American Civil War Buffs

[rklenseth]

The "Red Badge of Courage" was civil war time period right?

Anyway that was good one.

Yes, it is. It actually of the Battle of Chancellorsville. It was written by a man who wasn't even born until after the war but many of the veterans thought that after reading his book that he was a veteran himself. He did, as a journalist, go to Cuba during the Spanish-American War and went around with the Rough Riders. He died young I believe but I can't remember how he died though.

[rklenseth]

On the subject of good Civil War period books, The Guns of the South is a good book that I'm reading right now. It's alternate history, but I still learned a lot of things about the Civil War that I didn't know before reading it.

The alterante history Civil War books are good. "The Guns of the South" was written by Turtledove, right? Is that the one where the Confederates somehow get AK-47's and are able to slaughter the Union Armies? Some of them are just really wierd though.

My favorite Civil War book is "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. That's a great book and the movie based on it, "Gettysburg", was also a great movie.

[rklenseth]

I have to disagree with you. I don't believe your interpretation of the constitution is the correct one. The debate continues between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. There are always more sides to the story, but I would rather not argue them here.

This link will take you to an essay about Lincoln. You may find enlightening or maybe not make sure you follow the reference links too.

http://www.lneilsmith.com/abelenin.html

The essay has some flawed points but you can bring up dirt on anyone if you really tried. Personally, I think Lincoln did the right thing to preserve the Union. I am also against slavery and even though that isn't why the war was fought or the cause of it, I think it was an eventual end anyways to that war. It's almost ironic that the South would fight for their so called 'freedoms and rights' when they denied even the most universal freedom and rights to a people they kept in the bondage of slavery. If you want to bring up dirt on Lincoln then just as much dirt can be dug up on those that fought for the South and who were preserving the 'State's Right'. I would highly suggest that you read the four volume biography on "Abraham Lincoln" by Carl Sandburg. He write a very unbiased biography on the man and doesn't really give his opinion but does add in the opinions of all the sides involved with this man. It's a great biography and I think the best out there.

Agree with me or not that is how the Constitution is interpreted today and that is how the writers of the Constitution wanted but then again you could dig up dirt on them too. There was a special on the History Channel not to long ago that was like a biography of the Founding Fathers and dug up that dirt. Like I said, you can dig up dirt on anyone if you try hard enough.

[rklenseth]

I will admit though that there is no black and white in the American Civil War. It's all grey as well as controversal.

[west]

So when is the Karnon civil war going to start? (don't answer that)

It already started. (JOKE)

Word on the street is that the Civil War's over (don't tell those "the South will rise again" nuts)

One could make a convincing arguement for either side...the fact is that both sides have been misrepresented by themselves and by each other...someone once said "war doesn't determine who's right...only who'se left"

Very true.

There remains the point that the only reason the North won was because they had enough boys to throw into the meat grinder...

and no matter how noble and self-righeous those from the South may have been, the fact is that the whole North/South division was about the issue of slavery. I don't care which side of the border you're from, that's bad. In real life, anyway.

[rklenseth]

I was wondering if we could get this going on something else other than Lincoln being good or bad and stuff like that.

Anyone hear of the Dalghren Conspiracy?

Lost Brigade?

Irish Brigade? (My ancestor was the founder and commander of it for a short time; Thomas Francis Meagher )

[Meh]

My ancestors where still in Europe. So I never knew much of the specifics.

[rklenseth]

Well, there is always time to learn.

American Civil War is extremely interesting and find the most interesting part about it are the characters that were involved. I highly recommend you pick up Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, Ken Burns, Douglas Southall Freeman, and James McPherson. All of them are great American Civil War historians and writers. I also find Civil War soldier's journals to be interesting though they get boring sometimes.

American Civil War Alternate History is also pretty interesting though I highly recommend you read the actual history to understand the ironies and sarcasm you will read in the alternate historical versions.

