New Website on the American Civil War

[TNHarley]

Well, if half the country seceded, Trump would probably be considerably worse than he is now.

The South Started the war, so a few rich assholes could keep owning other people. This makes Lincoln a hero.

Think about that. The South wanted to destroy the country not because Lincoln even threatened to abolish slavery, just restrict its expansion. They did a horrible thing for all the wrong reasons, and get upset that maybe today, we don't want to keep honoring their memories for doing it.

Dude, lincoln offered them a constitutional amendment that would legalize slavery forever. Your view of lincoln and his actions are so ignroant!
The south fired because the us govt was trespassing.
Look, I get your knowledge of this doesnt go past a 2nd grade social studies book. You make that obvious.. but damn... You are a grown man smh.

 

[Quantrill]

Um, the fact that they owned slaves.

Yes, a lot of stupid inbred white people fought to keep black people enslaved because they didn't want them ******* their sisters. That was THEIR job.





Educate yourself.

Andersonville Prison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The site was commanded by Captain Henry Wirz, who was tried and executed after the war for war crimes. The prison was overcrowded to four times its capacity, and had an inadequate water supply, inadequate food, and unsanitary conditions. Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners held at Camp Sumter during the war, nearly 13,000 (28%) died. The chief causes of death were scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.

Um...who said that was evil?

Well, Wikipedia is not a great source for reliable information.

Just because Wirz was tried and hanged for war crimes didn't prove his guilt. His trial was a joke, full of lies. Wirz was dealing with things beyond his control. You have to remember that the war was being fought all around Andersonville. And Sherman was destroying all rail lines he could, which cut off much of the supplies.

The South didn't have the means to feed its own troops, much less thousands of prisoners. Which is why they sought the prisoner exchange. Then, the righteous North figured it would rather leave those Yankee prisoners to starve in Andersonville rather than exchange them for Confederate prisoners. They feared the Confederates would go back to their armies and continue the fighting. Wirz tried to exchange the prisoners. But the righteous Yankees said no. (Andersonville, William Marvel, University Of North Carolina Press, 1994 See Preface p. x-xi)

At his trial the North paid men to testify and lie about Wirz. And, they refused to let any testify in favor of Wirz. And there were some ready to do that. His trial was not a trial. It was a hanging from the get go. It was murdering a man who was innocent of any war crimes. It was a perfect picture of Yankee justice. A military Tribunal even after the War. A product of Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

"The trial finally began before a military tribunal in a small, stuffy room in the bowels of the U.S. Capitol, and Wirz was a dead man from the start...General Lew Wallace had not taken his seat as president of the court before he convicted the defendant in his own mind." (Marvel, p. (243)

And why would those Yankees do such a thing? Because they didn't want the word getting out that they were responsible for thousands of Yankee deaths because they refused the exchange.

Then, how about the Sultana ship tragedy. It was loaded with many of the freed prisoners from Andersonville. Six times over it was loaded. Then an explosion occurred sinking it and over 1000 men died many who had just been freed from Andersonville. Coincidence? Nothing would surprise me what the righteous Yankee would do to cover his tracks.

"In the summer of 1864 Ulysses Grant let it slip that there was at least a grain of truth to that argument: as bad as it was on those in Southern prisons, he contended, it would be kinder to those still in the ranks if each side kept what prisoners it had, since that would end the war sooner." (Marvel, p. x)

And your shit statement that Confederate prisoners were treated humanely is a lie. Typical characteristic of the Yankee following Lincoln's lead.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Not sure if this means all that much, as he also championed the passing of the 13th Amendment, which was passed by Congress and ratified by 21 States before his assassination. This ended slavery in ALL the states.

You say that like it was a bad thing. The biggest problem was that the North didn't use its overwhelming strength to crush the South and then hang Davis, Lee, and every other traitor from the nearest tree.

The Civil War was a case where we won the war and lost the peace. Hundreds of thousands of men died, and the South went right back to being racist shitheads.

