A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
May 4, 2010 9:29am
July of next year (2011) will be the 150th anniversary of Bull Run.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I also agree that skipping over the War of 1812 for the spread out west wasn't the best choice. The episode last night was alright, but not as good as the first one.
The Civil War one next is going to be great. Also, we are coming up, in July, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bull Run (Manassas)
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
May 4, 2010 9:31am
Ahh, thanks. I can't do math haha. I've read all the talk about how Virginia, DC and MD are going to honor the 150th anniversary and jumped the gun.Al Bundy wrote:July of next year (2011) will be the 150th anniversary of Bull Run.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I also agree that skipping over the War of 1812 for the spread out west wasn't the best choice. The episode last night was alright, but not as good as the first one.
The Civil War one next is going to be great. Also, we are coming up, in July, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bull Run (Manassas)
B
bman618
Posts: 151
May 4, 2010 5:52pm
I think Ohio should have been mentioned in the westward expansion. It was the first California of the country with explosion in population for good farming land with a good measure of waterways.
Skipping the War of 1812 was bad. It could be considered a second War of Independence as American rights on the high seas were being grossly violated.
They made the war for Texan independence seem like a racial conflict when Texas was one of several areas of Mexico to rebel against the change in Mexican constitutional law and the military dictatorship. There were Texans of Mexican heritage that fought for Texas independence.
They needed to touch on the Mexican-American War more than just showing the territory the U.S. won. There was a divide in America about rather to fight the war, and additional lands for slavery was also a concern of some. Calling Mexico a superpower was laughable. Neither country was a superpower.
I imagine they were trying to show how bad the travel west could be with the Donner example, but it was given too much time.
I did like how they touched on technogical innovations, and how important the Erie Canal was. Also gave some good details about Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that were interesting.
Skipping the War of 1812 was bad. It could be considered a second War of Independence as American rights on the high seas were being grossly violated.
They made the war for Texan independence seem like a racial conflict when Texas was one of several areas of Mexico to rebel against the change in Mexican constitutional law and the military dictatorship. There were Texans of Mexican heritage that fought for Texas independence.
They needed to touch on the Mexican-American War more than just showing the territory the U.S. won. There was a divide in America about rather to fight the war, and additional lands for slavery was also a concern of some. Calling Mexico a superpower was laughable. Neither country was a superpower.
I imagine they were trying to show how bad the travel west could be with the Donner example, but it was given too much time.
I did like how they touched on technogical innovations, and how important the Erie Canal was. Also gave some good details about Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that were interesting.
B
bman618
Posts: 151
May 4, 2010 5:56pm
The south seceeded to preserve slavery and rights to expand it first and foremost. States' rights was a significant issue but was connected to slavery. I'd also mention that there had been a history of tariffs that the south thought was unfair to it that played a factor.
The north fought the war initially not to free one slave but to preserve the union. This is often brushed aside by history but the episode did touch on it. Getting the morale high ground and keeping Europeans out of the war were reasons to expand the war to slavery in 1863.
I also don't care for the politicans and celebrities. Give me historicans and military experts about military affairs. Hearing Newt or Rudy talk about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is a big laugh.
The north fought the war initially not to free one slave but to preserve the union. This is often brushed aside by history but the episode did touch on it. Getting the morale high ground and keeping Europeans out of the war were reasons to expand the war to slavery in 1863.
I also don't care for the politicans and celebrities. Give me historicans and military experts about military affairs. Hearing Newt or Rudy talk about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is a big laugh.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
May 5, 2010 2:28am
ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I've taken several courses on the Civil War and while states rights and the encroachment of federal power were factors, the fact was in the states where slave labor was dominate, they saw the election of Lincoln as the removal of slavery.
Quite true of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi & Louisianna. Texas I would place in a slightly different light. Their motives were similar to the aforementioned states, yet their citizens had other motivations that I think affected their decision. They were a member of the union for just over 15yrs at the time. Some Texans who voted to secede did not want to join the confederacy but to resume the independent republic of Texas. In the end the majority chose to join the confederacy.
Those in the federal government opposed to the institution of slavery were using the federal government to push economic policies as punitive measures against those states that legally allowed slavery. For some using federal power to thwart slavery it was born out of the belief that slavery was an immoral practice (SC actually cites this in their declaration of secession stating "they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery") , for others it was because they believed slave labor gave certain states an economic advantage over others.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: The threat of the loss of slavery and the economic impact of that led to South Carolina to secede. Yes, they framed it in a legal, oppressive federal power way, but it was to maintain slavery-the main economic engine of the region.
If your interested and have the time read SC's declaration of secession. It is quite telling as to the issue they perceived the federal government was infringing on their sovereignty. Clearly they perceived it was their right to enslave their fellow man for economic advantage.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Here is were I believe we disagree somewhat (you can clarify if my assumption is wrong). You can not lump the whole "south" into one basket. Each state had its motives for secession. The states I mentioned above were mostly motivated by the economic impact that they feared the abolition of slavery would bring. Believing they alone had the sovereign right to determine the morality of slavery as an economic toolptown_trojans_1 wrote: There were other reasons as well the South ceded, but the main one was their view that Lincoln and the federal government would come in and take away their main way of life-slavery.
