Civil War buffs anyone?

[247]

I really enjoy history and the Civil War is one of my favorite eras. I was surfing around the other day and found some very very cool footage of the Gettysburg 75th anniversary. One of the clips is about two and a half minutes long, the other seventeen seconds. If you're a Civil War buff, then you'll appreciate the authentic, true to life and original REBEL YELL by a Confederate veteran:

Rebel Yell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Gettysburg 75th Anniversary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjisFCh6NwY

[Stuball]

Keith Hernandez is one

[BillBrown]

I really enjoy history and the Civil War is one of my favorite eras. I was surfing around the other day and found some very very cool footage of the Gettysburg 75th anniversary. One of the clips is about two and a half minutes long, the other seventeen seconds. If you're a Civil War buff, then you'll appreciate the authentic, true to life and original REBEL YELL by a Confederate veteran:

Rebel Yell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Gettysburg 75th Anniversary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjisFCh6NwY


Gettysburg was probably the single most important battle in the nation's history.

Had Lee won, he would almost certainly have seized Washington and ended the war.

The sad truth is, Lee blew it. He could have won it.

[Steve Rogers]

I used to walk around Gettysburg alot when I lived out there. Very interesting place. I heard they took down the observation tower. That was a great view. The view from little round top is also quite spectacular. I cant imagine how the marched up the hill in the open into all that fire power., and the close combat at the devils den.. I am just fascinated by it.

[johnrocks]

I have always loved history,especially the Civil War era, I love going to sites such as Vicksburg National Military Park and museums.

[Lady Liberty]

I really enjoy history and the Civil War is one of my favorite eras. I was surfing around the other day and found some very very cool footage of the Gettysburg 75th anniversary. One of the clips is about two and a half minutes long, the other seventeen seconds. If you're a Civil War buff, then you'll appreciate the authentic, true to life and original REBEL YELL by a Confederate veteran:

Rebel Yell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Gettysburg 75th Anniversary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjisFCh6NwY

Thanks 247, that was nice. My dad is a real civil war buff and I grew up enjoying the books he kept. We have an ancestor who fought in the war for the Union. A Lt. Col. from Ohio.

The civil war is a very interesting piece of history to study. Of all the things it causes me to think about I think most about how this war pitted family members against each other and the deep scars it caused.

Did you see the special Sherman's March on the History Channel a couple months back? That was interesting too.

~

[BillBrown]

I have always loved history,especially the Civil War era, I love going to sites such as Vicksburg National Military Park and museums.

I've never visited any of the battlefields. I live too far from them. Every time I've traveled close to one, I was on business and didn't have time.
My brother is a real buff. He takes vacation every year and visits a Civil War site.

The last official battle of the war was a naval battle fought off the Texas coast. I live in Texas and have never been there.

[247]

Thanks 247, that was nice. My dad is a real civil war buff and I grew up enjoying the books he kept. We have an ancestor who fought in the war for the Union. A Lt. Col. from Ohio.

The civil war is a very interesting piece of history to study. Of all the things it causes me to think about I think most about how this war pitted family members against each other and the deep scars it caused.

Did you see the special Sherman's March on the History Channel a couple months back? That was interesting too.

~

No, I didn't see that on the History Channel. Hopefully I can catch it on a repeat!

[johnrocks]

I've never visited any of the battlefields. I live too far from them. Every time I've traveled close to one, I was on business and didn't have time.
My brother is a real buff. He takes vacation every year and visits a Civil War site.

The last official battle of the war was a naval battle fought off the Texas coast. I live in Texas and have never been there.

I enjoy them greatly, take time to visit one,you will be glad you did!

I googled about last battle and this site is pretty interesting. Are you talking about palo alto Tx?

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bellware/index.html

[jbthe20th]

Keith Hernandez is one

I'll tell you this one time and one time only.

It's because Keith Hernandez is God.

And Gary Cohen? God's cousin. I **** you not.

[mbrens]

Gettysburg was probably the single most important battle in the nation's history.

Had Lee won, he would almost certainly have seized Washington and ended the war.

The sad truth is, Lee blew it. He could have won it.

Not so, exactly. My
grand father told me that his grand father fought (I have a picture of him in uniform). He said that the North had a whole lot of money and we had a whole lot of heros. Money talked and heros died. The Rebels stood and fought till the death, until the North started cutting off supplies and weaponry.

The Yankees were a sorry sort of group. They had few morals and didn't care about human life.

I have posted this story before. A Rebel was sent home when the war was over. As he walked to his property and his wife saw him from the porch, a scum bucket, Yankee, deserter, shot him dead, as his wife looked on...knowing that the war was over. The words I use are what I would have used of a coward back then, not now. It's just for illustration.

My gg grand father was seriously wounded in the leg. He was sent home to his home in Georgia to recoup. However, by the time he was better, the war was over.

If you ever go to the Cyclorama in Georgia, you will see that one soldier was taking time to give water to a soldier of the other side. They were brothers. The Cyclorama is well worth seeing!

[247]

I enjoy them greatly, take time to visit one,you will be glad you did!

I googled about last battle and this site is pretty interesting. Are you talking about palo alto Tx?

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bellware/index.html

Interesting. There probably was unknown skirmishes long after the official end of the war, and it would be interesting to know just how long after.

[BillBrown]

I enjoy them greatly, take time to visit one,you will be glad you did!

I googled about last battle and this site is pretty interesting. Are you talking about palo alto Tx?

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bellware/index.html

No. The battle I'm thinking about wasn't listed on that page.
I'll have to do some Googeling to find it. We learned it in Texas History when I was a kid.
It happened after the surrender, but there was no communication at sea. It was a fairly big engagement.

I'll try to find it.

[BillBrown]

Not so, exactly. My
grand father told me that his grand father fought (I have a picture of him in uniform). He said that the North had a whole lot of money and we had a whole lot of heros. Money talked and heros died. The Rebels stood and fought till the death, until the North started cutting off supplies and weaponry.

You are right about the war in general. The North had unlimited manpower and supplies. The South didn't.
If left to their own devices, the Union could have carried on the war indefinitely.
What the North lacked, was the will to continue fighting. The average Northerner didn't really care if the South left the Union. They were glad to see them go. Lincoln was continually under intense pressure to stop the bloodletting and let the South go their own way. A Southern victory at Gettysburg and a subsequent occupation of Washington, would have probably been the straw that broke the camel's back for Lincoln.

In addition to that, it would very possibly have induced England and/or France to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I grew up loving history, but mostly WWII era. When I was an ROTC insrtuctor, I had to read the book "Killer Angels" because my students had to write a paper on leadership displayed by one of the charecters.

Once I read it I visited Gettysburg. On my way back from Ft. Bragg, NC for ROTC Summer Camp duty, I visited Fredricksburg. Years later when I was stationed at Ft. Meade, MD I visited the Wilderness and a few others.

I got hooked collecting Civil War Prints by Don Stivers and Don Troiani, in fact way too many. If anyone is interested in what I have, PM me.

I still watch the movie "Gettysburg" and am amazed at what they went through.

[mbrens]

You are right about the war in general. The North had unlimited manpower and supplies. The South didn't.
If left to their own devices, the Union could have carried on the war indefinitely.
What the North lacked, was the will to continue fighting. The average Northerner didn't really care if the South left the Union. They were glad to see them go. Lincoln was continually under intense pressure to stop the bloodletting and let the South go their own way. A Southern victory at Gettysburg and a subsequent occupation of Washington, would have probably been the straw that broke the camel's back for Lincoln.

In addition to that, it would very possibly have induced England and/or France to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy.

Correct!

[mbrens]

I grew up loving history, but mostly WWII era. When I was an ROTC insrtuctor, I had to read the book "Killer Angels" because my students had to write a paper on leadership displayed by one of the charecters.

Once I read it I visited Gettysburg. On my way back from Ft. Bragg, NC for ROTC Summer Camp duty, I visited Fredricksburg. Years later when I was stationed at Ft. Meade, MD I visited the Wilderness and a few others.

I got hooked collecting Civil War Prints by Don Stivers and Don Troiani, in fact way too many. If anyone is interested in what I have, PM me.

I still watch the movie "Gettysburg" and am amazed at what they went through.

Have you visited the old CW POW Camp below Atlanta? I will one day. The name escapes me.

[Gregor]

The sad truth is, Lee blew it. He could have won it.:eek:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED states of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation..."


Not so big on the pledge, eh?

[Gregor]

The Yankees were a sorry sort of group. They had few morals and didn't care about human life.

Ever read Alexander Stephens cornerstone speech? You might want to rethink that statement.

I wonder if any soldier on the battlefield, from his own limited perspective, thinks that the guys coming at him with guns, especially when he's losing, have a lot of morals and care a great deal about human life.

[247]

Have you visited the old CW POW Camp below Atlanta? I will one day. The name escapes me.