The problem with the "traditional" view is that it suffered from the "Lost Cause" mythology. For decades after the war, we were more concerned with the South's "Feelings" about the war than actually imposing our war goals. So the South instituted Jim Crow and put up statues to the traitors and slave owners. Not to mention the various outbreaks of Klan activity.

"Revisionists" were people who realized, hey, maybe black people had feelings about the war, and its aftermath.

Naw, dude, there's only so much of your batshit crazy I can read in one sitting.

The fact is, after years of indecisively fighting in VA, Lincoln finally had the good sense to sack McClellan and replace him with Grant, because Grant was a fighter!!!

Then McClellan threw a hissy, ran for President in 1864 on a Surrender Monkey platform, and got thoroughly trounced. (I think he carried three states.)

You typed all that for nothing. I long since stopped taking you seriously. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Anyone who gets on a public forum and says that Hitler wasn't the problem, that there's a Zionist conspiracy to control the world, that Stalin and Mao were good leaders all things considered, that Stalin "only" killed "a few million" people to consolidate this power, that Mao did not kill tens of millions of Chinese, that there would have been no wars in the Middle East if Israel had not been established, that "you guess" ("I guess") the Holocaust was bad, that the Nazis had good reasons for hating the Jews, that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI, that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War, that Jews somehow altered the transcripts of the Navy Court of Inquiry on the Liberty incident, that Israel was to blame for the Six-Day War, that Mao was less tyrannical than Chiang Kai-shek, that there was no such thing as "Free China," that the people in Red China were freer and better off than the people in Free China, etc., etc.--anyone who makes such ludicrous statements is unserious and fringe.

 

[Quantrill]

Try googling emancipation proclamation and select the link to the national archives. It will take you right there.

Or maybe just read the emancipation proclamation. Or google, "did Lincoln allow states to keep their slaves if they put down their arms?"

It's hilarious that you didn't know Lincoln allowed states to keep their slaves if they put down their arms. How can you be so ignorant about something you have such strong feelings about?

I know what the emancipation says. And it didn't free one damn slave. The so-called preliminary Emancipation was a joke. Why should the South believe Lincoln when he was a liar from the start. Sure...lay down your arms and you can keep your slaves. Said by the same man that said the Union will be either all slave or all free. A liar.

Quantrill

 

[The Duke]

What tyranny? LMAO
He raped the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. He suspended habeas corpus. He ignored supreme court rulings (dont forget you are supposed to be against that)
He restricted speech, he jailed journalists, arrested people with no warrant, no due process, shut down newspapers, used military tribunals to try civilians, etc. Oh, and lets not forget how after the war, he sent his henchman sherman to burn down widows and their childrens farms.

I'm with TNH on this, and I'd stand by him against the TVA, too. Them cocksuckers!
Okay, so I've had Tennessee friends.
Not a good idea to mention TVA around them.
Lincoln violated the holy bejeebus out of The Constitution.
And I learned about Sherman from a 90-year old coal black woman in Georgia who told me all about it who would say "damn yankees" and spit when she did.
She was sitting outside a General Store, and that happened. I think she had real snuff, too.
I was a kid. Black Georgia people are not fans of Sherman, from what I understand.
Well, that particular woman certainly wasn't.
I remember she was doing real snuff, the fine, fine kind. In like a little can.
Like a G.I. dental floss can. And did not like "damn yankees" or Sherman.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I'm with TNH on this, and I'd stand by him against the TVA, too. Them cocksuckers!
Okay, so I've had Tennessee friends.
Not a good idea to mention TVA around them.
Lincoln violated the holy bejeebus out of The Constitution.
And I learned about Sherman from a 90-year old coal black woman in Georgia who told me all about it who would say "damn yankees" and spit when she did.
She was sitting outside a General Store, and that happened. I think she had real snuff, too.
I was a kid. Black Georgia people are not fans of Sherman, from what I understand.
Well, that particular woman certainly wasn't.
I remember she was doing real snuff, the fine, fine kind. In like a little can.
Like a G.I. dental floss can. And did not like "damn yankees" or Sherman.

