Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Ok. see I told you I wasn't into history. Any comments by me are just opinion. Just ignore the clown behind the curtain.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Well, I'll quote the great John C. Calhoun - "The Union, next to our liberty most dear!"

Now I will respectfully bow out - I see no purpose in continuing this argument, at least on my part, because as you know I am very passionate about this issue. I have to delete quite a bit of my posts before posting to keep them from being deleted. I may be back after I cool down some - at the moment, figuratively speaking, the machine gun has overheated.

 

[Dunkopf]

That's ok Q, I'll leave instead. I'm not really that passionate about it. You should get back to discussing the history. I know you're a big history buff on that issue. I'm just against war in general. I don't have anything against the South.

 

[Spookwriter]

I love the South. I love MY South.

The Civil War is a part of our history. Something that can't be changed,
won't go away. Forever in our history.

As in any war fought, we can not change the outcome. But we can debate
the issues, the causes and more importantly, the lessons learned.

Please continue with your debate, Q9? I enjoyed your comments.

 

[gamebirdboy]

Quote:
I was under the impression that they bred slaves. Once you have a breeding pair you don't need to import them. They were considered livestock after all. It must of just killed people that had a soul to see other humans treated that way by some of the slave owners. I know there were a lot of humane slave owners too. Of course how humane can you be to own a human being? I won't fall for the culture or way of life thing when it comes to that.

The south was silly. They needed the North and the North needed them. That's why ole Abe went to war. Naturally there were a lot of money interest involved. That's what war is about after all, killing our young so others can get rich while the whole country goes into debt to make a few people wealthy.

The Civil War was unnecessary. They could have worked out their differences.

It was inevitable, the North raised tariffs sky high, and the government did nothing for the good of the South. They gave business loans for northern business, the northern states could pass something without a vote from the south, they did need the border and western states, but they could. The government even placed tariffs against the south to protect northern business. Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist as most people think. The reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep Europe out of the war. Since all European countries had freed their slaves, they could not support the south when Lincoln brought slavery to their attention. slavery was an issue but not the main issue. The Confederates would have been a lot better off if they had better political leadership. Jefferson Davis was not he best president, I'll admit that. They did have outstanding military leaders, Robert E. Lee and Jackson were the best. The north did not, Grant was an alcoholic who was wasteful, but won because he could afford the losses, Burnside was an idiot, way too aggressive and impatient. Mcellan was too scared. The army of the Potomac were his body gaurds as newspapers said. He built a great army, but was too cowardly to use it. I'm going to have to go for a while, need to cool down again...

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
I was under the impression that they bred slaves. Once you have a breeding pair you don't need to import them. They were considered livestock after all. It must of just killed people that had a soul to see other humans treated that way by some of the slave owners. I know there were a lot of humane slave owners too. Of course how humane can you be to own a human being? I won't fall for the culture or way of life thing when it comes to that.

The south was silly. They needed the North and the North needed them. That's why ole Abe went to war. Naturally there were a lot of money interest involved. That's what war is about after all, killing our young so others can get rich while the whole country goes into debt to make a few people wealthy.

The Civil War was unnecessary. They could have worked out their differences.

It was inevitable, the North raised tariffs sky high, and the government did nothing for the good of the South. They gave business loans for northern business, the northern states could pass something without a vote from the south, they did need the border and western states, but they could. The government even placed tariffs against the south to protect northern business. Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist as most people think. The reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep Europe out of the war. Since all European countries had freed their slaves, they could not support the south when Lincoln brought slavery to their attention. slavery was an issue but not the main issue. The Confederates would have been a lot better off if they had better political leadership. Jefferson Davis was not he best president, I'll admit that. They did have outstanding military leaders, Robert E. Lee and Jackson were the best. The north did not, Grant was an alcoholic who was wasteful, but won because he could afford the losses, Burnside was an idiot, way too aggressive and impatient. Mcellan was too scared. The army of the Potomac were his body gaurds as newspapers said. He built a great army, but was too cowardly to use it. I'm going to have to go for a while, need to cool down again...

Come on guys. So much passion. This was 150 years ago. Didn't mean to make you explode or anything. I will leave so you can get your emotions under control. Sounds like Spookwriter can have a really useful discussion and is definitely a lot more knowledgeable than I. I don't want this thread closed because of me.

Till we meet again.

 

[Spookwriter]

I do not understand anger in a discussion of the American Civil War.
There were decisions on both sides--the North and the South--that
are really worth discussing. Both the good, and the not so good.

There was no one single issue that led to point of war.

Talk of secession from the South goes way back before the Civil War.
The Compromise of 1820 was for the sole point trying to avoid this
very issue.

Regardless of which side you may favor, the truth is that without that
war, and the outcome, we would not be where we are today as a nation.

I understand passion.

I do not understand anger.

Spook...

Please continue?

 

[Q9]

Quote:
If the Confederacy had won, we certainly wouldn't be where we are - meddling all over the world, funding Israel and Saudi Arabia at the same time, and telling everyone else on the planet what to do at the point of a gun. Think about this - if the Confederacy had won, they would almost certainly have not involved themselves in World War One. The United States would likely have not gotten involved either, and if they did, they would have had far fewer soldiers to expend, the end result being that England and Germany would have reached a stalemate, preventing the Versailles Treaty and thus the rise of the Nazis.

There, I said it. A Confederate victory would have stopped the Nazis from existing.

But it makes sense. Everything sounds stupid if you put it bluntly.

 

[mom'sfolly]

Hogwash, you can't speculate what a mythical country would or would not do. Not enter WWI, could be, but maybe not. If the South had won, they too would have called it the American Civil War, there would be no so-called "War of Northern Aggression". If the South had won, it would have been a unified Confederate States of America, with a very different idea of how the union would work. I'm pretty sure that if the South had won, they wouldn't have let the North form a separate United States.

The fifty years from the Civil War to WWI were a time of vast change world wide. Far more changed in that period than in the nearly 100 years from the nations founding to the Civil War.

 

[Spookwriter]

We've jumped 150 years and went from American history to
world history?

Big jump, missed a lot of events. Major events.

I have my doubts that the South could have existed any legenth
of years had it of won indepence. It did not have enough of a goverement
intact to sustain existence. Jefferson Davis was not that leader. It would
have fell long before, is my guess.

What the South needed was the very thing it was fighting against - a strong
central goverment. It's the "United" States of America....not the "independent"
States of America.

World War 1 is probably my least knowledgeable war. I'm not much from 1900 to
1920. But I think there were more nations involved than England, Germany and
the United States.

Moving to current events is far more likely to become a political discussion and
end with a locked thread. Then we could not discuss the Civil War era.

Spook

***MODERATOR QUESTION***

I really do enjoy American History. And the focus is on the word, History.
How close to current times is acceptable? 60's? 70's? 80's? Care to pick
a date we can't cross? I would opt for the 70's as being the limit. Some
political issues from the 80's are still in play today and as such should be
held as off-limits?

World War II was an exciting period that changed the entire world. It led
to the 50's and 60's in America...the greatest generation (Tom Brokaw)
Korea and Vietnam. Say...limit the discussion to the wars and music?
Although I know about the civil rights movement...can we keep that subject
off-limits?