Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 08:21:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  The Civil War
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: The Civil War  (Read 7724 times)
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 800


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

View Profile
« on: April 10, 2010, 03:47:13 pm »
Ignore

I really can't believe the people who defend the Confederacy and try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery--these are usually conservatives, who still call it the ''war of Northern Agression.'' I go on conservative message boards and it's amazing to see after 140 years these Southerners still calling the war by that name, arguing slavery had little to do with the war and even referring to those from the Northern states as "Yankees" It's like many of these cons are still stuck in 1870. Yeah, let's defend a state's right and freedom to own slaves...Little bit of irony there.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18547
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2010, 04:00:37 pm »
Ignore

The Civil War was mainly started because the North wanted new stated admitted to the Union to be Free states, while the South wanted them to be Slave states. If I remember correctly, the Senate was to vote on whether a state would be free or slave, and the South didn't like that since they had less Senators than the North. Also, much of the South's economy came from cotton, and if all the slaves were freed, they would be screwed economically, as they would have trouble finding workers to pick the cotton.
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9170
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2010, 04:35:16 pm »
Ignore

Because in actuality, slavery was the main focus of the 'states rights' debate.
Logged

President Mitt
Giovanni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3647
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2010, 04:44:06 pm »
Ignore

The Civil War started because both sides were tired of compromise. The Whigs and Democrats, were not really supporting the needs of the people, and were mostly there for their own selfish reasons. Politicians had quickly become seen as malignant and corrupt, which made people begin to lose faith in the Party System's ability to solve problems. Politicians were also seen as out of touch with their constituents as no side, Slave or Free were really winning the argument by the 1850's, the argument had only been postponed by a series of compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act.

All of these had attempted to cool tensions between an enraged South, and an angry North. Not only did any of these compromises fail to do that, but the parties had lost the faith of the people who had elected them into power to accomplish a specific goal. For example, Stephen Douglas, who was seen as a "moderate" on slavery, supporting Popular Sovereignty in States, was rejected by the South as the Democratic Nominee in 1860 because the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party did not view Douglas as "pro slavery" enough. The people on both sides were simply tired of political compromise.

The politicians' failure to please their constituents lead to a rise of people creating new parties, such as the Republicans, to "fix Washington," or some people, like John Brown, merely took matters into his own hands and started killing people. Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry and subsequent execution heightened North-South tensions to an even higher level. People turned to violence because of the political system's inability to solve the Slavery issue.

Logged

[This space is available for purchase]
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 800


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2010, 05:19:03 pm »
Ignore

The Civil War started because both sides were tired of compromise. The Whigs and Democrats, were not really supporting the needs of the people, and were mostly there for their own selfish reasons. Politicians had quickly become seen as malignant and corrupt, which made people begin to lose faith in the Party System's ability to solve problems. Politicians were also seen as out of touch with their constituents as no side, Slave or Free were really winning the argument by the 1850's, the argument had only been postponed by a series of compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act.

All of these had attempted to cool tensions between an enraged South, and an angry North. Not only did any of these compromises fail to do that, but the parties had lost the faith of the people who had elected them into power to accomplish a specific goal. For example, Stephen Douglas, who was seen as a "moderate" on slavery, supporting Popular Sovereignty in States, was rejected by the South as the Democratic Nominee in 1860 because the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party did not view Douglas as "pro slavery" enough. The people on both sides were simply tired of political compromise.

The politicians' failure to please their constituents lead to a rise of people creating new parties, such as the Republicans, to "fix Washington," or some people, like John Brown, merely took matters into his own hands and started killing people. Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry and subsequent execution heightened North-South tensions to an even higher level. People turned to violence because of the political system's inability to solve the Slavery issue.



It almost sounds like today. Not the whole details (as in Slavery, harpers ferry, etc) but the rise of new parties or political groups, the intense disdain for compromise on both sides of the aisle, the tension getting higher and higher between the two parties or ideals.
Logged
TheGreatOne
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 480


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2010, 05:57:01 pm »
Ignore

I really can't believe the people who defend the Confederacy and try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery--these are usually conservatives, who still call it the ''war of Northern Agression.'' I go on conservative message boards and it's amazing to see after 140 years these Southerners still calling the war by that name, arguing slavery had little to do with the war and even referring to those from the Northern states as "Yankees" It's like many of these cons are still stuck in 1870. Yeah, let's defend a state's right and freedom to own slaves...Little bit of irony there.
The Conservatives are trying to revise history in order to change the appearance of State's rights proponents.  Its hard to make an argument that State's Rights is important when we see from history that State's Rights was used to justify the institution of slavery.  The only way the Conservatives can whitewash the dangers of absolute State's rights is to turn the Confederates into heroes.  

Logged
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2010, 12:53:09 pm »
Ignore

I really can't believe the people who defend the Confederacy and try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery--these are usually conservatives, who still call it the ''war of Northern Agression.'' I go on conservative message boards and it's amazing to see after 140 years these Southerners still calling the war by that name, arguing slavery had little to do with the war and even referring to those from the Northern states as "Yankees" It's like many of these cons are still stuck in 1870. Yeah, let's defend a state's right and freedom to own slaves...Little bit of irony there.
The Conservatives are trying to revise history in order to change the appearance of State's rights proponents.  Its hard to make an argument that State's Rights is important when we see from history that State's Rights was used to justify the institution of slavery.  The only way the Conservatives can whitewash the dangers of absolute State's rights is to turn the Confederates into heroes.  