I was more interested in the logistics of it all. Moving troops from here to there, and given the overwhelming (to me) size of the country, with trails and forests to overcome. Not paved roads and modes of transport, like today.

But there was the railroad. I went to Manassas, where the train runs through, to learn how soldiers were transported around. The guy at the visitor centre said some of them fought with their bare feet.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm with TNH on this, and I'd stand by him against the TVA, too. Them cocksuckers!
Okay, so I've had Tennessee friends.
Not a good idea to mention TVA around them.
Lincoln violated the holy bejeebus out of The Constitution.
And I learned about Sherman from a 90-year old coal black woman in Georgia who told me all about it who would say "damn yankees" and spit when she did.
She was sitting outside a General Store, and that happened. I think she had real snuff, too.
I was a kid. Black Georgia people are not fans of Sherman, from what I understand.
Well, that particular woman certainly wasn't.
I remember she was doing real snuff, the fine, fine kind. In like a little can.
Like a G.I. dental floss can. And did not like "damn yankees" or Sherman.

And damnyankee was one word.

Quantrill

 

[The Duke]

And damnyankee was one word.

Quantrill

Oh yeah. It was "damnyankees", then spit with that woman.
She didn't like it. She was Southern, from Georgia.
I'm not, I'm a FL Cracker. Was not really prepared for what she had to say that day.
Was like 10 years old.
We were taught Lincoln was good in school. Her opinion was vastly different.
And then some!
She mentioned "Sherman" a lot, too. She was telling it like she felt it was.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, lincoln offered them a constitutional amendment that would legalize slavery forever. Your view of lincoln and his actions are so ignroant!
The south fired because the us govt was trespassing.
Look, I get your knowledge of this doesnt go past a 2nd grade social studies book. You make that obvious.. but damn... You are a grown man smh.

Actually, I have a bachelors of history from the University of Illinois. This kind of silly "revisionism" wouldn't pass a laugh test.

The South started shooting before Lincoln was even sworn in. (Because, again, Buchanan was kind of a feckless twit.)

There's a reason why Lincoln is rated first in most surveys of historians, while Buchanan usually ends up at the bottom.

(Then of course, given his relationship with Rufus King, Buchanan probably was a "bottom".)

 

[JoeB131]

You typed all that for nothing. I long since stopped taking you seriously. You have no clue what you're talking about.

I know, I don't expect a serious discussion from you... I'm just happy to point out your crackpottery.

Anyone who gets on a public forum

Well, it;s clear you didn't understand any of the points I was trying to make, so no point rehashing them.

But when you say shit like the Rape of Nanking wasn't that bad, or that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor, or that Chiang was a good leader (something even Modern Taiwanese no longer think)

I would suggest you open your horizons to consider non-American sources of information, instead of whatever John Birch crap you dug up.

 

[TNHarley]

Actually, I have a bachelors of history from the University of Illinois. This kind of silly "revisionism" wouldn't pass a laugh test.

The South started shooting before Lincoln was even sworn in. (Because, again, Buchanan was kind of a feckless twit.)

There's a reason why Lincoln is rated first in most surveys of historians, while Buchanan usually ends up at the bottom.

(Then of course, given his relationship with Rufus King, Buchanan probably was a "bottom".)

 

[mikegriffith1]

I know what the emancipation says. And it didn't free one damn slave. The so-called preliminary Emancipation was a joke. Why should the South believe Lincoln when he was a liar from the start. Sure...lay down your arms and you can keep your slaves. Said by the same man that said the Union will be either all slave or all free. A liar.

Quantrill

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation freed thousands of Southern slaves.

Regarding "either all slave or all free," here is what Lincoln actually said:

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

You really should read David Donald's books on Lincoln, especially Lincoln Reconsidered. Lincoln was no tyrant and no radical. Lincoln's lenient, merciful Reconstruction terms enraged the Radical Republicans.

