So who's the coolest Civil War Commander?

[Godwynn]

Oh god.. Look at the post DIRECTLY ABOVE and DIRECTLY BELOW yours, man!

I guess you would rather have let the war drag on?

 

[Godwynn]

You guys...?

Am I an American Indian and don't know it?

I was talking about burning civilian buildings etc...

 

[Irish Caesar]

I guess you would rather have let the war drag on?

Would Confederate independence have been so horrible?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I was talking about burning civilian buildings etc...

That was my assumption; as a civilian living in Atlanta, I haven't done a damn thing wrong, and I don't think those who lived here a hundred and forty-two years ago did, either.

Not arson-by-an-invading-occupational-force wrong, at least.

 

[Godwynn]

Would Confederate independence have been so horrible?

If I may quote William Sherman:

You cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now it will not stop, but will go on till we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.

 

[Godwynn]

That was my assumption; as a civilian living in Atlanta, I haven't done a damn thing wrong, and I don't think those who lived here a hundred and forty-two years ago did, either.

Not arson-by-an-invading-occupational-force wrong, at least.

The point was destroy theeconomy and morale of the people of the South.

 

[Irish Caesar]

If I may quote William Sherman

You may, but I fail to see how it is relevant. Sherman obviously wasn't interested in seeing the CSA as an independent country and wouldn't hypothesize what might happen if it was.

I imagine Cornwallis couls have said the exact same thing, and it would have been equally fallacious.

The point was destroy theeconomy and morale of the people of the South.

I know what the point was, I'm calling you out for "you guys sorta deserved it." So far, unless you can come up with something a lot better, the mass destruction seems pretty un-merited. Especially since Sherman saw Georgia as part of his own country.

 

[Godwynn]

You may, but I fail to see how it is relevant. Sherman obviously wasn't interested in seeing the CSA as an independent country and wouldn't hypothesize what might happen if it was.

I imagine Cornwallis couls have said the exact same thing, and it would have been equally fallacious.

Different times, and there is a small pond between us. Waging a war from Kentucky-Tennessee is easier than from London to New York.

EDIT: And we did continue to fight each other didn't we? 1812?

I know what the point was, I'm calling you out for "you guys sorta deserved it." So far, unless you can come up with something a lot better, the mass destruction seems pretty un-merited. Especially since Sherman saw Georgia as part of his own country.

The rebellion seemed pretty un-merited. Keeping your free labour so you can reap the benefits.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I imagine Cornwallis couls have said the exact same thing, and it would have been equally fallacious.

And he'd have been equally right. The rest of the British colonies eventually did declare independence, though not with the same swagger we did.

I know what the point was, I'm calling you out for "you guys sorta deserved it." So far, unless you can come up with something a lot better, the mass destruction seems pretty un-merited. Especially since Sherman saw Georgia as part of his own country.

How I understand it is this: if you make the war as terrible as possible, and really tear the South apart during the war, and you win, then it will set a precedent for any future potential rebellions. However, in the same way, I support the Presidential Plan for Reconstruction, because in the end, we really are one country, and all Americans. It's like when your dad takes a belt to your arse, he's being harsh now so that you won't do it again, but in the end he still loves you, and that's precicely why he's being so harsh, so you learn quickly. In that same way, Sherman loved the United States of America so much that he was willing to take a belt to the South's arse so that all revolutionaries would learn to settle their disputes in ways other than secession.

The rebellion seemed pretty un-merited. Keeping your free labour so you can reap the benefits.

Eh, I don't know, the Federal government really pushed the states around a lot. You'll notice it really backs off after the Civil War.

 

[Godwynn]

Eh, I don't know, the Federal government really pushed the states around a lot. You'll notice it really backs off after the Civil War.

Could you give me some examples? (not sarcasm, I am honestly wanting to know.)

To quote the Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander Stephens:

Our new [Confederate] government is founded ... upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition

and

With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.

 

[Irish Caesar]

And he'd have been equally right. The rest of the British colonies eventually did declare independence, though not with the same swagger we did.

And yet, it really hasn't hurt Britain, has it?

How I understand it is this: if you make the war as terrible as possible, and really tear the South apart during the war, and you win, then it will set a precedent for any future potential rebellions. However, in the same way, I support the Presidential Plan for Reconstruction, because in the end, we really are one country, and all Americans. It's like when your dad takes a belt to your arse, he's being harsh now so that you won't do it again, but in the end he still loves you, and that's precicely why he's being so harsh, so you learn quickly. In that same way, Sherman loved the United States of America so much that he was willing to take a belt to the South's arse so that all revolutionaries would learn to settle their disputes in ways other than secession.

Your parents can't control you forever, when you're old enough to know what you're doing, they don't have a problem when you leave the house and have a family of your own (or at least they shouldn't!). Would the United States have been hurt by letting the Southern states form their own independent country? In the long term, probably not. But in the short term, the Northern industrialists had a racket going the way Federal tariffs were set up. And again, the almighty dollar trumps Jefferson's democratic vision...

Different times, and there is a small pond between us. Waging a war from Kentucky-Tennessee is easier than from London to New York.

EDIT: And we did continue to fight each other didn't we? 1812?

