Was the Civil War Stupid? The Revolutionary War?

[DGS49]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

 

[Dante]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

I've long posited that the American revolution was unnecessary as change was coming and the rebels actually had allies back in Great Britain who were arguing their case

Canad, Australia...English speaking anglo nations got things without bloodshed

 

[Dante]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

and you couldn't be any more wrong about the American Civil War if you were to try

 

[Mack The Finger]

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

What are you smoking weed or something...maybe a little JD and Pepsi ?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

All wars are stupid. Ther, you have your answer. [/thread]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming idiocy.

 

[ozro]

All wars are stupid. Ther, you have your answer. [/thread]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming idiocy.

Surely you aren't trying to say this op a is a special kind of stupid?

 

[Mack The Finger]

​

 

[AZrailwhale]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

The Confederacy didn’t think the free states would fight. Their thinking was just as irrational as the Japanese’s thinking was in 1941. Neither nation had the industrial capacity to win a long war, but ignored that believing that elan could defeat material and technological superiority.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

Just for historical context. When the southern states seceded, the north under Lincoln didn't go charging in. The south formed their own armies, a mistake on their part since each southern state wanted control of their own forces, so they had no central command. Once they quickly formed their own armies, a "southern" army attacked a union fort, Fort Sumter. The north didn't attack first.
The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party, which the Democrat Party objected to. Lincoln had a Democrat, Andrew Johnson be his running mate in an effort to promote and maintain unity. A mistake, because after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson, returned the "good ole boys" in the south, back in power.
The war was definitely about slavery. It was the economics of slavery. The leaders in the south during the war, including senior officers, were slave holders. It didn't have to be a large number who were actual slave holders. There were blacks in the south who had slaves and they sided with the Confederacy. The low income whites who fought for the south, did so because they were told that the north (Yankees) were coming to take their land. Had they not seceded, they would have lost one major thing, the buying and selling of human beings as if they were livestock.
Slavery ended in Mexico in 1829 as they recognized its evil, England followed in 1838, France in 1858 and of course, the US in 1865. The last nation to end slavery (at least on paper) was Mauritania in 1981. Prior to those years, it was a worldwide scourge, and the white Europeans weren't the first to start it. It began millenniums ago. Even whites became slaves in Islamic nations. It was what it was.
Should we have separated from England? Yes. If we were still part of England, we would be a failing nation, as England is now.

 

[ozro]

Just for historical context. When the southern states seceded, the north under Lincoln didn't go charging in. The south formed their own armies, a mistake on their part since each southern state wanted control of their own forces, so they had no central command. Once they quickly formed their own armies, a "southern" army attacked a union fort, Fort Sumter. The north didn't attack first.
The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party, which the Democrat Party objected to. Lincoln had a Democrat, Andrew Johnson be his running mate in an effort to promote and maintain unity. A mistake, because after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson, returned the "good ole boys" in the south, back in power.
The war was definitely about slavery. It was the economics of slavery. The leaders in the south during the war, including senior officers, were slave holders. It didn't have to be a large number who were actual slave holders. There were blacks in the south who had slaves and they sided with the Confederacy. The low income whites who fought for the south, did so because they were told that the north (Yankees) were coming to take their land. Had they not seceded, they would have lost one major thing, the buying and selling of human beings as if they were livestock.
Slavery ended in Mexico in 1929 as they recognized its evil, England followed in 1938, France in 1958 and of course, the US in 1965. The last nation to end slavery (at least on paper) was Mauritania in 1981. Prior to those years, it was a worldwide scourge, and the white Europeans weren't the first to start it. It began millenniums ago. Even whites became slaves in Islamic nations. It was what it was.
Should we have separated from England? Yes. If we were still part of England, we would be a failing nation, as England is now.

Check your dates friend

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Check your dates friend

Thanks. I clearly goofed on which century. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. At least I was correct on the Mauritania year.

 

[ozro]

Thanks. I clearly goofed on which century. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. At least I was correct on the Mauritania year.

I understand. It may be hard to believe but sometimes I make mistakes myself.
Ok, I just said that to make you feel better. I obviously never make mistakes.