Are you talking about Andersonville?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_National_Historic_Site

[mdk190]

I really enjoy history and the Civil War is one of my favorite eras. I was surfing around the other day and found some very very cool footage of the Gettysburg 75th anniversary. One of the clips is about two and a half minutes long, the other seventeen seconds. If you're a Civil War buff, then you'll appreciate the authentic, true to life and original REBEL YELL by a Confederate veteran:

Rebel Yell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Gettysburg 75th Anniversary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjisFCh6NwY

The Civil War and the decades surrounding the event remains one of the most fascinating 30 years of American history. I have studied this time period relentlessly. If your interested in knowing more about the average soldiers and their feelings on the war and politics, you should really look into a book; What They Fought For 1861-1865 by James M. McPherson. It is a great book just bursting with individual histories from many key players in the war. Also, it is very amazing to watch the transformation of the Union soldiers who at first fought to keep the Union together but after entering the Deep South they see the true horror of slavery first hand and become abolishionists almost overnight.

[mbrens]

Are you talking about Andersonville?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_National_Historic_Site

Yes I am! Its not far from Atlanta.

[247]

The Civil War and the decades surrounding the event remains one of the most fascinating 30 years of American history. I have studied this time period relentlessly. If your interested in knowing more about the average soldiers and their feelings on the war and politics, you should really look into a book; What They Fought For 1861-1865 by James M. McPherson. It is a great book just bursting with individual histories from many key players in the war. Also, it is very amazing to watch the transformation of the Union soldiers who at first fought to keep the Union together but after entering the Deep South they see the true horror of slavery first hand and become abolishionists almost overnight.

I'll look for that book, thanks for suggesting it!

[mbrens]

The Civil War and the decades surrounding the event remains one of the most fascinating 30 years of American history. I have studied this time period relentlessly. If your interested in knowing more about the average soldiers and their feelings on the war and politics, you should really look into a book; What They Fought For 1861-1865 by James M. McPherson. It is a great book just bursting with individual histories from many key players in the war. Also, it is very amazing to watch the transformation of the Union soldiers who at first fought to keep the Union together but after entering the Deep South they see the true horror of slavery first hand and become abolishionists almost overnight.

No, I will not read that book. I hate slavery, I hate the name slavery, and I really like to dwell on the things that made America great.

Sorry

[mdk190]

I'll look for that book, thanks for suggesting it!

If your at all interested in the actual military tactics and troop movements of the Civil War you should read, Upton and the Army by Stephen E. Ambrose.

[mdk190]

No, I will not read that book. I hate slavery, I hate the name slavery, and I really like to dwell on the things that made America great.

Sorry

It is not just about slavery. Reading any book about the time and your going to be hard pressed to find any that doesn't mention slavery. I like to focus on things that made America great as well but as a historian we cannot forget the past b/c we find it unsavory.

[abregar]

I visited Gettysburg during the anniversary of the battle in '06 and was completely amazed at the amount of people that were there. Being surrounded by all that history was amazing, I enjoyed walking around and gazing upon homes that are largely the same as they were during the battle. The bullet holes still in the walls and doors of homes, all the brave young men that came from all over and now permantely reside there. It's just so overwhelmingly. I believe everyone should visit a Civil War battle site so that they can see the kind of chaos that political division can bring upon our country.

[abregar]

No, I will not read that book. I hate slavery, I hate the name slavery, and I really like to dwell on the things that made America great.

Sorry


If you refuse to study the past, how can you learn from it.

[AutoRacer55]

I like Civil War History, but my favorite battle's Shiloh. I've been to that battlefield three times, and did 5 of the 6 hikes (14, 14, 14, 12, and 16 miles, the one I didn't do was 20 miles). I have to say that those trips were interesting, and wish I could go again.

[mbrens]

If you refuse to study the past, how can you learn from it.

I HAVE TO DISREGARD THAT Silly REMARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I already said why, and I don't care further.

Anyway, I grew up across the street from the Cyclorama
I have been to many battlefields near my home
I have studied the "burning of Atlanta"
I lived in the South when the riots of the 60's started


What are your qualifications to tell me a damn thing?

[ArmyMAJretired]

Have you visited the old CW POW Camp below Atlanta? I will one day. The name escapes me.

Andersonville, yes after seeing the movie of the same name. The POW museum is powerful.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I HAVE TO DISREGARD THAT Silly REMARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I already said why, and I don't care further.

Anyway, I grew up across the street from the Cyclorama
I have been to many battlefields near my home
I have studied the "burning of Atlanta"
I lived in the South when the riots of the 60's started


What are your qualifications to tell me a damn thing?

Have you been to the Atlanta History museum lately, they have a greay Civil war section.

[mbrens]

Have you been to the Atlanta History museum lately, they have a greay Civil war section.

No, I have been quite sick for a while, but I hope to soon. I used to live in "Little Five Points" in that area, there are quite a few pre Civil War homes, because at that time, Atlanta was sort of bunched together. Anyway, you can see many homes that are over 100 years. Sherman didn't burn these. I always wondered why that thug burned peoples houses.

[wayoverthehill]

Have you visited the old CW POW Camp below Atlanta? I will one day. The name escapes me.Andersonville?

My hubby's great uncle on his mother's side died in Libby Prison in Richmond in 1864. He was one of 3 brothers who fought in the war from Ohio. My husband's grandfather was the first child born to one of the brothers after he returned from the Civil War. He was born in July, 1866. If his great-grandfather, Alfred, had died in the war, my husband would never have been born. Things like that fascinate me - how one historical event can change the events down through decades. I guess I've visited almost every battlefield there is, mostly during the years 1961-1963. Thus, I was seeing these battlefields on the 100th anniversary of their happening. I have never forgotten seeing the mile-deep field over which Pickett made his ill-fated charge. It still haunts me. That and The Wilderness. A terrible place even today.

Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with a professor of history named William Forstchen, has written a trilogy about the battle of Gettysburg and the after-effects. He tells it from the standpoint of there never actually being a battle at Gettysburg, due to several circumstances, but rather a huge battle at a place called Union Mills. It's a good read and there are excellent character studies of Lee, Grant, Lincoln, and some lesser known figures like Judah P Benjamin.

[FuturePrez]

In addition to that, it would very possibly have induced England and/or France to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy.


France maybe, but England I doubt. The Queen was very anti-slavery. Patrick Cleburne wrote a proclomation to the Conf. Government stating that the south should abolish slavery. One reason he gave was that the Queen would never view the Confederate States of America as a country as long as they still had slavery.

[mbrens]

Andersonville?

My hubby's great uncle on his mother's side died in Libby Prison in Richmond in 1864. He was one of 3 brothers who fought in the war from Ohio. My husband's grandfather was the first child born to one of the brothers after he returned from the Civil War. He was born in July, 1866. If his great-grandfather, Alfred, had died in the war, my husband would never have been born. Things like that fascinate me - how one historical event can change the events down through decades. I guess I've visited almost every battlefield there is, mostly during the years 1961-1963. Thus, I was seeing these battlefields on the 100th anniversary of their happening. I have never forgotten seeing the mile-deep field over which Pickett made his ill-fated charge. It still haunts me. That and The Wilderness. A terrible place even today.

Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with a professor of history named William Forstchen, has written a trilogy about the battle of Gettysburg and the after-effects. He tells it from the standpoint of there never actually being a battle at Gettysburg, due to several circumstances, but rather a huge battle at a place called Union Mills. It's a good read and there are excellent character studies of Lee, Grant, Lincoln, and some lesser known figures like Judah P Benjamin.

Very interesting, I will check the writings out.

[Steve Rogers]

If your at all interested in the actual military tactics and troop movements of the Civil War you should read, Upton and the Army by Stephen E. Ambrose.

Ambrose is great to read.. even if he plagiarizes here and there;)

[Gregor]

The Civil War and the decades surrounding the event remains one of the most fascinating 30 years of American history. I have studied this time period relentlessly. If your interested in knowing more about the average soldiers and their feelings on the war and politics, you should really look into a book; What They Fought For 1861-1865 by James M. McPherson. It is a great book just bursting with individual histories from many key players in the war. Also, it is very amazing to watch the transformation of the Union soldiers who at first fought to keep the Union together but after entering the Deep South they see the true horror of slavery first hand and become abolishionists almost overnight.

I am constantly looking for books that draw from primary sources. Sounds great! Thanks.

[captusa]

Gettysburg was probably the single most important battle in the nation's history.

Had Lee won, he would almost certainly have seized Washington and ended the war.

The sad truth is, Lee blew it. He could have won it.

The Battle of Saratoga is listed by many historians as one of the 10 most signifigant battles in world history and we would have lost it if not for Benedict Arnold.

[nortman]

I love the study of the Civil war. A couple of friends of mine ar reenacters. I love history and historical fiction. If you are looking for something in the way of historical fiction, I recommend Harold Coyle's "Look Away" and "Until the End". Coyle is a great writer. He is a graduate of VMI and served as an officer until he retired and started writing. If you want to read his books chronologically, start with "Savage Wilderness". It is about the French and Indian wars. Then go on to the Civl war books.