Whether the USA and CSA would have actually fought each other is debatable and probably silly. I think 1812 is a poor example, though, as the War for Independence was Britain trying to keep USA down, and the War of 1812 was over the UK taking American sailors...so are you saying a future war would have been started by the USA?

The rebellion seemed pretty un-merited. Keeping your free labour so you can reap the benefits.

The easiest way for the South to maintain slave labor would have been to remain in the United States where it was perfectly legal.

 

[Godwynn]

so are you saying a future war would have been started by the USA?

It wouldn't matter and probably a lot of wars would have been started by both. The end remains the same, war.

The easiest way for the South to maintain slave labor would have been to remain in the United States where it was perfectly legal.

I would think autonomy would be easier where they can simply make their own laws.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And yet, it really hasn't hurt Britain, has it?



Your parents can't control you forever, when you're old enough to know what you're doing, they don't have a problem when you leave the house and have a family of your own (or at least they shouldn't!). Would the United States have been hurt by letting the Southern states form their own independent country? In the long term, probably not. But in the short term, the Northern industrialists had a racket going the way Federal tariffs were set up. And again, the almighty dollar trumps Jefferson's democratic vision...

The point was that it established prescident. If the North had allowed the South to leave the Union, what's to stop other states from leaving whenever they feel like it? After all, we're not a confederacy, we're a nation!

Could you give me some examples? (not sarcasm, I am honestly wanting to know.)

Sure.

Compromise of 1820
Compromise of 1850
Wilmot Proviso
Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
Tariff of Abominations
Alien and Sedition Acts

there are more, but I cannot think of them.

You'll also notice that most of these have to do with the expansion of slavery. It was more or less American policy to not get rid of slavery, but rather to contain it. In fact, that was the platform that Lincoln ran on! He didn't want to free the slaves if he could save the nation by keeping them enslaved, and he also did not want to lose the loyalty of the border states. That's why he held off on the Emancipation Proclimation until a decicive Union victory was had ( Antiedam), which turned out to not be a decisive one, and I put that blame entirely on McClellan's shoulders.

 

[Insane_Panda]

All this talk of Sherman being unrefined is untrue.

He frequently quoted shakespeare, was an amateur painter, and was son to a prominent judge, adopted son to a prominent state senator.

That+his bad assery makes him awesome.

 

[Irish Caesar]

It wouldn't matter and probably a lot of wars would have been started by both. The end remains the same, war.

Agree to disagree.

I would think autonomy would be easier where they can simply make their own laws.

Well, it worked in the USA for an awful long time without a fight.

I think autonomy where people can make their own laws makes everything work better, too. Which made an independent USA in 1775 make sense, an independent CSA in 1861 make sense, and an independent Kurdistan now make sense.

 

[Shadylookin]

imo sherman was the coolest.


if you want to debate who the most ethical is, well i doubt it was sherman.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The point was that it established prescident. If the North had allowed the South to leave the Union, what's to stop other states from leaving whenever they feel like it? After all, we're not a confederacy, we're a nation!

Let them leave!

The United States claims to derive power from the consent of the governed. Without that consent, its power is unjust. At which point, screw it.

Sic semper tyrannis.

 

[Godwynn]

I think autonomy where people can make their own laws makes everything work better, too. Which made an independent USA in 1775 make sense, an independent CSA in 1861 make sense, and an independent Kurdistan now make sense.

An independent CSA in 1861 would spark numerous wars between them and the USA and in all honesty probably for stupid reasons and belligerence on both sides.

An independent Kurdistan would create a weaker state that would easily succumb to its neighbors (Iran, Turkey).

If a nation allows rebellion it would continue to split endlessly into weaker and weaker states. Then Canada would have no problem romping through one or two of them. The reason the United States is the global power of today is because we stuck together. New England by itself is not a superpower, the Midwest by itself is not a world power, the Old South by itself is not a power.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Let them leave!

The United States claims to derive power from the consent of the governed. Without that consent, its power is unjust. At which point, screw it.

Sic semper tyrannis.

With exception to South Carolina, most of the Southern states held a majority of people who were against secession! We looked at a map recently in my US History class that showed the different districts, and SC was the only one that was hard core secession. MI, AL, GA, LA, VA, they all have enormous parts of their states that were anti-secession. It was the state governments that voted to leave the Union, not the people. Sic semper tyrannis indeed.

 

[Irish Caesar]

If a nation allows rebellion it would continue to split endlessly into weaker and weaker states. Then Canada would have no problem romping through one or two of them. The reason the United States is the global power of today is because we stuck together. New England by itself is not a superpower, the Midwest by itself is not a world power, the Old South by itself is not a power.

But is the United States really better off as a global power today? Is your life better because you live in a superpower? For one thing, you have a lot more of a voice in Illinois than you do in that nasty corrupt cesspit in Washington. For another, the world doesn't look at Illinois under a microscope.

With great power comes great responsibility. The US has taken on the responsibility of making sure the world doesn't go to hell on our watch. Doing that has gained it widespread admiration and even more widespread hatred. It has also allowed democracy to deteriorate into corruption on a wide scale, and now when the government violates its own Constitution and Bill of Rights, there's really nothing that can be done to stop the juggernaut.