Yes, the war was to preserve the Union and not slavery, but for the South, it was to preserve the institution of slavery. The North fought to keep the Union yes, then slavery later. The South fought to keep slavery and their economic model.
The states of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee did not vote for secession until they saw that Lincoln was ready to use the force of arms to prevent those states declaring secession from the union from leaving it. For these states their primary motive was not to defend the institution of slavery, but to adhere to the constitution and the sovereignty of the states. They were unwilling to allow the force of arms to enforce the will of the federal government on fellow sovereign states.
John Letcher, the governor of Virginia during the civil war, who was not in favor of secession, responded to the secretary the of war's request for Virginian troops to serve in the federal governments force to compel the states in secession back into the union by force of arms with this proclamation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/news/gov-letcher-s-proclamation-his-reply-secretary-cameron-state-affairs-norfolk.html?pagewanted=1The following is the proclamation of Gov. LETCHER, of Virginia:
Whereas, Seven of the States formerly composing a part of the United States have, by authority of their people, solemnly resumed the powers granted by them to the United States, and have framed a Constitution and organized a Government for themselves, to which the people of those States are yielding willing obedience, and have so notified the President of the United States by all the formalities incident to such action, and thereby become to the United States a separate, independent and foreign power; and whereas, the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power "to declare war," and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy, with almost equal unanimity; and whereas, the State of Virginia deeply sympathizes with the Southern States in the wrongs they have suffered, and in the position they have assumed; and having made earnest efforts peaceably to compose the differences which have severed the Union, and having failed in that attempt, through this unwarranted act on the part of the President; and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled. Therefore I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have thought proper to order all armed volunteer regiments or companies within this State forthwith to hold themselves in readiness for immediate orders, and upon the reception of this proclamation to report to the Adjutant-General of the State their organization and numbers, and prepare themselves for efficient service. Such companies as are not armed and equipped will report that fact, that they may be properly supplied.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, this 17th day of April, 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth.
JOHN LETCHER.
To the dispatch from the War Department, Gov. LETCHER made this reply:
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.RICHMOND, Va., April 16, 1861.
HON. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time (have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota designated in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged."
In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object -- an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 -- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South. Respectfully,
JOHN LETCHER.
The Philadelphia Ledger publishes the appended extracts from a private letter received in that city:
PORTSMOUTH, Va., Tuesday April 16, 1861.
We are imperiled here. There have been traitors detected in Old Point Fortress, who have arranged to betray it when on night guard. Were I not fearful of interception of the letter. I should like to communicate the facts to Gen. CAMERON, Secretary of War.
Our river channel is to be blocked up just below the Navy yard, to prevent any more Government vessels leaving. Old hulks have been bought for the purpose. There is no Government force here to prevent it. Virginia will secede, that is, revolutionize; I have no question of it. Force was last night openly threatened to secure it.
My arrangements are progressing for a prolonged absence from this place, unless some blessed change occurs. Look out for a bloody battle before Washington, D.C., or between that city and Philadelphia JEFF. DAVIS desires to revenge the South on Northern cities, in view of their blockaded ports. Swiftness of concentration is the success of the war. The South are more ready than the North. They are all trained to fighting, and they love it. May Heaven avert the strife!
P. S. -- The attempt to sink a vessel, last night, in the Navy Yard channel, failed. The Government are now informed of these traitorous projects, it is supposed, and will prevent them.
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
May 5, 2010 9:57am
To add to major's points here, the only reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation was so France and Britain couldn't join the South and help them fight the war. The idea that Lincoln cared about ending slavery is such a lie, in order to preserve the union he would have allowed the Southern states to keep their slaves. Hell, the amendment to end slavery didn't even happen on Lincoln's term he cared about ending it so much.
And P-town, was slavery a part of the reason for secession, for some of the states yes. But for many of the Southern States it was about sovereignty and the fact that the Federal government has over extended it's power, something that has continuously happened in America since Lincoln. Are you saying Lincoln did the right thing? Anyone that causes 600,000+ dead Americans, all because of a peaceful parting of ways, deserves all the criticism he gets IMO. I think you just spewed what you learned in school, and schools have historically gotten the facts wrong when it comes to history. Anything for a good story. Lincoln was a tyrant, plain and simple, possibly the worst we've ever had as President of this great nation. The fact that he is called "The Great Liberator" is about as comical as it gets.