[nortman]

Andersonville, yes after seeing the movie of the same name. The POW museum is powerful.

The book was much better than the movie.

[nortman]

I visited Gettysburg during the anniversary of the battle in '06 and was completely amazed at the amount of people that were there. Being surrounded by all that history was amazing, I enjoyed walking around and gazing upon homes that are largely the same as they were during the battle. The bullet holes still in the walls and doors of homes, all the brave young men that came from all over and now permantely reside there. It's just so overwhelmingly. I believe everyone should visit a Civil War battle site so that they can see the kind of chaos that political division can bring upon our country.I've been to Sharpsburg a couple of times and think it is a great site to tour. Our Scout troop will be going there next August when we ride the C&O canal trail again. It's been quite a while since I have been to Gettysburg, but I enjoyed it when I was there.

[Gregor]

Anyone visit the grave site of General Jackson's arm? I have!

[captusa]

Anyone visit the grave site of General Jackson's arm? I have!

I have beento the Saratoga battlefield many times and there is a monument to General Arnold's (Benedict not Hap) leg that was wounded when he usurped the field command from Gates.
I hope you don't mind facts about another war.
BTW Civil War has to be an oxymoron.

[BillBrown]

The Battle of Saratoga is listed by many historians as one of the 10 most signifigant battles in world history and we would have lost it if not for Benedict Arnold.

The Battle of Quebec was one that Arnold lost. Had he won, Canada would be part of the United States.

[CountryGirl]

I live and work in a Civil War town. A NPS battlefield is just 5 or so miles down the road and our main streets are Lee and Grant. Everything is CW and tourism is our biggest draw.

One morning I was driving into work and a train was stopped at the RR tracks. As I waited for the train, a group of Zouave reenactors began to disembark. With the CW era buildings in the background, the train and the Zouave, I felt like I was in a time warp.

I've always loved history and enjoy having it so close. I've been fortunate to participate in a dig at one of the CW homes and found a Union button! That was a real rush! And I certainly agree that we need to learn from and remember our history - even the parts that aren't pleasant.

[nortman]

The Battle of Quebec was one that Arnold lost. Had he won, Canada would be part of the United States.Would we all e saying "Eh" at the end of our sentences had that happened?
:confused:

[mbrens]

I live and work in a Civil War town. A NPS battlefield is just 5 or so miles down the road and our main streets are Lee and Grant. Everything is CW and tourism is our biggest draw.

One morning I was driving into work and a train was stopped at the RR tracks. As I waited for the train, a group of Zouave reenactors began to disembark. With the CW era buildings in the background, the train and the Zouave, I felt like I was in a time warp.

I've always loved history and enjoy having it so close. I've been fortunate to participate in a dig at one of the CW homes and found a Union button! That was a real rush! And I certainly agree that we need to learn from and remember our history - even the parts that aren't pleasant.

We do indeed!

[Gregor]

I have beento the Saratoga battlefield many times and there is a monument to General Arnold's (Benedict not Hap) leg that was wounded when he usurped the field command from Gates.
I hope you don't mind facts about another war.
BTW Civil War has to be an oxymoron.

I don't mind at all! http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/popup_arnoldsleg.html COOL!!!! My daughter was just up there and goes for business; I'm going to have to give her the details for her next trip!!!!

Here is a picture of Stonewall Jackson's arm's tombstone: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/pinstripepress/CBPhotos.htm and a history:

http://www.usa-civil-war.com/Jackson/jackson_arm.html

My favorite Confederate stomping ground is the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond VA, Jefferson Davis's permanent residence.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I think this is a fitting song for the thread. Enjoy ladies and gents.

Song (http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/8/30/1396749/Ashokan%20Farewell.mp3)

I uploaded the song to my account so you all could listen.

[BillBrown]

I think this is a fitting song for the thread. Enjoy ladies and gents.

Song (http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/8/30/1396749/Ashokan%20Farewell.mp3)

I uploaded the song to my account so you all could listen.

Thanks for the song, BGG. That was a great documentary. I wish I could see it again.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Thanks for the song, BGG. That was a great documentary. I wish I could see it again.

You can get it on dvd Bill :) I have the set and watch it all the time. I agree. It is a great documentary!

[CountryGirl]

Civil War buffs should check out the Library of Congress American Memory Collection. There are several different collections regarding the Civil War - music, maps, pictures, Lincoln, etc. It's a great place for anyone who loves history to just hang out at for the afternoon.

This link is to the master index: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ListAll.php

BTW, thanks for the song.

[abregar]

I HAVE TO DISREGARD THAT Silly REMARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I already said why, and I don't care further.

Anyway, I grew up across the street from the Cyclorama
I have been to many battlefields near my home
I have studied the "burning of Atlanta"
I lived in the South when the riots of the 60's started


What are your qualifications to tell me a damn thing?

I have no qualifications to tell you anything and I wasn't telling you anything. I was jsut offering my opinion on a comment that you made in a public forum. I don't like slavery either, but I'm not going to ignore that it is a part of our countries history either. I believe that the emancipation of the slaves is one of the greatest moments in our history and you cannot honor that without admiting that slavery existed.

[Seedy]

I used to walk around Gettysburg alot when I lived out there. Very interesting place. I heard they took down the observation tower. That was a great view. The view from little round top is also quite spectacular. I cant imagine how the marched up the hill in the open into all that fire power., and the close combat at the devils den.. I am just fascinated by it.

They imploded the tower on July 3, 2001. I was there, and it was a great event. Many of us were happy to see that tower go.

[Seedy]

The Yankees were a sorry sort of group. They had few morals and didn't care about human life.

Excuse me, but how are you justifiying making THAT assumption??

[Seedy]

I live and work in a Civil War town. A NPS battlefield is just 5 or so miles down the road and our main streets are Lee and Grant. Everything is CW and tourism is our biggest draw.


I used to live about three miles from the Manassas battlefield; now I live right between the Antietam and Gettysburg battlefields. Gettysburg gets a lot of tourist traffic, while Antietam doesn't. I encourage everyone to visit Antietam - and Gettysburg, but don't miss Antietam.

Shiloh is a good place to visit if you are really interested in the Civil War. It's literally in the middle of nowhere, so if you aren't interested in the war, you'll probaby be bored. :))

[NascarGirl2448]

You are right about the war in general. The North had unlimited manpower and supplies. The South didn't.
If left to their own devices, the Union could have carried on the war indefinitely.
What the North lacked, was the will to continue fighting. The average Northerner didn't really care if the South left the Union. They were glad to see them go. Lincoln was continually under intense pressure to stop the bloodletting and let the South go their own way. A Southern victory at Gettysburg and a subsequent occupation of Washington, would have probably been the straw that broke the camel's back for Lincoln.

In addition to that, it would very possibly have induced England and/or France to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy.

Yet the north was getting people over by the boatload as fast as we Southerners could kill them. Had the South been able to have the same help from overseas, we likely would have won. We sure weren't lacking in SMART generals on our side, that's for sure. In fact my grandfather insisted until the day he died, that if Stonewall Jackson had lived, we would have taken Gettysburg with very little problem.

[NascarGirl2448]

My favorite Confederate stomping ground is the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond VA, Jefferson Davis's permanent residence.

I love going to Hollywood. My grandparents are buried there, and it is beautiful.

[NascarGirl2448]

Excuse me, but how are you justifiying making THAT assumption??

There's PLENTY of evidence to support that!! Start with their blatant targeting of innocent civilians, burning their homes, taking every last bit of food and clothes they had, and that's just from sherman's "march."

[Seedy]

There's PLENTY of evidence to support that!! Start with their blatant targeting of innocent civilians, burning their homes, taking every last bit of food and clothes they had, and that's just from sherman's "march."

Uh-huh... and so all Union soldiers were evil, huh?

What should one call the Confederate soldiers who kidnapped free blacks from PA and took them down south to be enslaved? I suppose they were on a "mission from God"?

[super cool ski instructor]

Excuse me, but how are you justifiying making THAT assumption??

interesting isn't it? :rolleyes:

[Seedy]

interesting isn't it? :rolleyes:

These types of conversations always lead back to the same old assumptions:

* Slavery had nothing to do with the Southern states wanting to secede... it was all about tariffs and states' rights

* Confederate soldiers were all brave, flamboyant cavaliers; Union soldiers were evil, home-burning devils


...crap like that.

[Andrew_980]

Can anyone give a good list of semi acurate (or just damn good) civil war era movies? Maybe some obscure stuff?

[NascarGirl2448]

Can anyone give a good list of semi acurate (or just damn good) civil war era movies? Maybe some obscure stuff?

Birth of a Nation is wonderful, if you like silent flims.

[mbrens]

Excuse me, but how are you justifiying making THAT assumption??

Raping, stealing, burning innocents homes, taking all the foods and livestock, burning all the houses they could to the groun.

[NascarGirl2448]

Uh-huh... and so all Union soldiers were evil, huh?

