FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

Thanks, that was kinda neat.

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing this.

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

They can call it what they want, but i for one im glad the right side won.

The Washington Post has a Twitter feed with daily coverage from 1861.

(04-03-2011 12:47 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

They can call it what they want, but i for one im glad the right side won.

Are you sure.

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

We're not going to start this lame bull$hit again, are we?

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. The North won, and that was a good thing. If the whole thing happened all over again, the people in the South would be traitors and terrorists.

I'm quite glad the north won, but there is definitely legitimate arguments for both sides (that's what makes the Civil War so interesting). It is unlikely the Constitution was meant to prevent states from leaving. Preserving it also probably meant keeping the south in.

Slavery was a fault line which was always pushing between factions and it was something Lincoln could push for as a larger cause to be fighting for, but I'm hesitant to say it was what the war was about. It was a big part to be sure, but the north and the south had diverged economically for more reasons than slavery and few southerners were fighting for slavery.

(04-03-2011 03:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

We're not going to start this lame bull$hit again, are we?

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. The North won, and that was a good thing. If the whole thing happened all over again, the people in the South would be traitors and terrorists.

Then why did several slave states stay in the union?

Jackson

(04-03-2011 12:47 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

They can call it what they want, but i for one im glad the right side won.

That, sir, would be subject for debate.

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

I have always understood that the name for that conflict was "The War for Southern Economic Independence".

(04-03-2011 04:29 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 03:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

We're not going to start this lame bull$hit again, are we?

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. The North won, and that was a good thing. If the whole thing happened all over again, the people in the South would be traitors and terrorists.

Then why did several slave states stay in the union?

Jackson

They didn't feel strongly enough about it to leave. South Carolina explicitly listed it as the reason for its secession.

(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 04:29 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 03:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

We're not going to start this lame bull$hit again, are we?

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. The North won, and that was a good thing. If the whole thing happened all over again, the people in the South would be traitors and terrorists.

Then why did several slave states stay in the union?

Jackson

They didn't feel strongly enough about it to leave. South Carolina explicitly listed it as the reason for its secession.

If they didn't feel strongly about slavery, why wasn't slavery abolished in the north untill the war was basically over in 1865?

South Carolina first discussed leaving the Union in 1828, and the issue at the time was tariffs not slavery. Not saying slavery wasn't an issue just not the only one

Revisonists historians here in West Virginia like to point out now that WV's statehood was rooted in deep anti-slavery feelings which of course is at best an exageration and at worst close to an outright lie.

Jackson

The South left The Union because the d@mn Yankees wanted to force their way of life on them. Slavery was a convenient excuse.
CJ

(04-03-2011 04:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

I have always understood that the name for that conflict was "The War for Southern Economic Independence".

This "southern economic independence" relied very heavily on the continuation of free labor from slaves.

(04-03-2011 07:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 04:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

I have always understood that the name for that conflict was "The War for Southern Economic Independence".

This "southern economic independence" relied very heavily on the continuation of free labor from slaves.

Their was only slavery due to the fact that tractors had not been in invented yet. Slavery would have died very quickly after that.

(04-03-2011 09:24 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 04:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 07:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  FYI...for any and all history buffs, very cool website from the Memphis Commercial Appeal that is putting out weekly reports on the Civil War: 150 Years.

All of them are now located on this one website from the Memphis paper...very cool stuff.

Civil War: 150 Years

First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

I have always understood that the name for that conflict was "The War for Southern Economic Independence".

This "southern economic independence" relied very heavily on the continuation of free labor from slaves.

Their was only slavery due to the fact that tractors had not been in invented yet. Slavery would have died very quickly after that.

Being a moderator, I have to maintain a level respect for posters no matter how utterly stupid and insensitive their posts may be, so I will just say

WOW

(04-03-2011 06:54 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 04:29 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 03:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:49 AM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  First, the article is not worth reading because of the title itself. Any self respecting southerner does not call it the Civil War, it was either the War between the states or the War of northern aggression.

We're not going to start this lame bull$hit again, are we?

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. The North won, and that was a good thing. If the whole thing happened all over again, the people in the South would be traitors and terrorists.

Then why did several slave states stay in the union?

Jackson

They didn't feel strongly enough about it to leave. South Carolina explicitly listed it as the reason for its secession.

If they didn't feel strongly about slavery, why wasn't slavery abolished in the north untill the war was basically over in 1865?

South Carolina first discussed leaving the Union in 1828, and the issue at the time was tariffs not slavery. Not saying slavery wasn't an issue just not the only one

Revisonists historians here in West Virginia like to point out now that WV's statehood was rooted in deep anti-slavery feelings which of course is at best an exageration and at worst close to an outright lie.

Jackson

Thank you for contributing a post of total bull$hit. We needed some to fertilize the garden.

(04-03-2011 09:53 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 09:24 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Their was only slavery due to the fact that tractors had not been in invented yet. Slavery would have died very quickly after that.

Being a moderator, I have to maintain a level respect for posters no matter how utterly stupid and insensitive their posts may be, so I will just say

WOW

Tractors wouldn't have changed that. What would have been more likely was that you would have had industrialization of the South with slaves providing the labor in constructing and operating the factories. The Civil War was not primarily about slavery but more about the fact that the sum of the whole of the nation being greater than that of the two parts separately.