The Civil War

[LBJ Revivalist]

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.

[Jayhawker]

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.

[N.i.K.]

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

[President Mitt]

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.

[LBJ Revivalist]

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.

[TheGreatOne]

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.  

[Senator Libertas]

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.

[v0031]

How many people died in the war?

[??????????]

How many people died in the war?

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.

[Senator Ben]

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.

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

[??????????]

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.

[Senator Ben]

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?

[??????????]

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.

[Senator Ben]

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?

[??????????]

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.

[justW353]

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

[The Mikado]

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.

[??????????]

I can't see the South keeping West Virginia,

Especially since the railroads were the reason the Union wanted WVA in the first place.

[Dallasfan65]

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.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

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.

[HappyWarrior]

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.

[Dallasfan65]

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.

[dead0man]

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.

[Communists For McCain]

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.

[dead0man]

..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.

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