Anybody watching the Civil War on PBS this week?

[EweSheep]

Quote:
Have you gotten any old photographs of the house in the CW? Was it a working farm such as dairy?

Smart man keeping his livestock down in the basement. How in the heck he knew they were coming and dealiing with ornery cows wasn't an easy feat!

 

[country lady]

"Last time I checked, the only two countries neighborng us were Canada and Mexico, neither of which are very capable of fighting a prolonged war on the offensive,...."------------unless it is a "silent" invasion.

 

[Dunkopf]

Q, you are so fixated on states rights that you are missing my point completely. Without a central government and all the states doing their own thing, you would have chaos. There would be no more USA. It would be North America with 51 countries instead of 3. We are all reliant on each other. When free trade doesn't work, which is a lot of the time then war breaks out. What are the reasons for war? Greed or desperation. Sure it's always cloaked in some idealistic BS, but those 2 reasons are always behind it. So there would just as likely be wars between the states. I'm waiting for the first group of fanatics in this country to take action to save our country against it's so called Muslim leader. Something too heavy for the FBI to handle. That will make for some interesting news. I hope the fanatics send their kids to Grandmas.

Yeah those Iowa Class battleships were pretty awesome. Our Navy would indeed be susceptible against a country with high tech weapons like our allies have. I don't think the Iowa class could take waterline hits from todays missiles either. Those 16" shells put out a lot of power, but so do cruise missiles. Cruise missiles go a lot farther too. I fully agree that our defense budget is way too high. Mostly because politicians approve spending bills to keep people in their districts employed and get re-election dollars from the defense contractors.

Our current military hardware has done a great job of saving lives of our soldiers. Unfortunately it also makes it a lot easier to send them to war. If war was as bloody for our side as it was for those soldiers in the CW we would be waging a lot less wars.

Maybe this TV series will be available in a DVD pack. We don't have TV and our wireless provider can't stream more than one show at a time effectively. DW always has something on hers when I have the time to watch anything, which is rare. So I will bow out unless I have some comments on this show you're watching.

 

[WyandotteTX]

Dunk, go to Amazon to get a copy of it.....check netflix, they might have it as well.

As for the states right argument, the comeback that always quiets that argument is....ok, I believe you it was about states rights.....then what states rights? oh yes...the states rights to own another human being in slavery. If you dont think the conflict was about that Im sorry but I always will. Too much of the countries history in the previous 75+ years is revolving directly around the issue of slavery and what we should do with it. At a much younger age I too would make the same argument about it was "states rights", but then I learned the truth and know better than to say that anymore. And no I am not trying to convince you to change your mind or anything like that either, keep reading all you can get a hold of from both sides.
The whole issue was a pass the buck cop-out by the Continental Congress who had to make the 3/5ths Compromise just so our country could be formed in the first place.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
No, "states' rights" in this case would mean the right to secede from the Union. That's precisely what the fighting was over. Whatever the reasons for secession, the war was between the North, which believed in a strong central government, and the South, which believed in the authority of the States over the Federal government.

You cannot deny this - it is fact. The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to prevent the South's independence. The South went to war to preserve its independence.

As mentioned before, my home state of NC did not secede until Lincoln ordered an invasion. At the very least, my state, Virginia, and two others (don't recall which) UNDENIABLY did not secede over slavery. Death toll of the Fort Sumter attack: 1 horse, no people. Death toll of Lincoln's invasion: 600,000, in addition to about 50,000 civilians, not to mention the cost to freedom.

Here's a moral conundrum for you - let's suppose Lincoln did invade to end slavery. Is it morally right to destroy most of the Constitution's restraints AND kill 650,000 Americans to end it? Wouldn't it be far more logical to let the South go and allow slavery to die its inevitable death?

Still waiting for any book recommendations.

Deo Vindice.

 

[WyandotteTX]

In my opinion was it right for 600,000 to die for all to be free? Yes. What is logicial and what is right has no comparison. Right is right, whether it is logical or not. Just my opinion.

Lincoln sent troops into the south in a pre-emptive strike because he knew there was a Southern Army very close to the US Capital and if he didnt do something about it before they became too strong and invaded Maryland, he knew all of the US would fall. He was still afterall the President of the US and it was his responsibility to try and hold it together however he could.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
wow I missed him saying that about Canada. He needs to read up on Canadian military forces. Just because they choose to stay out of much of the wars doesn't mean they can't kick butt.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
No, "states' rights" in this case would mean the right to secede from the Union. That's precisely what the fighting was over. Whatever the reasons for secession, the war was between the North, which believed in a strong central government, and the South, which believed in the authority of the States over the Federal government.

You cannot deny this - it is fact. The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to prevent the South's independence. The South went to war to preserve its independence.

