Ok, I gotta get this off my chest here. The American Civil War was fought for various reasons, but the main agenda was NOT slavery, it was economics. Feel free to debate me on this here.
Economics of fat ass white dudes having to get off their lazy asses and work in their own goddamn field................then yes.
What about the economics of fat ass white dudes that ran factories with immigrants working in them who lived only marginally better than slaves?
Those guys made a choice to come to America. Although the nasty Brits sure didn't make the decision easy.Turquoise wrote:
What about the economics of fat ass white dudes that ran factories with immigrants working in them who lived only marginally better than slaves?
Admittedly, an immigrant had more choices in his/her life than a true slave, but the Civil War was really the result of rich industrialists who conflicted with rich plantation owners in trade policy. The rest is history, although abolitionism was a nice cover story for the North.
Sherman didn't care anymore about black people than the average plantation owner. In fact, he showed his compassion by burning down Atlanta.
Sherman didn't care anymore about black people than the average plantation owner. In fact, he showed his compassion by burning down Atlanta.
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." - Sherman
-----------------------
Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding
^^^^^^
Ya, what a nasty guy.
-----------------------
Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding
^^^^^^
Ya, what a nasty guy.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-11-24 12:37:29)
After Atlanta, Sherman began his march south, declaring that he could "make Georgia howl". Initially disregarding Hood's army moving into Tennessee, he boasted that if Hood moved north he (Sherman) would "give him rations" as "my business is down south. He quickly, however, had to send an army back to deal with Hood. Sherman marched with 62,000 men to the port of Savannah, Georgia, living off the land and causing, by his own estimate, more than $100 million in property damage. Sherman called this harsh tactic of material war "hard war", which is now, in modern times, known as total war. At the end of this campaign, known as Sherman's March to the Sea, his troops captured Savannah on December 22, 1864. Sherman then telegraphed Lincoln, offering him the city as a Christmas present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
He could talk a good game, but his actions spoke otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
He could talk a good game, but his actions spoke otherwise.
"...and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."Turquoise wrote:
He could talk a good game, but his actions spoke otherwise.
He never hid they way he was feeling.
..and you admire that attitude?...usmarine2005 wrote:
"...and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."Turquoise wrote:
He could talk a good game, but his actions spoke otherwise.
He never hid they way he was feeling.
If your gonna fight a war then fight a war.Turquoise wrote:
..and you admire that attitude?...
When, under a government rather than a monarch or dictator, have any wars ever been about anything other than economics (or nationalism)?Turquoise wrote:
The American Civil War was fought for various reasons, but the main agenda was NOT slavery, it was economics.
I guess I feel differently when the people involved are relatives....usmarine2005 wrote:
If your gonna fight a war then fight a war.Turquoise wrote:
..and you admire that attitude?...
Ummmm....Turquoise wrote:
I guess I feel differently when the people involved are relatives....
Going a little far back aren't you?
Tell that to our colleague here.Bertster7 wrote:
When, under a government rather than a monarch or dictator, have any wars ever been about anything other than economics (or nationalism)?Turquoise wrote:
The American Civil War was fought for various reasons, but the main agenda was NOT slavery, it was economics.
If another secession were to occur, war would not be the answer....usmarine2005 wrote:
Ummmm....Turquoise wrote:
I guess I feel differently when the people involved are relatives....
Going a little far back aren't you?
I know next to nothing about the American civil war (much as I'm sure very few Americans know much about the English civil war). But wars are NEVER fought for compassionate reasons, which is what a war to end slavery would've been. If the American civil war was indeed fought purely for compassionate reasons then it is unique, which leads me to believe that it wasn't.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to our colleague here.Bertster7 wrote:
When, under a government rather than a monarch or dictator, have any wars ever been about anything other than economics (or nationalism)?Turquoise wrote:
The American Civil War was fought for various reasons, but the main agenda was NOT slavery, it was economics.
Sectionalism was a big part in the cause of the Civil war.
You are correct in your assumption, and I agree with you completely about war in general.Bertster7 wrote:
I know next to nothing about the American civil war (much as I'm sure very few Americans know much about the English civil war). But wars are NEVER fought for compassionate reasons, which is what a war to end slavery would've been. If the American civil war was indeed fought purely for compassionate reasons then it is unique, which leads me to believe that it wasn't.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to our colleague here.Bertster7 wrote:
When, under a government rather than a monarch or dictator, have any wars ever been about anything other than economics (or nationalism)?
This is true, but what defines sectionalism is primarily economics. Cultural sectionalism was also part of it, though.MetaL* wrote:
Sectionalism was a big part in the cause of the Civil war.
That's all it was - really simple actually. It was the industrialized economy of the north vs. the agricultural base of the south. Have you ever read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"? While not solely focusing on the causes of the Civil War, he discusses the reasonings briefly and ponders Lincoln's own thoughts and words in regards to slavery and the war itself, not to mention relating actual written documents and firsthand accounts from people during that time.Turquoise wrote:
This is true, but what defines sectionalism is primarily economics. Cultural sectionalism was also part of it, though.MetaL* wrote:
Sectionalism was a big part in the cause of the Civil war.
Ken, I actually haven't read that, but you're not the first to recommend it. I really should check that out....
Thats funny I'm right in the middle of my civil war unit for my US history class and thats my focus for the first couple of days.