Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fighting Gamecocks Forum' started by Freddie.B.Cocky, May 15, 2020.
Don't know if I want to or not.
Sure. Grant is part of history. No matter what southerner’s May think of him, he was President and a factor in the War of Northern Aggression. I enjoy history. If we dont acknowledge the northern perspective, how can we fully understand our history.
Be interesting how, or if, they show Grant's attemped (near) genocide of Native Americans in the 1870's.
I agree with the idea of watching it. But this war of northern aggression bullshit needs to stop. It was all about slavery and not states rights, unless the states right was about keeping slavery. I think that the north should have hung every southern soldier for treason, but that could never have happened. I do agree that Grant did, as ruffled stated above, killed many native Americans after he was elected.
And burned Columbia to the ground.
Yeah I’ll watch it.....
Forged in fire....
Yeah....I’ll check it out
I love American History but the part about northern aggression, well?????
He was president but not much of a General. Grant had no strategy except to send troops after troops to their deaths.
I will watch it if they film the actual Grant, the General and the president.
Should have hung every southern soldier for treason. The worst comment I have ever heard concerning civil war history
The official title of the war in the annals of American History is “The War of the Rebellion”.
Clothe yourself in Southern mystique, nostalgia, and heritage not hate all you want but it was a treasonous rebellion to keep humans enslaved for economic gain. And yes as a matter of fact I had relatives that fought for the confederacy and also for The United States of America in this conflict.
You are sadly misinformed of his military abilities
Saying I’m clothing myself isBS. Those soldiers were answering the call of what they considered their country. Fighting for the wrong cause? Absolutely
Was not responding to you specifically, otherwise I would have quoted your post, but we have all met the people I am talking about
You history buffs do realize the North had slaves well after the war was over. The proclamation said slaves were freed only from the states in rebellion. Some history rewrites have been well slanted to the Northern side of things.
Massive charges (offensive)action in the face of staunch defenses was pretty much the way that war was fought. We have read and heard so much about bloody Waterloo. Well,there were a dozen or more “bloody Waterloo’s”in our civil war.
That was Sherman.
Probably another TV/Hollywood's quest of re-writing history with a strong leftest slant to many a naive and uneducated listening audience.
Shelby Foote(RIP)was a foremost writer and authority on the civil war. He told a story-one day,in Tennessee,a Union officer and his Calvary came upon a one room shack. An old man stepped out with a revolutionary war era gun and confronted all of them. They laughed. Officer said,old man you don’t have any slaves. Why do you fight? The old man replied, because you are here. Pretty good answer.
Awwwww you know they will. And it will be live.
Starting with Pennsylvania in 1790, slavery was illegal in every northern state by the 1850s. In a few states it was gradually abolished. There were slaves in northern states into the 1840s (according to the census) and in some of the territories beyond that, but it was against the law in every northern state by 1858. Interestingly, Delaware was a slave state. The southern states which seceded composed a block of states which had not made it illegal. The Mason-Dixon line delineated free and slave states.
The Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise which said slaves who were present in northern states remained slaves. That accounted for a number of slaves in the North. But the reverse was not true. A free person did not become a slave by entering the south.
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman was the first Superintendent of what today is known as Louisiana State University.
It's an uncomfortable fact for some in Louisiana that the state's most visible university was first led — with passion and distinction — by the general whose brutal tactics in the Civil War made him hated throughout the South.
If you are from the South with ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, had Grant hung soldiers you might not be with us today. If you’re not from the South, Delta is ready when you are.
Yeah knew it was misspelled. Too lazy to change it
Sherman served almost all of his pre war service in the south. He was even posted in South Carolina. He served in west Texas of which he famously said, “If I owned 40 acres in west Texas and 40 acres in Hell, I would most assuredly lease the property in Texas and live in Hell.”
It wasn’t a treasonous rebellion just as the Revolutionary War wasn’t either. I’ve always had a hard time believing that a poor, ordinary Southern soldier, probably a dirt farmer or metal craftsman, would give their lives en mass to uphold slavery. Now the wealthy, plantation owners, etc, I can understand. Their accumulated wealth depended on it. However for the ordinary Joe, how did slavery benefit him before the war, and what would it have meant for him to win the war?
Certainly the war was fought over that hideous institution called slavery. Those who reasoned that the war was fought for “states rights” actually prostituted the concept which today imo is a noble idea.
If the historians out here can help me understand, I’m all ears.
When it was reported to Lincoln that General Grant was a drunk,Lincoln said he’s my best General. Find out what he drinks and send a case to all of my generals
You make a great point. 90%of white southerners did not own slaves. They were expensive and 80%of whites were anywhere from just getting by to abjectly poor. For them it was about stopping an invader. Protecting the land and therefore their women,children,and parents,kin
I think the USA should split into three smaller countries. Northeast, southeast/Midwest, and west. Probably would solve a lot of the political divides.
It wouldn't be the United States then, would it? We survive together not apart. Although lately the socialists have done a good job with youth propaganda.
That is the part that bothers me.
But the left IS trying to make us survive together—under their agenda
So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.
Since Grant is original post, I'll start there, it should be noted that Grant own a slave, possibly given to him before the war, and his wife, a Dent, inherited four slaves. They never freed them until slavery was abolished in December 1865. Yes, slavery was legal until the Constitution was amended in December 1865. The poster above is likely thinking of the ban on importing slaves, passed in 1808. Various individual states banned slavery, but the U. S. Constitution made slavery legal until December 1865.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky actually voted to NOT leave the union. The original seven that did vote to leave, only four mentioned slavery in their secession articles. Rhett Barnwell stated South Carolina's position was failure of some states to enforce the fugative slave act, nothing more. Texas, however, went on a racist bigoted rant, in theirs.
Of the four states that didn't vote to leave, two changed their minds later, specifically over states rights (yes, it was a real thing). Both Virginia and Kentucky are commonwealths, and like Texas, they specifically reserved the right to seceed when they joined the union. After Lincoln requested states send troops to furnish a 75,000 strong invasion force to invade the seven Confederate states, the right to seceed states balked at illegally invading another country, as it was legal for any state to seceed if they wish. The powers of the federal government are specifically spelled out, and it mentions anything not specifically reserved by the federal government is allowable to the the state to enact. Sucession was not prohibited until AFTER the war. So the seven states did legally seceed (which is why Seward advised not to pursue anyone for treason, and this let President Davis go free). With Lincoln not abiding by the constitutional allowance of any state to seceed, Virginia and Kentucky quickly seceeded, followed by stuck in the middle states Tennessee and North Carolina.
Btw, U. S. Congress authorized two official names for the war: The Civil War and the War Between The States.
Now the real reason for the war. Same thing as it always was since Calhoun's Nullification crisis. Unfair tariffs. The southern states were paying in approximately 70% of the federal budget but only receiving 30% in return. Slave produced goods accounted about 60% of the federal budget and 70% of total budget was going into northern infrastructure like railroads, canals, wharfs in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. All built primarily with slave raised tariffs. When the south seceeded, it took 70% of the federal budget with it. Lincoln could not afford that, literally and politically. Hence the immediate blockade of southern ports and a planned invasion force.
Remember, slavery wasn't abolished until after the war. The northern troops were Union troops (restore the union) not anti-slavery troops. Many northern soldiers did join to fight slavery, and many southern soldiers were fighting for slavery. The 1860 census slave schedules show 91.5% of Confederate soldiers did not own a slave. The average Confederate soldier was not marching into cannon and musket fire so some rich plantation owner could own a slave. Slavery became an issue as a rallying cry after the north was getting beat up by the southern troops in the first two years of the war. The slaves were always intended to return to the fields after the war, to restore lost tariffs. Again, the abolishment was after the war was over, not before it started.
A lot of people are not aware of the Corwin Amendment. Thinking slavery was a greater issue than it really was, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, pushed it through congress and got it passed, and got four states to ratify it. But before getting the needed number of states, the Confederate States declined the offer. What was the offer? In return for rejoining the union, the U. S. would essentially guarantee slavery forever to those states. Yet it was refused. Apparently, slavery was not the issue. Corwin Amendment, google it. Everything mentioned here is verifiable in real history books (collegiate level).
Btw, one other thing conveniently left out of high school history, the actual first shots of the war. Not Ft. Sumter, not even the cannon fire by The Citadel Cadets at the Star of the West on February 9, 1861. A day before, February 8. 1861 in Pensacola, Florida, Lt. Adam Jacoby Slemmer moved his company of infantry from Fort Barrancas, to the old abandoned star fort, Fort Pickens (War of 1812 era), property of the Confederate State of Florida (no standing lease) , and then ordered his company of U. S. Infantry to fire upon Florida Confederate Troops approaching the fort to inspect and secure it. Thus the actual first shot fired in hostility was fired by U. S. Troops. Slemmer was rewarded by being promoted to Brigadier General by war's end despite no further noted action. A New Yorker, Slemmer died in 1868, and the New York Times obituary, in bold headlines, stated he ordered the first shots of the war.
That's enough for now, but some won't be satisfied with this easily verified truth.
Sherman's statement about Grant:
"He stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk"
Yes Lincoln didn’t go to war to get rid of slavery. Rather to save the country from fracturing. Early in the outbreak he said,if I could free all of the slaves and save this union I would do so. If I could free none of the slaves and save the union I would do that
Had cotton been the cash crop of the north would there have been a Civil War?
Interesting question. I don’t know
You got it backwards. Good general but bad president.
That would mean the damn yankees would've hung both my great great great grandfathers.