What should one call the Confederate soldiers who kidnapped free blacks from PA and took them down south to be enslaved? I suppose they were on a "mission from God"?

Oh brother!! First of all, the MAJORITY of Southerners did NOT own slaves. Second of all, if those soldiers did that, which I have never heard before, then they were obviously an extreme minority. However, it is WELL documented that sherman and comapny were scum. Although he and sheridan were the worst of the bunch, they had no regard for the innocent civilians they were attacking for no good reason. Those two losers didn't give a flying hoot about whether the people they were attacking lived or died, or had enough to eat, or anything.

[Luke T.]

I really enjoy history and the Civil War is one of my favorite eras. I was surfing around the other day and found some very very cool footage of the Gettysburg 75th anniversary. One of the clips is about two and a half minutes long, the other seventeen seconds. If you're a Civil War buff, then you'll appreciate the authentic, true to life and original REBEL YELL by a Confederate veteran:

Rebel Yell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Gettysburg 75th Anniversary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjisFCh6NwY

Excellent. Thanks, 247. Kind of gives me the chills. I've read dozens of books on the war.

[BillBrown]

I have read various theories, by historians, of what would have happened IF the South had won.

They're all over the place. There is no agreement.

The only thing that most of these people agree on is that there would have been one or two subsequent wars between the USA and the CSA over the Western Territories. They also all agree that the CSA would have done away with slavery by the early 1900s.

From there, most of the theories agree that the CSA would have been the weak sister of the two nations, either being reabsorbed by the Union or of continuing to exist as a nation similar to the countries of South America, with repeated coups and changes in government.

There was one exception to this thinking that i read recently.

It maintains that the US would have been squeezed between an aggressive England (Canada) to the North and an unfriendly CSA to the South. This would have resulted in constant battles and land grabs taking place and a continued weakening of the US.

It also theorizes that the South would have become a major super power by gradual southward expansion into Mexico and eventually into South America.

Of course, no one knows. It's all speculation, but I find it interesting.

[super cool ski instructor]

It was a war, not a tea party!

[NascarGirl2448]

Raping, stealing, burning innocents homes, taking all the foods and livestock, burning all the houses they could to the groun.

EXACTLY!!! Like I said, they didn't care about the innocent citizens they were attacking, they were out to bring the South to her knees in any way possible, even if it meant killing innocent people.

[Andrew_980]

EXACTLY!!! Like I said, they didn't care about the innocent citizens they were attacking, they were out to bring the South to her knees in any way possible, even if it meant killing innocent people.
The arsonist could have taught more modern monsters a thing or two.

[NascarGirl2448]

I have read various theories, by historians, of what would have happened IF the South had won.

They're all over the place. There is no agreement.

The only thing that most of these people agree on is that there would have been one or two subsequent wars between the USA and the CSA over the Western Territories. They also all agree that the CSA would have done away with slavery by the early 1900s.

From there, most of the theories agree that the CSA would have been the weak sister of the two nations, either being reabsorbed by the Union or of continuing to exist as a nation similar to the countries of South America, with repeated coups and changes in government.

There was one exception to this thinking that i read recently.

It maintains that the US would have been squeezed between an aggressive England (Canada) to the North and an unfriendly CSA to the South. This would have resulted in constant battles and land grabs taking place and a continued weakening of the US.

It also theorizes that the South would have become a major super power by gradual southward expansion into Mexico and eventually into South America.

Of course, no one knows. It's all speculation, but I find it interesting.

Also I have heard that the country may have reconciled eventually and became the USA again, although my grandfather always used to say it would be over his dead body lol. Although I sometimes wonder, if the South had won, would we all be speaking German right now? I've heard that theory also.

[mbrens]

EXACTLY!!! Like I said, they didn't care about the innocent citizens they were attacking, they were out to bring the South to her knees in any way possible, even if it meant killing innocent people.

Of course the Northerners would today stand and curse the way Iraq is being fought too, but gloried in the killing of innocent Southerners. I live near where Sherman burned everything, don't try to tell me.

[Luke T.]

Can anyone give a good list of semi acurate (or just damn good) civil war era movies? Maybe some obscure stuff?

Glory is a good movie. It does a good job of showing what actual combat was like in the Civil War.

But by far the best is Ken Burns' Civil War (http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/) documentary. Narrated by David McCullough, a historian in his own right, who wrote 1776 (http://www.curledup.com/1776mccu.htm) and many other books. And the documentary also has many appearances by historian Shelby Foote, who really adds a lot to the series.

A great, great documentary series. Well worth watching time and time again.

[Seedy]

Oh brother!! First of all, the MAJORITY of Southerners did NOT own slaves. Second of all, if those soldiers did that, which I have never heard before, then they were obviously an extreme minority. However, it is WELL documented that sherman and comapny were scum. Although he and sheridan were the worst of the bunch, they had no regard for the innocent civilians they were attacking for no good reason. Those two losers didn't give a flying hoot about whether the people they were attacking lived or died, or had enough to eat, or anything.

If you want to know what motivated the politicians in the south to secede, don't read books like "The South Was Right!"; rather, go back and read what the politicians actually wrote and said. "The majority of southerners didn't own slaves" doesn't mean it wasn't the primary factor in why the states seceded.

Sherman's actions were definitely not the norm in warfare at the time - although the Confederates set the precedent with the burning of Chambersburg, PA by Jubal Early and his crew, an act that happened before Sherman started his march. The Confederates would have burned more towns to the ground, if only the towns they ransomed hadn't pay them. Holding towns hostage and threatening them with utter destruction of they didn't pay up was becoming quite an interesting "military" tactic by the Confederates. Funny how some people ignore the premeditated destruction of that city by the Confederates, yet find the indignation to criticize Sherman.

Kidnapping free men and selling them into slavery is something that gets ignored too. Gee, I wonder why?

[mbrens]

It was a war, not a tea party!

I know you don't mean by that that it was ok to rape, steal and kill innocents..

[Seedy]

EXACTLY!!! Like I said, they didn't care about the innocent citizens they were attacking, they were out to bring the South to her knees in any way possible, even if it meant killing innocent people.

Too bad it didn't happen earlier in the war. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been saved.

[super cool ski instructor]

I know you don't mean by that that it was ok to rape, steal and kill innocents..

Why of course that is what I mean :rolleyes:

War is an ugly thing, and sitting here acting like the Confederate Army was pure as the driven snow, while comdeming the Union is laughable.

[Luke T.]

No, I will not read that book. I hate slavery, I hate the name slavery, and I really like to dwell on the things that made America great.

Sorry

The Civil War is one of the things that made America great!

[BillBrown]

Also I have heard that the country may have reconciled eventually and became the USA again, although my grandfather always used to say it would be over his dead body lol. Although I sometimes wonder, if the South had won, would we all be speaking German right now? I've heard that theory also.

No, I don't think we would be speaking German now if the South had won.

Without a united USA, Germany would not have lost WWI. WWI was a business- as- usual European war and a victorious Germany would have only resulted in a Europe as it was pre war.

The German defeat in WWI is what allowed the rise of Hitler.

In other words, if the South had won, there probably would not have been a WWII, as we know it.

[mbrens]

Why of course that is what I mean :rolleyes:

War is an ugly thing, and sitting here acting like the Confederate Army was pure as the driven snow, while comdeming the Union is laughable.

I apologize for using the words "pure as the driven snow". I sure didn't realize it. OH, and the "carpetbaggers" were the lowest of the scum there were.

[mbrens]

The Civil War is one of the things that made America great!

OK, what EVER that has to do with my post!

[super cool ski instructor]

I apologize for using the words "pure as the driven snow". I sure didn't realize it.

Gee, you're an interesting person to try and discuss things with :rolleyes:

[mbrens]

Gee, you're an interesting person to try and discuss things with :rolleyes:

Not as long as you don't re-make what I said.

[Seedy]

From AmericanHeritage.com's entry on the "Burning of Chambersburg":

"The Confederates formed into squads and fanned out from the center of town. For two hours they rushed from house to house, burst open the doors with planks and axes, rifled every room for jewelry, silverware, and money, hacked up the furniture for kindling, and put torches to bedding and bureaus or lit balls of cotton saturated with kerosene. Some people were given time to collect a few belongings before their houses were fired; others were not. Describing the scene, a Confederate captain said: “It was impossible at first to convince the people, the females particularly that their fair city would [be] burnt; even when the torch was applied, they seemed dazed. Terror was depicted in every face, women, refined ladies and girls running through the streets wild with fright seeking some place of safety.” Then he added soberly: “I hadn’t bargained for this, but such it was.”

One old woman was told by a Confederate squad to run, that her house was on fire. Her reply that she had not been able to walk for three years was met with curses, and one of the soldiers poured powder under her chair, saying he would teach her to walk. Neighbors later rescued her.

A squad of Confederates demanded their breakfast of the local schoolmaster. “Did you ever teach ******s?” asked a cavalryman.

“Yes, sir,” the schoolmaster replied.