States' rights was also used to fight slavery and war and other terrible things. New England planned on seceding multiple times, and Wisconsin I believe attempted to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act, which ran roughshod over states' rights.
Logged
v0031
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1741
China
View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2010, 09:54:24 pm »
Ignore

How many people died in the war?
Logged

Most of my posts here are about English exercises I come across in my teaching experience. I find them puzzling so I come here to make sure.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2010, 09:55:57 pm »
Ignore

How many people died in the war?

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.
Logged
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30667
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2010, 09:56:25 pm »
Ignore

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.

Really?  What makes you think the number would be higher?
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2010, 09:58:21 pm »
Ignore

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.

Really?  What makes you think the number would be higher?

Civilians, MIA etc. The paperwork trail was terrible back then, especially for confederates.
Logged
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30667
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2010, 09:59:00 pm »
Ignore

Civilians, MIA etc. The paperwork trail was terrible back then, especially for confederates.

I assumed the 620,000 figure did take those things into account.  Where would you put the number, then?  800,000?
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2010, 10:01:33 pm »
Ignore

Civilians, MIA etc. The paperwork trail was terrible back then, especially for confederates.

I assumed the 620,000 figure did take those things into account.  Where would you put the number, then?  800,000?


http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm


I wouldn't say the number is dramatically off but records were horrible in the south.
Logged
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30667
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2010, 10:13:16 pm »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2010, 10:21:30 pm »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?

Start with the railroads, that answers a lot of problems. North Carolina was found to have warehouses busting with food and supplies at the end of the war but the problem was the gauge on the tracks varied from state to state and they had a problem getting the supplies to the front.
Logged
justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2010, 10:23:21 pm »
Ignore

I'd see the Union collapsing if the South won...In present day, I could see the map looking like this:


Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Confederate States of America
Green is the Republic of Texas
Dark Green is the Republic of California
Light Green is the Commonwealth of New England
Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14524


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2010, 10:52:39 pm »
Ignore

I can't see the South keeping West Virginia, and an independent New England would be too weak to survive nestled in there between the US and the Dominion of Canada.  It'd rejoin the Union if it ever left.  Also, you should probably give Oklahoma to the CSA.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2010, 10:59:27 pm »
Ignore

I can't see the South keeping West Virginia,

Especially since the railroads were the reason the Union wanted WVA in the first place.
Logged
Dallasfan65
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5788


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2010, 12:26:10 am »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?

Start with the railroads, that answers a lot of problems. North Carolina was found to have warehouses busting with food and supplies at the end of the war but the problem was the gauge on the tracks varied from state to state and they had a problem getting the supplies to the front.

Didn't the Union have an estimated 85% of rail roads, or something to that figure?

I can't see the South keeping West Virginia, and an independent New England would be too weak to survive nestled in there between the US and the Dominion of Canada.  It'd rejoin the Union if it ever left.  Also, you should probably give Oklahoma to the CSA.

Yes, the CSA actually had territory in Oklahoma.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 12:28:09 am by Dallasfan65 »Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22564
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2010, 02:11:33 am »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?

Start with the railroads, that answers a lot of problems. North Carolina was found to have warehouses busting with food and supplies at the end of the war but the problem was the gauge on the tracks varied from state to state and they had a problem getting the supplies to the front.

Didn't the Union have an estimated 85% of rail roads, or something to that figure?

     I seem to recall it being very proportional to population, actually. That would have helped the more urban & more densely populated North, which makes sense in view of history.
Logged

HappyWarrior
hannibal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7218


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2010, 08:46:44 am »
Ignore

I think it was largly the fault of President Davis, whofar too often attempted to lead as essentally an armchair general.  This was especially prevalent on the Western Front where he directly contradicted General Johnston.
Logged


"Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for; it is a thing to be achieved."
-William Jennings Bryan
Dallasfan65
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5788


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2010, 09:03:53 am »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?

Start with the railroads, that answers a lot of problems. North Carolina was found to have warehouses busting with food and supplies at the end of the war but the problem was the gauge on the tracks varied from state to state and they had a problem getting the supplies to the front.

Didn't the Union have an estimated 85% of rail roads, or something to that figure?

     I seem to recall it being very proportional to population, actually. That would have helped the more urban & more densely populated North, which makes sense in view of history.

Ah. I'd read the figure (to the best of my recollection) in my old history book (this is dating back to freshman year...) but yeah, that makes sense.
Logged

dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22763
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2010, 12:07:51 am »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?
The south had:
1/4 the numbers of people
1/2 the soldiers
3% of firearm production
and relied heavily on exports that were gone during the war

Blaming Lee for the loss is nuts.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14163
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2010, 12:11:04 am »
Ignore

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?
The south had:
1/4 the numbers of people
1/2 the soldiers
3% of firearm production
and relied heavily on exports that were gone during the war

Blaming Lee for the loss is nuts.

Hell if anything Lee and other Southern military leaders should be given mad props for keeping the war going that long.
Logged



17:20   bore   the point of atlasia is to achieve things which you can then use as pick up lines
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22763
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2010, 02:30:42 am »
Ignore

..and that's what I thought history had always told us.  One of those rare times history class in high school actually got it right. Smiley

(unless somebody has evidence pointing somewhere else, but I ain't seen it)
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines