860 causes for war.

Southern collective post-war memory, again reinforced by leaders at reunions and in the common shared experience, ignores and forgets the pre-war motives for secession and replaces them with a post-war 'lost cause' version. Much of the memory was created, preserved and embellished by mothers, wives, daughters and sweethearts who played little part in the political march to war, but lived through the home-front misery and survived in far greater numbers to tell of it. It’s a natural reflex for losing home-front victims throughout history to blame the victors for their misery.

Southereners wrote their fair (and probably more) of war history. They eagerly and quickly rushed their versions into print which were quickly assimiliated into the war story. While the country (and world) moved into the new industrial age, the south successfully recreated a large part of their past, enriching a few and impoverishing much of its population.


HankC



 Posted: Wed Jun 15th, 2011 01:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank, I thank you, for the complement of reinforcing Lost Cause history. As I said in an earlier post. I believe the version of history, That you would call a myth. You could say, I agree with you in reverse. Soon after the war, The northern Politicians and newspapers quickly went to work. Publishing their version of the war, and covering up their atrocities against the men, women and children of the Confederacy. I am only thankful these men and women where wise enough to give us the true history of the lost cause. Before the radicals eroded away all truth. As for southern collective memory forgeting pre war experience, I doubt it. It was carried in thier flesh, As wounds and scars, loss of limbs and the loss of loved ones. That they earned in battle in places such as Gettysburg, Chickamuaga ,Chancellorsville and Petersburg. If you will note in the above post.The President Davis letter is 1861. So is Patrick Cleburnes prophecy(1864). As far as prewar motives, being replaced by postwar motives. What motive could they possibly possess after the war. But for food,shelter,clothes and rebuilding their lives. Their bid for INDEPENDENCE, was snuffed out by big and oppersive goverment.I would also argue with you that their prewar memory was not created as you suggest.The point is the lost cause was passed on to their descendants. And became a part of southern culture. That could not even be left alone by the radicals. All the south ever wanted was to be left alone. Every thing southern,Has to be probed by, and put down. Is there any thing in southern poems,writings, and books(etc)that dont have to be called incorrect. Think about it.As for putting the blame on the victors for their misery. I believe most invading yankees did cause quite a stir. Plus blockades,burning homes and crops did not help any. Even killing the live stock. Yes I believe they caused alot of misery, and may I say hatred. Have you ever thougt that when the north moved in the Industrail age, that quite possibly the south did not want to move in it. Maybe they liked Argrarin society.I do find it interesting that in Grants memoirs he stated, if left alone, the south would have established a real and respected nation. I would agree with you on your last point about the enriching a few, and impoverishing much of its population. The carpet baggers and northern politicians got rich off of southern property and goods. Plus about every thing else they had. Not even to mention the tax put upon southerners, To pay northern troops. While they impoverished much of the southern black and white popultion.

 

Pender



 Posted: Wed Jun 15th, 2011 01:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

pender wrote: Hank, I thank you, for the complement of reinforcing Lost Cause history. As I said in an earlier post. I believe the version of history, That you would call a myth. You could say, I agree with you in reverse. Soon after the war, The northern Politicians and newspapers quickly went to work. Publishing their version of the war, and covering up their atrocities against the men, women and children of the Confederacy. I am only thankful these men and women where wise enough to give us the true history of the lost cause. Before the radicals eroded away all truth. As for southern collective memory forgeting pre war experience, I doubt it. It was carried in thier flesh, As wounds and scars, loss of limbs and the loss of loved ones. That they earned in battle in places such as Gettysburg, Chickamuaga ,Chancellorsville and Petersburg. If you will note in the above post.The President Davis letter is 1861. So is Patrick Cleburnes prophecy(1864). As far as prewar motives, being replaced by postwar motives. What motive could they possibly possess after the war. But for food,shelter,clothes and rebuilding their lives. Their bid for INDEPENDENCE, was snuffed out by big and oppersive goverment.I would also argue with you that their prewar memory was not created as you suggest.The point is the lost cause was passed on to their descendants. And became a part of southern culture. That could not even be left alone by the radicals. All the south ever wanted was to be left alone. Every thing southern,Has to be probed by, and put down. Is there any thing in southern poems,writings, and books(etc)that dont have to be called incorrect. Think about it.As for putting the blame on the victors for their misery. I believe most invading yankees did cause quite a stir. Plus blockades,burning homes and crops did not help any. Even killing the live stock. Yes I believe they caused alot of misery, and may I say hatred. Have you ever thougt that when the north moved in the Industrail age, that quite possibly the south did not want to move in it. Maybe they liked Argrarin society.I do find it interesting that in Grants memoirs he stated, if left alone, the south would have established a real and respected nation. I would agree with you on your last point about the enriching a few, and impoverishing much of its population. The carpet baggers and northern politicians got rich off of southern property and goods. Plus about every thing else they had. Not even to mention the tax put upon southerners, To pay northern troops. While they impoverished much of the southern black and white popultion.

 

Pender

Thanks for a marvelous post!!)__



 Posted: Wed Jun 15th, 2011 05:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I suppose that our methods of analyzing and weighing evidence differ.

As I fancy my opinions to be fact-based (and every fact helps), can you point me to the text of Davis letter to his wife and Grant's statement that the CSA would have made a 'real and respected nation'?


Thanks,
HankC



 Current time is 07:10 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4523 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 26 queries executed.