“Damn him, fire his house,” came the quick command.

The widow of a Union soldier begged for mercy. In response soldiers set fire to her house and robbed her of her money."


Thank goodness there were some Confederates who, as was the case in both armies during this war, showed some mercy to certain citizens.

[mbrens]

Let's hear it for the "Yankee Carpetbaggers". YAAAAAAAY!

[Luke T.]

Those who think the Civil War was not about slavery are either ignorant or kidding themselves. The South could feel the walls closing in, saw the handwriting on the wall, etc., etc.

The war could be seen coming from a long ways off. All the way back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. And it was all about slavery.

Here is the perspective from 1832 from the brilliant Alexis de Tocqueville:

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.35 Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.36

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls.37 These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay the slaves whom they employ, but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are purchased only when they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth, in sickness as well as in health. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum and appears to enrich only him who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.38

Democracy in America (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch18.htm)

I highly recommend reading the whole chapter. De Tocqueville gives an excellent reportage of the historical, social, and political impact of slavery and makes a few guesses as to what the future held.

Everyone could see it coming.

[super cool ski instructor]

Not as long as you don't re-make what I said.

Not exactly sure where I said you actually said the Confederate Army was pure as the driven snow......but thanks for putting words in my mouth :rolleyes:

I did say that some of you are acting like they were pure as the driven snow. You are so quick to condemn the Union for their "wrong-doings", why not admit that the Conferderate Army was not full of innocents.

[NascarGirl2448]

If you want to know what motivated the politicians in the south to secede, don't read books like "The South Was Right!"; rather, go back and read what the politicians actually wrote and said. "The majority of southerners didn't own slaves" doesn't mean it wasn't the primary factor in why the states seceded.

I think most people realize the PRIMARY reason the war was fought was NOT slavery. If more people actually paid attention to the actual reason we went to war, it was because, #1, the South fought for the same reasons the colonists fought to break away from England. The government was getting too big for its britches and people were getting sick of it. #2, MOST people in the north weren't wanting to go to war in the first place. They would have just as soon let us secede, until they realized the economic impact that not having the Southern ports open in the winter, when theirs would freeze, would have on their economy. Not to mention we would have charged them an arm and a leg in tarriffs.

Sherman's actions were definitely not the norm in warfare at the time - although the Confederates set the precedent with the burning of Chambersburg, PA by Jubal Early and his crew, an act that happened before Sherman started his march. The Confederates would have burned more towns to the ground, if only the towns they ransomed hadn't pay them. Holding towns hostage and threatening them with utter destruction of they didn't pay up was becoming quite an interesting "military" tactic by the Confederates. Funny how some people ignore the premeditated destruction of that city by the Confederates, yet find the indignation to criticize Sherman.

Like I said earlier, IF it happened, it was by a SMALL minority of soldiers, not the Confederate Army as a whole. sherman and sheridan, however, were the absolute worst excuses for "generals" this country ever had, and the rest of the bunch, except for maybe McClellan, weren't a whole lot better. Of course look who their leader was. Its no secret that grant was somewhat inebriated most of the time. I will say this, though, that guy had a BEAUTIFUL horse.

Kidnapping free men and selling them into slavery is something that gets ignored too. Gee, I wonder why?

You have any UNbiased sources to back up that bizzare claim? I have never heard that in my life.

[Seedy]

Those who think the Civil War was not about slavery are either ignorant or kidding themselves.

If you go back and read what was being said by southern politicians and promiment southerners back then, it's pretty clear that slavery was the engine that powered secession.

[super cool ski instructor]

If you go back and read what was being said by southern politicians and promiment southerners back then, it's pretty clear that slavery was the engine that powered secession.

I didn't realize there were still people who don't realize this......apparently I am wrong.....

[NascarGirl2448]

If you go back and read what was being said by southern politicians and promiment southerners back then, it's pretty clear that slavery was the engine that powered secession.

Yet in all the time I learned about what REALLY happened from my grandfather, who learned the truth about the war from soldiers who were actually there, slavery was NEVER mentioned as the primary "cause" for anything.

[Luke T.]

Like I said earlier, IF it happened, it was by a SMALL minority of soldiers, not the Confederate Army as a whole. sherman and sheridan, however, were the absolute worst excuses for "generals" this country ever had, and the rest of the bunch, except for maybe McClellan, weren't a whole lot better. Of course look who their leader was. Its no secret that grant was somewhat inebriated most of the time. I will say this, though, that guy had a BEAUTIFUL horse.
Wow, someone who thinks McClellan was the better of the North's generals is really out of touch.

[mbrens]

Yet in all the time I learned about what REALLY happened from my grandfather, who learned the truth about the war from soldiers who were actually there, slavery was NEVER mentioned as the primary "cause" for anything.

It also had to do with the taxes the North wanted the South to pay on slaves. They were actually property to the South. The North has always meddled into the business of the South. Integration for instance. I have wondered for years when the north will ever integrate.

How many of you know that the North has always been segragated, and never integrated?

[NascarGirl2448]

Wow, someone who thinks McClellan was the better of the North's generals is really out of touch.

Really? Got any evidence that is NOT coming from anti South bias to back up that claim?? Or did the north not have anyone decent in the whole army?

[Luke T.]

I think most people realize the PRIMARY reason the war was fought was NOT slavery. If more people actually paid attention to the actual reason we went to war, it was because, #1, the South fought for the same reasons the colonists fought to break away from England. The government was getting too big for its britches and people were getting sick of it.

No, the South was losing its influence, which is not the same as the government getting too big. The South could see that the number of free states would soon outnumber them and that the abolishment of slavery was inevitable as a result. That is why "Bleeding Kansas", and that's why secession upon the instant of the Republican Party candidate winning the Presidency.

[Seedy]

I think most people realize the PRIMARY reason the war was fought was NOT slavery.

Who is "most people"? Again, read what those who fought for secession SAID and you'll understand what motivated them. It's really fun to simply call it "The American Revolution II", but again... go back and find out what was SAID and what was DONE prior to secession and it's all pretty clear.

Go back to the PRIMARY SOURCES and find out for yourself.

Like I said earlier, IF it happened, it was by a SMALL minority of soldiers, not the Confederate Army as a whole.

That's an uninformed statement. So are you saying that the burning of Chambersburg was done by a small rogue contingent of Confederate soldiers" or kidnapping free blacks in PA during Lee's entry into Pennsylvania? Ransoming northern cities such as Chambersburg and Hagerstown was ordered by General Jubal Early; kidnapping free blacks and selling them into slavery was not condoned by Lee, but was being done by lower-level Confederate officers, not small rogue bands of soldiers.

sherman and sheridan, however, were the absolute worst excuses for "generals" this country ever had, and the rest of the bunch, except for maybe McClellan, weren't a whole lot better.

Sherman and Sheridan, actually, were not bad generals at all. McClellen, while being a great organizer, was among the worst battlefield generals the north had... and the north had a lot of sub-par generals.

Its no secret that grant was somewhat inebriated most of the time. I will say this, though, that guy had a BEAUTIFUL horse.

Grant was not inebriated most of the time. That is a comment borne of ignorance. Please...!

Grant was a great horseman, though... even Southerners who knew him before the war thought he was a brilliant rider.



You have any UNbiased sources to back up that bizzare claim? I have never heard that in my life.[/QUOTE]

[Luke T.]

Really? Got any evidence that is NOT coming from anti South bias to back up that claim?? Or did the north not have anyone decent in the whole army?

Very simple. McClellan wouldn't fight. He kept asking for more and more troops. He could have finished the war right at the beginning and spared the country years of civil war. He was a politician, not a general. In fact, he ran as Lincoln's opponent in 1864.

Yes, the North had decent generals. Grant, for one. The battle of Vicksburg is one of many examples of his genius. And like Lincoln said, "I can't spare this man--he fights."

[NascarGirl2448]

It also had to do with the taxes the North wanted the South to pay on slaves. They were actually property to the South. The North has always meddled into the business of the South. Integration for instance. I have wondered for years when the north will ever integrate.

How many of you know that the North has always been segragated, and never integrated?

I never knew that. I thought that the whole country was finally integrated, but I guess not. I know there are "ethnic neighborhoods" in a lot of cities nationwide (Chicago and NYC are famous for them), but I never knew the North never integrated schools or anything like that.

[Seedy]

Really? Got any evidence that is NOT coming from anti South bias to back up that claim?? Or did the north not have anyone decent in the whole army?

Before you start accusing people of "anti-south bias", you have a whole trainload of obvious bias you'd better abandon. I've heard nothing but very odd accusations from you on this thread thus far.

All you have to show as "proof" is conjecture, well-worn accusations, and legend.

[Seedy]

Yet in all the time I learned about what REALLY happened from my grandfather, who learned the truth about the war from soldiers who were actually there, slavery was NEVER mentioned as the primary "cause" for anything.

I'm sure your grandfather was a nice guy, but that's really no way to find out about why the war happened.

You can talk to a thousand soldiers and get a thousand versions of why the war happened. Come on now, you've really got to have a more solid foundation than that... please....

[mbrens]

I never knew that. I thought that the whole country was finally integrated, but I guess not. I know there are "ethnic neighborhoods" in a lot of cities nationwide (Chicago and NYC are famous for them), but I never knew the North never integrated schools or anything like that.

I was in one of the first schools to integrate. Tho it was the year after I left. My wife had one black kid in her school. They made him VD for the class. The Northerners are always cutting down the South, but tried to hide the fact that they didn't integrate. Of course they were to some degree integrated tho. Ever heard of Little Italy, China Town, and such?

[Seedy]

Really? Got any evidence that is NOT coming from anti South bias to back up that claim?? Or did the north not have anyone decent in the whole army?

The only reason I can come up with as to why you think McClellen was a good general is that he made his opponents look better because of his incompetence.

Oh, and also because when he ran against Lincoln in 1864, he wanted to stop the war and let the Confederate states go their own way.

Yup.. I can see why you think McClellen was a "good general". :))

[Luke T.]

Not about slavery? Hmm. I suppose it was just a fantastic coincidence that it was slaveholding states that seceeded.

But hey, don't take my word for it that it was about slavery. Let's take a look at Mississippi's declaration of secession. First two sentences:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Now let's read the first sentence of Georgia's declaration of secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

And now, South Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

The great state of Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[NascarGirl2448]

Who is "most people"? Again, read what those who fought for secession SAID and you'll understand what motivated them. It's really fun to simply call it "The American Revolution II", but again... go back and find out what was SAID and what was DONE prior to secession and it's all pretty clear.

Go back to the PRIMARY SOURCES and find out for yourself.[quote]

I have read several of the "primary" sources, and quite frankly, think that slavery was on its way OUT in the South even before the war started.

[quote]That's an uninformed statement. So are you saying that the burning of Chambersburg was done by a small rogue contingent of Confederate soldiers" or kidnapping free blacks in PA during Lee's entry into Pennsylvania? Ransoming northern cities such as Chambersburg and Hagerstown was ordered by General Jubal Early; kidnapping free blacks and selling them into slavery was not condoned by Lee, but was being done by lower-level Confederate officers, not small rogue bands of soldiers.

UNIFORMED??? PLEASE. Even if Early did order the burning and destruction, he was only ONE general in the ENTIRE army.

Sherman and Sheridan, actually, were not bad generals at all. McClellen, while being a great organizer, was among the worst battlefield generals the north had... and the north had a lot of sub-par generals.

From what I remember about sherman, as well as sheridan, those two were not even in the same league as most of the Southern generals. McClellan may not have been on the bright side militarily, but his organizational skills might have been one thing that held the northern army together.

Grant was not inebriated most of the time. That is a comment borne of ignorance. Please...!
Grant was a great horseman, though... even Southerners who knew him before the war thought he was a brilliant rider.

Its well documented that grant was a drinker, although a lot of people tend to ignore it. Of course most of the people who write about this guy don't even bother to do a little research on Cincinnati (grant's horse) and realize that he was an American Saddlebred, not a Thoroughbred, as is commonly claimed most of the horses were. There may have been a few Thoroughbreds in the bunch, but the majority were Saddlebreds. Don't believe it? Go to the American Saddle Horse Registry in Lexington, Kentucky and see for yourself. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if grant was a decent rider, most people in that time knew how to ride fairly well.

[mbrens]

IMHO, the bottom line in all the bickering should be TRUTH, no matter who it offends, and we should simply keep it that way. If I seem to have a strong voice one way or the other, it's because I want TRUTH nothing else. If it offends any of you SORRY. IMHO!

[Seedy]

You have any UNbiased sources to back up that bizzare claim? I have never heard that in my life.

James McPherson mentions it in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom". And why do you think it's so "bizzare"? I think it's funny that you apparently think it's so removed from the realm of possibility.

Now McPherson is a "yankee", so you probably won't believe a word he says. Perhaps you would prefer something from an "unbiased" source, such as the Kennedy brothers... :))

[Luke T.]

It also had to do with the taxes the North wanted the South to pay on slaves. They were actually property to the South. The North has always meddled into the business of the South. Integration for instance. I have wondered for years when the north will ever integrate.

How many of you know that the North has always been segragated, and never integrated?

Patently false. My school in Connecticut was integrated. Black students were brought in from other parts of the state and from New York to integrate my school.

[mbrens]

Patently false. My school in Connecticut was integrated. Black students were brought in from other parts of the state and from New York to integrate my school.

What year?

[Luke T.]

Anyone alive and conscious in the 60s and 70s will remember all the issues of "bussing" that were in the news in the North all through that period.

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing

Notice one example they give is Boston, MA.

[NascarGirl2448]

The only reason I can come up with as to why you think McClellen was a good general is that he made his opponents look better because of his incompetence.

Oh, and also because when he ran against Lincoln in 1864, he wanted to stop the war and let the Confederate states go their own way.

Yup.. I can see why you think McClellen was a "good general".

Trust me, the Southern generals didn't need ANY help looking brilliant, because its WELL DOCUMENTED that they were. When Lee and Jackson put their heads together, the yankees were in trouble. I have always been convinced that had Jackson not been killed at Chancellorsville, we would have won Gettysburg and the war would have been over very soon after that. And the fact that McClellan wanted to end the war when he ran against Lincoln only shows that he had enough brains to realize that the South had (at the time) the right to do whatever the heck they wanted to.

[mbrens]

Anyone alive and conscious in the 60s and 70s will remember all the issues of "bussing" that were in the news in the North all through that period.

What year?

[Luke T.]

And there is the simple fact that many schools in the North were already integrated and therefore didn't require forced integration like so many hardheaded school districts elsewhere did.

[NascarGirl2448]

James McPherson mentions it in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom". And why do you think it's so "bizzare"? I think it's funny that you apparently think it's so removed from the realm of possibility.

Now McPherson is a "yankee", so you probably won't believe a word he says. Perhaps you would prefer something from an "unbiased" source, such as the Kennedy brothers...

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I would just like to see someone who actually researches this and doesn't try and make the South look bad just because they can.

[Seedy]

UNIFORMED??? PLEASE. Even if Early did order the burning and destruction, he was only ONE general in the ENTIRE army.

HAHA! So that's like saying "even in Sherman did order the burning and destruction he was only ONE general in the ENTIRE army."

Would you mind trying to justify your statement, especially in light of your opinion of Sherman and his soldiers??


Its well documented that grant was a drinker, although a lot of people tend to ignore it. Of course most of the people who write about this guy don't even bother to do a little research on Cincinnati (grant's horse) and realize that he was an American Saddlebred, not a Thoroughbred, as is commonly claimed most of the horses were. There may have been a few Thoroughbreds in the bunch, but the majority were Saddlebreds. Don't believe it? Go to the American Saddle Horse Registry in Lexington, Kentucky and see for yourself. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if grant was a decent rider, most people in that time knew how to ride fairly well.

It's well known that Grant definitely had drinking problems, and there was one instance where it appears Grant may have been drinking heavily during the war, but this fake notion that Grant went through the Civil War on a binge is ludicrous. It's the equivilent of those apocryphal stories that get passed from soldier to soldier in the trenches and it's so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

I don't understand your comments about Grant's horse. Is somebody saying that it was a thoroughbred? You seem to be so insistent and defensive about it's pedigree... and yet I've never heard anybody talk about his horse. Who gives two hoots about whether his horse was a saddlebred or not??

[mbrens]

And there is the simple fact that many schools in the North were already integrated and therefore didn't require forced integration like so many hardheaded school districts elsewhere did.

What year?

[Luke T.]

What year?

I edited the post, but here is the information again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Boston.2C_Massachusetts

[Seedy]

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I would just like to see someone who actually researches this and doesn't try and make the South look bad just because they can.

Why? You seem to have made a hobby about disseminating all sorts of fake stories about the north. Try living up to the same standards you're demanding from others, please.

I'm not trying to be mean, but really... you want it both ways. You discount the actual words of those people who actually were responsible for secession - and the words of respected historians - just because your grandfather didn't hear the same thing from some actual soldiers he spoke to?

[mbrens]

I edited the post, but here is the information again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Boston.2C_Massachusetts

What year?

[Luke T.]

Here's a news story on busing that discusses Detroit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1853532

Milliken v. Bradley, 1974.

[Luke T.]

What year?

Can you not read?

[mbrens]

Luke, in what year did you experience your school being integrated in the North?

[mbrens]

Here's a news story on busing that discusses Detroit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1853532

Milliken v. Bradley, 1974.

I haven't and wont open your posted story. All I want to know is, when your school was being integrated in the North.

[Luke T.]

More Than a Bus Ride. The Desegregation of the Cleveland Public Schools. (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED263273&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED263273)

[mbrens]

OK, Luke, as of right now, you are OFF THE HOOK!

[HSMaxim]

This is why I love the Hannity message board, so much to learn.

The Confederates never harmed a civillian while those bastards from the North were cold blooded killers of women and children. I never knew.

I had always thought that places like China Town and Little Italy were named so because the immigrants from a certain country would come here and then choose to live with others of their ethnicity. Now I know that it was because of the Norths refusal to integrate like the South did.


I think I'm going to keep my daughter home from school and just read her postings from this board.:rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

HAHA! So that's like saying "even in Sherman did order the burning and destruction he was only ONE general in the ENTIRE army."
Would you mind trying to justify your statement, especially in light of your opinion of Sherman and his soldiers??

First of all, I NEVER said all of the northern generals were terrible human beings, I just said that sherman and sheridan were the worst of the bunch. That fact is well documented in history. The other northern generals may not have been nearly as destructive as those two, but obviously there is a minority on both sides who were hell bent on complete and total destruction, as Early and his bunch obviously were.

It's well known that Grant definitely had drinking problems, and there was one instance where it appears Grant may have been drinking heavily during the war, but this fake notion that Grant went through the Civil War on a binge is ludicrous. It's the equivilent of those apocryphal stories that get passed from soldier to soldier in the trenches and it's so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

Glad you aren't trying to deny grant had a drinking problem. I wonder how many people also realize he owned slaves? It has been well documented that grant owned slaves, which his wife had no intention of ever getting rid of, until slavery was finally outlawed nationwide.

I don't understand your comments about Grant's horse. Is somebody saying that it was a thoroughbred? You seem to be so insistent and defensive about it's pedigree... and yet I've never heard anybody talk about his horse. Who gives two hoots about whether his horse was a saddlebred or not??

The point is, if people who supposedly "research" this can't even get the horses' pedigree right, then what on earth makes them credible any other way?? If they are too lazy to research the horses, then it makes those of us who catch them in that lie wondering about the rest of their credibility.

[Luke T.]

How many of you know that the North has always been segragated, and never integrated?

How many of you now know this is complete bunk? I have shown Boston, Detroit, and Cleveland had forced busing.

Need more?

[Seedy]

"'Black slavery', soared the Austin (Texas) State Gazette, saves us from 'the wretched livery of humiliation and servitude' by guaranteeing 'the equality of white men among themselves, and their superiority over the black race.' Yet under the Republicans' verbal lash, exclaimed Mississippi's Pauling Eastern Clarion, white equals 'will be subject to orders as the slave is to the master, shut up as if in prison, and threatened with punishment for passing the threshold as the negro is, should be leave the plantation against orders; held under this degrading ban to await a preordained doom at an antislavery master's decree.' Only 'when slaves become masters, and masters slaves,; will once equal folk 'occupy a more abject and meaner position.'

-- "The Road to Disunion, vol. II; Secessionists Triumphant", by William W. Freehling


The best way to get non-slaveholders on the side of secession was to tell them that they will be made slaves themselves; that the north, and especially the "Black Republicans" in the north, regard all Southerners as scum because they condone slavery, and that Republicans want to make blacks the equal to whites. Suddenly, poor white Southerners are on the bottom rung of the ladder, if blacks are to be regarded as their equals.

Many people who opposed slave emancipation in the north felt a similar way too. After all, racism was healthy in all parts of the country at the time.

[Luke T.]

School Desegregation in Erie, Pennsylvania: A Staff Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED145059&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED145059)

In 1968, a determination that de facto segregation was present in the Erie, Pennsylvania School System was made. This was made on the basis that there were six schools having an 80% or more black student population. These schools were located in black areas. There were also 16 schools with an 80% or more white student population located in white areas. The school district was required to develop a plan to effect a racial balance.

[mbrens]

This is why I love the Hannity message board, so much to learn.

The Confederates never harmed a civillian while those bastards from the North were cold blooded killers of women and children. I never knew.

I had always thought that places like China Town and Little Italy were named so because the immigrants from a certain country would come here and then choose to live with others of their ethnicity. Now I know that it was because of the Norths refusal to integrate like the South did.


I think I'm going to keep my daughter home from school and just read her postings from this board.:rolleyes:

Make it clear what I said. CHINA TOWN AND LITTLE ITALY weren't forced to integrate. If you want to add a cogent post, then fire away. Also, if you are saying it is ok for certain ethnic groups to live in a certain part of town without allowing other groups you may get introuble.

[NascarGirl2448]

The Confederates never harmed a civillian while those bastards from the North were cold blooded killers of women and children. I never knew.

Its no secret that the yankees were bent on total destruction of the South, although its something that's not mentioned in most history books.

I had always thought that places like China Town and Little Italy were named so because the immigrants from a certain country would come here and then choose to live with others of their ethnicity.

That may have been, but it doesn't sound like ANYONE wanted to integrate, north or south.

[super cool ski instructor]

Okay...so

North=Bad

South=Good

Got it!

[Luke T.]

Most of our parents have worked hard so that we may have the privilege of living in a peaceful community with a fine school. They pay high taxes in order to keep up the school and to insure a continuation of quality education. Our taxes are much higher than taxes for an inner city resident. Consequently schools in Chicago have much lower standards than our school does. Yet, some people want some of us to be bused to Chicago schools, and some blacks from Chicago to be bused out here.

Unfair busing is brought to the students' attention (http://webpages.maine207.org/south/departments/lrc/mthshistory/76bus.htm). February 1977.

[Seedy]

First of all, I NEVER said all of the northern generals were terrible human beings, I just said that sherman and sheridan were the worst of the bunch. That fact is well documented in history. The other northern generals may not have been nearly as destructive as those two, but obviously there is a minority on both sides who were hell bent on complete and total destruction, as Early and his bunch obviously were.

You show me where it's "well documented in history" that Sherman and Sheridan were the "worst of the bunch". Are you saying that they were bad human beings, bad generals, or both? I have no idea what you're claiming.


Glad you aren't trying to deny grant had a drinking problem.

Now if I could only get you to admit that he wasn't drunk all the time during the war... which is a boldfaced falsehood that people have circulated since the Civil War.

I wonder how many people also realize he owned slaves? It has been well documented that grant owned slaves, which his wife had no intention of ever getting rid of, until slavery was finally outlawed nationwide.

They were actually his wife's slaves, and he legally took possession of them when he married, as was the law then. Robert E. Lee disliked the institution of slavery. Both of these facts, while interesting, have nothing to do with why states seceded.

The point is, if people who supposedly "research" this can't even get the horses' pedigree right, then what on earth makes them credible any other way?? If they are too lazy to research the horses, then it makes those of us who catch them in that lie wondering about the rest of their credibility.

So who was it who made the claim about Grant's horse? I don't think you mentioned that. Was it someone who wrote a Grant biography? Because it sounds as though you want to discount everything someone has written about Grant because they said his horse was a thoroughbred and it wasn't.

[mbrens]

Its no secret that the yankees were bent on total destruction of the South, although its something that's not mentioned in most history books.



That may have been, but it doesn't sound like ANYONE wanted to integrate, north or south.

I think you are correct! The Southerners actually were a "proud bunch of heros". I would say similar to the Japanese when two cities had to be destroyed, to break their will. The South today is still a very proud group of people.

[Seedy]

Its no secret that the yankees were bent on total destruction of the South, although its something that's not mentioned in most history books.


You see, when you spout garbage like that, it gives you zero credibility. That is such a huge lie that only the extremely gullible would believe it.

[mbrens]

You see, when you spout garbage like that, it gives you zero credibility. That is such a huge lie that only the extremely gullible would believe it.

Even tho Sherman was told to level Atlanta? Level Atlanta means ALL and EVERYONE!

[HSMaxim]

I think you are correct! The Southerners actually were a "proud bunch of heros". I would say similar to the Japanese when two cities had to be destroyed, to break their will. The South today is still a very proud group of people.
Proud of what?

[Seedy]

Even tho Sherman was told to level Atlanta? Level Atlanta means ALL and EVERYONE!

Sherman wasn't told to "level Atlanta"; he was orderd to burn Atlanta's war-related industries.

This is hardly proof that "yankees wanted the entire destruction of the south". That, sir, is an idiotic claim.

[mbrens]

Proud of what?

That we ain't Yankees! LOL!

[mbrens]

Sherman wasn't told to "level Atlanta"; he was orderd to burn Atlanta's war-related industries.

This is hardly proof that "yankees wanted the entire destruction of the south". That, sir, is an idiotic claim.

Yeah right!

[BillBrown]

Interesting side note-

When Lee surrendered his army to Grant, at Appomattox, Grant agreed to allow the Confederate soldiers to keep their horses and allowed officers to keep their horses and sidearms. He also allowed them all to go home after pledging that they would not take up arms against the US. He also fed all 25.000 of Lee's defeated army.
He didn't have to do any of this.

Lee was so moved by this that for the rest of his life, he would not tolerate unkind words about Grant in his presence.

President Andrew Johnson wanted to hang Davis, Lee and Longstreet.