 

[JoeB131]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

I think you misunderstand why most Southern Whites fought for the "Peculiar Institution".

It wasn't because they owned a slave, it's because they didn't want to equally compete with black men for work, and they didn't want black men dating their sisters.

 

[JoeB131]

The Confederacy didn’t think the free states would fight. Their thinking was just as irrational as the Japanese’s thinking was in 1941. Neither nation had the industrial capacity to win a long war, but ignored that believing that elan could defeat material and technological superiority.

Well, no one ever expects a long war.

The Japanese thought they could employ the same strategy they had used in their war against Russia in 1905.

Have a dastardly sneak attack (Port Arthur/Pearl Harbor)

Engage the enemy fleet in a decisive battle (Tsuhima Straight/Midway)

Wait for the enemy populace to tire of the war and sue for peace.

This worked fine against Russia because the Russian people weren't particularly fond of the Tsar at that point, anyway.

 

[Zincwarrior]

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid.

Thread win.

 

[BothWings]

I've long posited that the American revolution was unnecessary as change was coming and the rebels actually had allies back in Great Britain who were arguing their case

Canad, Australia...English speaking anglo nations got things without bloodshed

Those other English speaking nations are far more like Britain today than we are. They kept sucking English willy for 200 years after that. And it shows.

After 1812, England should have been blown off the map and Ireland and Scotland should have been liberated from their control. And certainly poor India too.

And the truth is, there was/is a circle of phonies within our government who also kept sucking that English willy, just less so than Australia and Canada.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I think you misunderstand why most Southern Whites fought for the "Peculiar Institution".

It wasn't because they owned a slave, it's because they didn't want to equally compete with black men for work, and they didn't want black men dating their sisters.

No, most fought because they were drafted.

 

[JohnDB]

Most wars are the result of one regime invading and trying to take over another, such as we have today in Ukraine. The attacked country is certainly justified in trying to fight off the invading forces, and perhaps even more.

But the U.S. Civil War was stupid. A bunch of states decided to break away from the original country. Nothing in law or the Constitution prohibited such an action. And the fight to force the seceding states to remain cost three-quarter million lives, both sides combined. ******* insane, if you ask me. Surely, mature adults on the two sides could have come up with a solution short of mass casualties and incalculable cost.

For those who believe that the war was fought to end slavery, I would only point out that only a tiny fraction of the combatants owned slaves, and the northerners of common stock would have mutinied massively if they had been told early on that they were fighting to free the slaves.

The civil war in truth was a result of Corporations getting too much economic influence in our government and over the Southern states.
The Southern states were producing more and more raw materials but getting less and less for them without any means to escape the economic oppression of the Northern corporations. And what is worse is that our Federal tax dollars gave northern corporations grants for business development.....

90% of the shipping was controlled by these same corporations who would refuse to ship the southern materials of cotton, tobacco, corn, sugar, and molasses (rum/distilled spirits)

The slave labor was the South's only recourse to try and survive economically. Not that they enjoyed the situation.....they would have preferred machines to do the labor intensive work and ONLY after the war were any tax dollars in grants used to create the machines needed to reduce the labor needed for agricultural production.

The South had the support of the best military minds....without a doubt. (Which is why military bases are named after Southern Generals....no other reason) The Northern Generals were mostly suck ups with pedigrees and wealthy families instead of real experience and knowledge.

The lack of a Navy and lack of industrialization was the downfall of the South. The South literally ran out of gunpowder and bullets....not the will to fight. Sherman's March was literally the worst and never really helped the North.

After the War....things got worse. Roaming bands of pirates killed, raped, and destroyed more than the war did. The soldiers imprisoned at Andersonville made a mess everywhere they went....enraged by PTSD, desperation, and starvation.

 

[Dante]

Those other English speaking nations are far more like Britain today than we are. They kept sucking English willy for 200 years after that. And it shows.

After 1812, England should have been blown off the map and Ireland and Scotland should have been liberated from their control. And certainly poor India too.

And the truth is, there was/is a circle of phonies within our government who also kept sucking that English willy, just less so than Australia and Canada.

please go away

troll elsewhere

 

[BothWings]

please go away

troll elsewhere

That IS my opinion.
Right back at ya,.troll.