As mentioned before, my home state of NC did not secede until Lincoln ordered an invasion. At the very least, my state, Virginia, and two others (don't recall which) UNDENIABLY did not secede over slavery. Death toll of the Fort Sumter attack: 1 horse, no people. Death toll of Lincoln's invasion: 600,000, in addition to about 50,000 civilians, not to mention the cost to freedom.

Here's a moral conundrum for you - let's suppose Lincoln did invade to end slavery. Is it morally right to destroy most of the Constitution's restraints AND kill 650,000 Americans to end it? Wouldn't it be far more logical to let the South go and allow slavery to die its inevitable death?

Still waiting for any book recommendations.

Deo Vindice.

Backwards countries huh? That's pretty arrogant don't you think? It was people from a backward's country that took down the twin towers, and might I add, Ireland is hardly a backwards country. And the US has a habit of invading countries for half an excuse. Are we a backwards country?

 

[Q9]

Quote:
More accurately, 650,000 to die that all may be nominally free. The expansion of the Federal government to Orwellian proportions is a direct result of the Lincoln administration.

You're right - what is logical and what is right cannot be compared. That was terrible phraseology on my part. It's logical to carpet-bomb enemy cities - it's not right, though.

Let me re-phrase the last question - would it not be more right to let the South go and let slavery die a natural death, rather than to invade and kill a ton of people, in the process ruining race relations for the next century, in addition to sending the country on the slippery slope to totalitarianism? Letting the South go would have spared a lot of lives, kept race relations from souring, and would have allowed a gradual emancipation, state by state, that would have done minimal damage to the economy.

Also - they would not have invaded Maryland had Lincoln not declared war first. The South did not want war - to believe so is silly. Ironically, Lincoln invaded Maryland first, by using the freaking Army to arrest the legislature.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
No, "states' rights" in this case would mean the right to secede from the Union. That's precisely what the fighting was over. Whatever the reasons for secession, the war was between the North, which believed in a strong central government, and the South, which believed in the authority of the States over the Federal government.

You cannot deny this - it is fact. The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to prevent the South's independence. The South went to war to preserve its independence.

As mentioned before, my home state of NC did not secede until Lincoln ordered an invasion. At the very least, my state, Virginia, and two others (don't recall which) UNDENIABLY did not secede over slavery. Death toll of the Fort Sumter attack: 1 horse, no people. Death toll of Lincoln's invasion: 600,000, in addition to about 50,000 civilians, not to mention the cost to freedom.

Here's a moral conundrum for you - let's suppose Lincoln did invade to end slavery. Is it morally right to destroy most of the Constitution's restraints AND kill 650,000 Americans to end it? Wouldn't it be far more logical to let the South go and allow slavery to die its inevitable death?

Still waiting for any book recommendations.

Deo Vindice.

Backwards countries huh? That's pretty arrogant don't you think? It was people from a backward's country that took down the twin towers, and might I add, Ireland is hardly a backwards country. And the US has a habit of invading countries for half an excuse. Are we a backwards country?

Nope, not arrogant - true. Truth sometimes comes off as arrogance to those who dislike it, however. The Twin Tower attacks were nothing close to an invasion - they were an act of mass murder commited by dirtbags, but they cannot be compared to an invasion.

Last time I checked, Ireland was victim to infighting caused by British imperialism and militant religious groups, rather than launching invasions across oceans.

Yeah, the US does go about invading countries at the slightest excuse - all of which are dirt-poor, backwards nations that can barely put up a fight. The citizenry is mostly unarmed, the militaries are several decades behind the times, and the governments are corrupt and ineffecient. Even then the logistics are huge, but the political points scored outweigh the costs at first, at least to those declaring the war. Which is precisely what was implied by my previous post on the matter. But invading a developed country with no "evil Muslims" to use as bogeymen? Even more resources need to be expended, more lives will be lost, and it would be absolutely horrendous for PR, with very little gain. Assuming the citizenry is armed, that means even more trouble.

I believe the last time a developed nation attacked the US was in 1812 - look how that turned out. We fought 'em to a draw, and at that point most of the states could be considered "developing," as compared to Great Britain's being developed - it was an EMPIRE, after all. This then brings us back to the subject of this thread - when the Confederacy was invaded by the United States in 1861. Ironically, a large part of the reason we lost is that Lee decided to surrender his Army rather than disband it, which would have resulted in an agonizing, protracted guerrilla war with many more deaths. It would have become the United States' first experience in dealing with a true guerrilla war. In other words, the fact that centralized standing armies were the primary defense, rather than guerrilla tactics, is at least part of the reason we lost. A standing army can be neutralized by a surrender - a citizenry in arms cannot. A few groups may surrender, but the rest will just keep on fighting, sneaking about, sniping, and raiding.