[David]

First, a bit about my American Background:

My mother's side are Liberal intellectuals from Wisconsin, Clevelend, and New York. (Sociologists, NIH Scientist, activists, population council et cetra)

Father: South Carolina Democrats turned Conservative Republicans (one of my cousins is a Conservative Republican state senator, many religious fundamentalists (and I do mean Fundamentalists), war vetrans in almost every American conflict)

My Maternal Grandmother, and Paternal Grandfather moved to Maryland, the compromise state, (that's not the real motto but it should be) My Mother and Father married. So, seeing things from both extremities might be useful.

Civil War History is not an area of expertise of mine, one of my brothers is a Civil War buff though. I am more of a World History/Politics/Relations buff (not as sexy to many Americans, but its important).

First off, people mentioned some reasons for the South losing... well you forgot to mention a very important one: Railroads. The northa had a lot more rail road capacity and tracks than the south. This, needless to say, was very important.

Second, suppose we throw out the legality argument for the Civil War, suppose all laws are not a measure of Justice. Suppose there were unscrupulous reasons for the Unionists et cetra...

I'm sure, water, that you are happy America exists as a free and independent entity aren't you? France had unscrupulous reasons for helping America, surely America would not be where it is today without that help.... leaving legality out, it was good thing for America that France did help. (I've heard people say: well, only Francophiles make the argument that France had a huge impact on America's success in the Rev. War, it is Historical agreement that they did. The statistics and regional pressures speak for themselves)

So, you are going to tell me honestly, water, that you think America would be better off had the South broke off from the union? After the civil war, America flooded world markets with its goods, steel was very important, far surpassing any European power... so was cotton at one point... but if America was fractured in this way, are you going tell me we would be the better for it? (what about slavery, or the residual racism, the system needed cleaning)

Now, RKL, don't try and justify the Civil War on legal grounds, that's so Lawyerly New Yorkish of you The moral argument stands by itself. What is the point of dragging Supreme Court verdicts into this means nothing... The victors write the History and the laws in most wars, it doesn't hold any moral weight by itself. Ex post facto legalizing of presidentail decisions are just a nod of approval: it still comes back to a moral argument, just an official acknowledgement...

[sammigurl61190]

RKL is a lawyer? That explains a lot...

And it's not an anti-lawyer thing--because I respect lawyers a lot.

[David]

No, I don't know if he is or not, I was just being coy. Profile says Student, maybe Law Student at New York U... Only he can answer that...

[rklenseth]

Actually I am Broadcast Communications major. And I live in Upstate New York in the Capitial District. I don't live in the City or anywhere near it.


You are correct about the railroads being a decisive element but I don't think that stand alone as the reason why the South lost. Though, I do find it highly ironic that it was the South that first used railroads during the Civil War to their advantage instead of the Union.

Not a lawyer so much. Yes, I agree the morality of the war could have stood on it's own if many people had agreed with it. The war was really fought on the basis of legality of the South's seceding from the Union and then firing on Fort Sumter without provacation. The war was about preserving the Union and the Federal Government. Lincoln did try to take the moral high ground by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation but many Northerners did not agree with it and it led to people to stop joining the army at the time. Northerners thought they were fighting to preserve the Union not to free slaves and many of them could have cared less. Alot of people feared that if the salves were freed then these former slaves will take their jobs from them. That is why when Lincoln issued the draft there were Draft Riots, one of the biggest being in New York City, because they didn't want to fight Lincoln's war to free the slaves especially if these same slaves would take their jobs from them afterwards etc... And I think we were arguing the interpretation of the Constitution. Water believed that the Constitution should be intepreted strictly while I believed that the Constitution should be intepreted loosely as the writers of the Constitution had wanted to be and practiced.

You are right that the victors write the history and the laws but they are still laws. But I think that, unlike most wars, because the South was allowed to assimilate back into society and that even those that fought and still held resentment to the Union weren't wiped out like in most wars we still see both sides of that conflict.