Regarding McClellan, we must understand that because he opposed brutal warfare and was a Democrat, not to mention that he ran against Lincoln in the 1864 election, the Republicans attacked him with vitriolic propaganda, especially the Radical Republicans. The portrayal of McClellan found in most history books is a carbon copy of the Radical Republican attacks on McClellan during and after the war.

Until the 1970s, there were plenty of historians who defended McClellan's record and answered his critics. Starting in the early 2000s, a growing number of historians once again began to challenge the traditional portrayal of McClellan as a dawdling, timid general. One of the best defenses of McClellan is Dr. Ethan Rafuse's 2005 book McClellan's War. Dr. Rafuse refutes every criticism of McClellan point by point. BTW, Dr. Rafuse is a professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

I address every major attack on McClellan in my online article Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan. None other than Robert E. Lee said that McClellan "by all odds" was the best Union general he fought against during the war.

 

[TNHarley]

the Emancipation Proclamation freed thousands of Southern slaves.

No it didnt. Those states SECEDED. He had no authority over them.

 

[JoeB131]

Regarding McClellan, we must understand that because he opposed brutal warfare and was a Democrat, not to mention that he ran against Lincoln in the 1864 election, the Republicans attacked him with vitriolic propaganda, especially the Radical Republicans. The portrayal of McClellan found in most history books is a carbon copy of the Radical Republican attacks on McClellan during and after the war.

Um, if he was against brutal warfare, maybe he should have found something else to do for a living.

The Great Generals - Grant, Jackson, Patton - were the ones who weren't afraid to take the fight to the enemy.

Point was, he had OVERWHELMING advantages over Lee in the field, and never pressed them.

If we had a real general in charge, the war probably would have been over by 1862.

 

[Quantrill]

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation freed thousands of Southern slaves.

Regarding "either all slave or all free," here is what Lincoln actually said:

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

You really should read David Donald's books on Lincoln, especially Lincoln Reconsidered. Lincoln was no tyrant and no radical. Lincoln's lenient, merciful Reconstruction terms enraged the Radical Republicans.

Regarding McClellan, we must understand that because he opposed brutal warfare and was a Democrat, not to mention that he ran against Lincoln in the 1864 election, the Republicans attacked him with vitriolic propaganda, especially the Radical Republicans. The portrayal of McClellan found in most history books is a carbon copy of the Radical Republican attacks on McClellan during and after the war.

Until the 1970s, there were plenty of historians who defended McClellan's record and answered his critics. Starting in the early 2000s, a growing number of historians once again began to challenge the traditional portrayal of McClellan as a dawdling, timid general. One of the best defenses of McClellan is Dr. Ethan Rafuse's 2005 book McClellan's War. Dr. Rafuse refutes every criticism of McClellan point by point. BTW, Dr. Rafuse is a professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

I address every major attack on McClellan in my online article Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan. None other than Robert E. Lee said that McClellan "by all odds" was the best Union general he fought against during the war.

No, the Emancipation didn't free one damn slave. Read it. First of all Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves. They just presented a problem to him. The Emancipation was a war measure, not a humanitarian one. Lincoln hoped to encourage the slaves, just like the murderer John Brown hoped, to rise up and slaughter their white slave owners.

When you read it you will see it only pertained to slaves in Confederate held states and territory. There were plenty of slaves in the North still, and the North by 1863 had taken over much of the South where slaves still existed. They were not freed because they were no longer in Confederate held territory.

So, you see, the Emancipation was total Lincoln bullshit. The slaves he had power to free, those in Yankee States and territories, he refused to free. Those he had no power to free, in Confederate States, he declared free.

The 13th amendment freed the slaves after the Yankee war, and after the Constitution was changed.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

No it didnt. Those states SECEDED. He had no authority over them.

Exactly right.

Quantrill

 

[TNHarley]

No, the Emancipation didn't free one damn slave. Read it. First of all Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves. They just presented a problem to him. The Emancipation was a war measure, not a humanitarian one. Lincoln hope to encourage the slaves, just like the murderer John Brown hoped, to rise up and slaughter their white slave owners.