And P-town, was slavery a part of the reason for secession, for some of the states yes. But for many of the Southern States it was about sovereignty and the fact that the Federal government has over extended it's power, something that has continuously happened in America since Lincoln. Are you saying Lincoln did the right thing? Anyone that causes 600,000+ dead Americans, all because of a peaceful parting of ways, deserves all the criticism he gets IMO. I think you just spewed what you learned in school, and schools have historically gotten the facts wrong when it comes to history. Anything for a good story. Lincoln was a tyrant, plain and simple, possibly the worst we've ever had as President of this great nation. The fact that he is called "The Great Liberator" is about as comical as it gets.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
May 5, 2010 10:07am
In regards to this discussion, even as appalling as it might sound, without the 14th Amendment, to me these Southern States may have had a case in my opinion that their Sovereignty was being encroached by impending federal removal of slavery. Because ultimately, If the ultimate Sovereign of the United States together can not pierce the Veil of a single State to prohibit encroachment on a citizen of the Union's guaranteed rights in the Union's Constitution, our federalism is a ruse. Hence, why the Civil War was so important because it created a world wherein the citizens could not only be protected from the federal government but from their state and local governments as well.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
May 6, 2010 2:09pm
Those 600,000 people wish they were protected from the federal government.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
May 9, 2010 8:52pm
New episodes tonight at 9. Looks like the topic is the civil war. Could be epic
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
May 9, 2010 8:59pm
Looking forward to tonight
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 9, 2010 9:00pm
Whoa there Bigmant...you're history books are also flawed. There were many reasons for the Civil War. The south's entire economy was fueled and was operated under slavery. Say what you want, but slavery was a key component in the Civil War commencing.bigmanbt wrote: To add to major's points here, the only reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation was so France and Britain couldn't join the South and help them fight the war. The idea that Lincoln cared about ending slavery is such a lie, in order to preserve the union he would have allowed the Southern states to keep their slaves. Hell, the amendment to end slavery didn't even happen on Lincoln's term he cared about ending it so much.
And P-town, was slavery a part of the reason for secession, for some of the states yes. But for many of the Southern States it was about sovereignty and the fact that the Federal government has over extended it's power, something that has continuously happened in America since Lincoln. Are you saying Lincoln did the right thing? Anyone that causes 600,000+ dead Americans, all because of a peaceful parting of ways, deserves all the criticism he gets IMO. I think you just spewed what you learned in school, and schools have historically gotten the facts wrong when it comes to history. Anything for a good story. Lincoln was a tyrant, plain and simple, possibly the worst we've ever had as President of this great nation. The fact that he is called "The Great Liberator" is about as comical as it gets.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
May 9, 2010 9:21pm
I'm enjoying how they are focusing in the logistics and industrial might that the North possessed over the South.
Some of this stuff, besides the battlefield is really interesting.
In my Civil War course at OSU, we spent several weeks on the backstories of the war. Really interesting.
Some of this stuff, besides the battlefield is really interesting.
In my Civil War course at OSU, we spent several weeks on the backstories of the war. Really interesting.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
May 10, 2010 10:46am
I caught bits and pieces of it. I saw the part where a family moved to Nebraska and they were dirt poor living in a mud hut, but they were happier than ever because every little bit that they had was theirs and they didn't have to give half of it away (to their landlord). Just imagine if those people lived today and they had to give away half of what they earned just in taxes alone. They are probably rolling over in their graves.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
May 10, 2010 10:53am
The same people today would have just stayed back east and collected a check from the government.Cleveland Buck wrote: I caught bits and pieces of it. I saw the part where a family moved to Nebraska and they were dirt poor living in a mud hut, but they were happier than ever because every little bit that they had was theirs and they didn't have to give half of it away (to their landlord). Just imagine if those people lived today and they had to give away half of what they earned just in taxes alone. They are probably rolling over in their graves.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
May 10, 2010 1:17pm
The smart ones would have paid the $10.00 filing fee to the government and got cheep land. Wait, that's what happened!Al Bundy wrote:The same people today would have just stayed back east and collected a check from the government.Cleveland Buck wrote: I caught bits and pieces of it. I saw the part where a family moved to Nebraska and they were dirt poor living in a mud hut, but they were happier than ever because every little bit that they had was theirs and they didn't have to give half of it away (to their landlord). Just imagine if those people lived today and they had to give away half of what they earned just in taxes alone. They are probably rolling over in their graves.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
May 10, 2010 1:27pm
No one is debating that. We are just pointing out ways the government has changed for the worse in the last 130 years or so. Back then, you were given incentive to work. Today, because of taxes and handouts with no work involved, there is very little incentive for many people to work.Bigdogg wrote:The smart ones would have paid the $10.00 filing fee to the government and got cheep land. Wait, that's what happened!Al Bundy wrote:The same people today would have just stayed back east and collected a check from the government.Cleveland Buck wrote: I caught bits and pieces of it. I saw the part where a family moved to Nebraska and they were dirt poor living in a mud hut, but they were happier than ever because every little bit that they had was theirs and they didn't have to give half of it away (to their landlord). Just imagine if those people lived today and they had to give away half of what they earned just in taxes alone. They are probably rolling over in their graves.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
May 10, 2010 1:39pm
I was mainly pointing out how the mindset of the average American has changed over the last 130 years. Back then, they were happy working hard and earning what they could get as long as they got to keep what they earned. That is pretty much the opposite of the mindset today.