Grant threatened to resign his command and to physically intervene to prevent their arrest, if Johnson attempted this.

Johnson backed down

[Seedy]

Yeah right!

I'm glad you agree with me.

[mbrens]

Interesting side note-

When Lee surrendered his army to Grant, at Appomattox, Grant agreed to allow the Confederate soldiers to keep their horses and allowed officers to keep their horses and sidearms. He also allowed them all to go home after pledging that they would not take up arms against the US. He also fed all 25.000 of Lee's defeated army.
He didn't have to do any of this.

Lee was so moved by this that for the rest of his life, he would not tolerate unkind words about Grant in his presence.

President Andrew Johnson wanted to hang Davis, Lee and Longstreet.

Grant threatened to resign his command and to physically intervene to prevent their arrest, if Johnson attempted this.

Johnson backed down

I don't know the law concerning POW's after war, but today he would have no choice. That doesn't make Grant a hero.

[Seedy]

Interesting side note-

When Lee surrendered his army to Grant, at Appomattox, Grant agreed to allow the Confederate soldiers to keep their horses and allowed officers to keep their horses and sidearms. He also allowed them all to go home after pledging that they would not take up arms against the US. He also fed all 25.000 of Lee's defeated army.
He didn't have to do any of this.

Lee was so moved by this that for the rest of his life, he would not tolerate unkind words about Grant in his presence.

President Andrew Johnson wanted to hang Davis, Lee and Longstreet.

Grant threatened to resign his command and to physically intervene to prevent their arrest, if Johnson attempted this.

Johnson backed down

Yeah, that Grant was a BUTCHER... a TERRIBLE, PERPETUALLY DRUNKEN YANKEE GENERAL. What a piece of dung he was, huh? :rolleyes:

(BTW, thanks for posting this bit of info, Bill... it's good for people with Selective Memory to see stuff like this)

[Andrew_980]

Sherman wasn't told to "level Atlanta"; he was orderd to burn Atlanta's war-related industries.

This is hardly proof that "yankees wanted the entire destruction of the south". That, sir, is an idiotic claim.That may or may not be the orders but the arsonist still seamed to go ahead and rob and burn everything in his path regardless.

[mbrens]

That may or may not be the orders but the arsonist still seamed to go ahead and rob and burn everything in his path regardless.

Shhhhh. Don't let that get out!

[Seedy]

I don't know the law concerning POW's after war, but today he would have no choice. That doesn't make Grant a hero.

It's hard to shed your prejudices and look at facts, isn't it?

Grant could have had Lee and his men strip naked and walk home on their hands, if he'd wanted to. Grant didn't, though; he was pretty magnanimous. Robert E. Lee appreciated Grant's gesture; funny how Lee sees it as such and you can brush it off as no big deal. What moral justification do you have that Robert E. Lee didn't?

Incidentally, when Sherman received Gen. Johnston's surrender in North Carolina, Sherman was so generous with the terms of surrender that they were later rejected by President Johnson and Congress. But Sherman only wanted to utterly destroy the south, according to some here, so I wonder why he was being so generous to Johnston? :rolleyes:

[Seedy]

That may or may not be the orders but the arsonist still seamed to go ahead and rob and burn everything in his path regardless.

Just like Jubal Early did to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania before Sherman's March to the Sea.

[mbrens]

I wonder about the States that the Rebels fought in. How many Northern and how many Southern.
I would think that most of the South's fighting wasn't in the North. IOW, the Rebels probably didn't have much of a chance to rob and burn the houses in the North.
My GG fatehr joined up in Rome Georgia. He was severely wounded in battle in Georgia and was mustered out there.

The North had plenty of money to transport their men, but not the South.

[HSMaxim]

Make it clear what I said. CHINA TOWN AND LITTLE ITALY weren't forced to integrate. If you want to add a cogent post, then fire away. Also, if you are saying it is ok for certain ethnic groups to live in a certain part of town without allowing other groups you may get introuble.
Did the people in China Town burn down the houses of those that moved into China Town that were not Chinese? Did they? Maybe they did, so I am asking.

I may get in trouble? Get in trouble for saying what went on in the history of our country?

Sorry, all I know is that my ancestors did not own other humans as property.

Also, as far as I know, my great grandfather and the other immigrants from Hungary did not burn down the homes of the Irish immigrants that moved into the coal company houses beside them.

My ancestors from Wales made furniture and maybe they used southern products produced by slave labor. If they did, I would not be proud of it.

[BillBrown]

I don't know the law concerning POW's after war, but today he would have no choice. That doesn't make Grant a hero.

No choice about what?

They weren't POWs. Grant released them all to go home.

Davis, Lee and Longstreet were all indicted for treason and would have been hanged, had not Grant intervened.

[mbrens]

It's hard to shed your prejudices and look at facts, isn't it?

Grant could have had Lee and his men strip naked and walk home on their hands, if he'd wanted to. Grant didn't, though; he was pretty magnanimous. Robert E. Lee appreciated Grant's gesture; funny how Lee sees it as such and you can brush it off as no big deal. What moral justification do you have that Robert E. Lee didn't?

Incidentally, when Sherman received Gen. Johnston's surrender in North Carolina, Sherman was so generous with the terms of surrender that they were later rejected by President Johnson and Congress. But Sherman only wanted to utterly destroy the south, according to some here, so I wonder why he was being so generous to Johnston? :rolleyes:

Had Grant mistreated the Rebels, he would have been killed on sight by many.
Not to mention the trial for WAR CRIMES!

[Seedy]

I wonder about the States that the Rebels fought in. How many Northern and how many Southern.
I would think that most of the Sout's fighting wasn't in the North. IOW, the Rebels probably didn't have much of a chance to rob and burn the houses in the North.
My GG fatehr joined up in Rome Georgia. He was severely wounded in battle in Georgia and was mustered out there.

The North had plenty of money to transport their men, but not the South.

So are you intimating that Rebels didn't ransom northern cities? Or that they didn't burn Chambersburg, PA to the ground when they didn't pay the ransom money like other cities did, such as Hagerstown, MD?

I had ancestors on both sides, BTW.

[Seedy]

Had Grant mistreated the Rebels, he would have been killed on sight by many.
Not to mention the trial for WAR CRIMES!

LOL!!! What are you talking about??

[mbrens]

No choice about what?

They weren't POWs. Grant released them all to go home.

Davis, Lee and Longstreet were all indicted for treason and would have been hanged, had not Grant intervened.

You don't know a bit more about it than I do!

[mbrens]

So are you intimating that Rebels didn't ransom northern cities? Or that they didn't burn Chambersburg, PA to the ground when they didn't pay the ransom money like other cities did, such as Hagerstown, MD?

I had ancestors on both sides, BTW.

No, but what I am saying is this: It's very difficult to stand here against all you YANKEES, so I will bow out of here.

[Seedy]

No, but what I am saying is this: It's very difficult to stand here against all you YANKEES, so I will bow out of here.

"yankees"... nice. I hope you're smiling when you say that. :)

[BillBrown]

No, but what I am saying is this: It's very difficult to stand here against all you YANKEES, so I will bow out of here.

I'm as unYankee as you can get. I'm not saying anything about Grant that Robert E. Lee didn't say.

[mbrens]

"yankees"... nice. I hope you're smiling when you say that. :)

Sorry but I thought you were from Penn. Anyway it's hard to be jumped on by so many.

[FuturePrez]

Okay...so

North=Bad

South=Good

Got it!

I think it's more

North=Bad

South=Bad

both sides were wrong on many levels both in the reasons for the start of the war and the actions during the war.

The North was wrong to try and deny the States the right to secede. And in calling troops to invade the South.
The South was wrong to have slaves.

[BillBrown]

Grant's own troops called him Butcher Grant. Not because of his actions against the enemy, but because of the way he directed offensive attacks.

He would hurl wave after wave of men at enemy positions. He did not use finesse. He took a tremendous number of casualties. He had a similar approach that Patton would have.

Lee was a better general than Grant, but he was outnumbered. Grant was a good general and had the men and materials to prevail.

[Seedy]

Sorry but I thought you were from Penn. Anyway it's hard to be jumped on by so many.

I do live in PA, actually... I can WALK to the Mason-Dixon line in about ten minutes. I moved here from Maryland almost 2 years ago.

What I was commenting on is the use of the term "yankee", which is often used by some in a highly derrogatory manner. Some use it in the same way that others would use the term "redneck". Some people will laughingly call themselves "rednecks" and some do the same with the term "yankee".

What I tell friends from the south sometimes is "watch how you use the term 'yankee'. Do you know that, to a majority of people in the world, YOU are considered a 'yankee'?" LOL

What's the joke about Yankees?:

To the world, every American is a Yankee.
To Americans, only northerners are Yankees.
To northerners, only New Englanders are Yankees.
To New Englanders, only Mainers are Yankees.
To Mainers, only those who still use outhouses are Yankees.

... or something like that. :))

[mbrens]

Actually my doctor said I needed to use a computer qu