When you read it you will see it only pertained to slaves in Confederate held states territory. There were plenty of slaves in the North still, and the North by 1863 had taken over much of the South where slaves still existed. They were not freed because they were no longer in Confederate held territory.

So, you see, the Emancipation was total Lincoln bullshit. The slaves he had power to free, those in Yankee States and territories, he refused to free. Those he had no power to free, in Confederate States, he declared free.

The 13th amendment freed the slaves after the Yankee war, and after the Constitution was changed.

Quantrill

The EP was basically propaganda for other countries to back the north, instead of the south, by making it seem like it was about slavery.

 

[Quantrill]

The EP was basically propaganda for other countries to back the north, instead of the south, by making it seem like it was about slavery.

And the Emancipation Proclamation contributed to the NYC draft riots where those self righteous white Yankees killed over a hundred blacks by hangings and various other means.

Why? Because they didn't want to go to war to free slaves. They would go to war over secession.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Regarding "either all slave or all free," here is what Lincoln actually said:

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

You really should read David Donald's books on Lincoln, especially Lincoln Reconsidered. Lincoln was no tyrant and no radical. Lincoln's lenient, merciful Reconstruction terms enraged the Radical Republicans.

Here is what Lincoln said in his famous 'House Divided Speech' in 1858. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." (Annals Of America, Vol. 9, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2003, p. 1)

Couple that with William Seward's speech of 'Irrepressible Conflict', also in 1858. In it he is addressing slave labor and free labor. "The two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous. But they are more than incongruous--they are incompatible" (Annals, Vol. 9 p. 33)

"Thus these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what this collision means?....It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." (Annals, Vol. 9 p. 33)

And, Lincoln appointed Seward as his Secretary of State. And, Seward was a radical abolitionist. Doesn't take much to read the writing on the wall what they planned.

Lincoln moved which ever way the weathercock pointed. He lied continually. Once the war was won, that would mean he had the power to do whatever he wanted to the South. And his character didn't evidence anything good. Since 1865 the nation has been fed Lincoln bullshit. But once you look into the actual records, a different Lincoln appears.

Lincoln encouraged total warfare against the Southern citizenry. What a peach. And you think he had anything good in mind for the Southern people?

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Dude [JoeB131], lincoln offered them a constitutional amendment that would legalize slavery forever. Your view of lincoln and his actions are so ignroant!
The south fired because the us govt was trespassing.
Look, I get your knowledge of this doesnt go past a 2nd grade social studies book. You make that obvious.. but damn... You are a grown man smh.

I'm really not even sure JoeB131 is a grown man, but he is indeed ignorant on virtually every issue he tries to discuss. He's also a vile anti-Semite who defends Hamas, whitewashes Nazi hatred of Jews, praises Mao and Stalin, and once famously said "Hitler wasn't the problem" while repeating the Nazi myth that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI. On most forums, he would have been banned long ago.

Anyway, the decision to fire on Fort Sumter was a terrible blunder that played right into the hands of the Radical Republicans and made a peaceful accommodation impossible. An infinitely wiser move would have been to let the feds resupply the Fort Sumter garrison. For that matter, if the Confederates had not foolishly cut off food shipments to the garrison, the feds would have had no excuse for sending food in the first place.

Was the federal garrison on Fort Sumter "trespassing"? That all depends on one's view of the validity of the Deep South's secession. Secession was a rash, unjustified action. Lincoln posed no threat to Southern slavery. After the 1860 election, the South still retained control of the Senate, so they could have blocked any legislation they deemed unacceptable. The Deep South states had a constitutional duty to honor the election results.

We need to keep in mind that secession occurred in two stages. The seven Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy. The four Upper South states rejected secession and remained in the Union. They only joined the Confederacy later, after the Fort Sumter attack and after Lincoln announced he would be sending a federal army into the seceded states.