I am a North Carolinan now

[steingar]

I think we are just coming at it from a different perspective. Germany lost the war also, and was largely destroyed, but I think the German forces fought well for their numbers and what they had. I think they were good soldiers, but foolishly believed in their psycho political leaders, but still had to defend their homeland.

I never said the Confederate soldiers weren't brave lads. Few conflicts are lost due to the lack of valor of the common soldier.

I think the same of the South. They fought well for what they had. Did the South get destroyed? Yes. Was it the fault of the Condferate battle soldier? No.

Never said it was. It was the fault of their leaders by trying to settle their differences with the North through military means. And they got wupped for it.

Not sure about the capitals. Charleston and Savannah?

Nah, both were heavily damaged. Tallahassee and Austin survived wholly unscathed, probably due to their remoteness from the main area of conflict.

 

[el con]

To change the subject:
If you decide to buy an airplane down there --- call me--- I can tell you who not to buy one from

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You're going to proceed to tell me the South won the war, and I just hadn't heard?

What I've always found interesting is that in the North, we're over it. It's done, it's over, can't change it, and we're better off for the result. When I was growing up, we talked about it in school of course, but that was it.

OTOH, I am simply amazed at how much the Civil War is still talked about in the south. I hear a LOT of "If so-and-so had done such-and-such, we would have won!" and the like from people down there.

 

[dmccormack]

What I've always found interesting is that in the North, we're over it. It's done, it's over, can't change it, and we're better off for the result. When I was growing up, we talked about it in school of course, but that was it.

OTOH, I am simply amazed at how much the Civil War is still talked about in the south. I hear a LOT of "If so-and-so had done such-and-such, we would have won!" and the like from people down there.

The Civil War essentially wiped out an entire cultural layer in the South.

Northerners historical myopia is typical of victors.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The South was overwhelmed by more men and more resources. They killed many more Union soldiers but when you have almost unlimited resources, victory is inevitable. It was like Germany facing the Allies and the production capabilites of the U.S.




Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_death_toll_from_the_civil_war#ixzz1ApmDS9Wa

Starting a war that could not be won is not high on my list of laudable achievements.

 

[steingar]

The Civil War essentially wiped out an entire cultural layer in the South.

Northerners historical myopia is typical of victors.

What is it I'm missing in my Northern myopia? And if you're going to tell me about the genteel civilization of the landed aristocracy, you'd better remember that they maintained their control of the South's resources through the often brutal use of slave labor. Not a thing to be lauded in my book.

 

[Amelia]

Yes, it's true, although it's fading now that many who were alive to hear first-hand tales from their parents and grandparents of a long and difficult Reconstruction, are dying off. Our history, though, unlike that of the upper Midwest, still very visibly surrounds us. My little town is well over 300 year old. Colonial Governors General and several signers of the Declaration of Independence lie buried in my churchyard, and there are tombs of soldiers who died in every war this nation has fought since-- including "The Recent Unpleasantness," as one of my old, old neighbors persisted in calling what we were taught was properly called the Wah between the States.

I have a friend who lives in a big old home in town with a gash high up in its gorgeous woodwork- seems that in a moment of drunken revelry, a Union cavalryman galloped his horse through its grand central hallway slashing at everything he could reach. My friend is still mad about such Yankee rudeness. SHE remembers, because she grew up in that house, and so did her great-great-grandmother.

It's easier to forget the past, perhaps, if your town didn't even exist in 1860. It's easier if you were born after U.S. History was no longer nearly as important to study as Self-Esteem 101, and Health/Personal Relationships.

And the past will be forgotten here, too, as youngsters find they're more absorbed with today's interests, than those of long ago. In twenty years, some little kid will lean on his father's knee, and beg, "Tell me, Daddy, about the olden days, when you had computers you had to actually write with, you couldn't just think at them." That child is very unlikely to say, "Daddy, who was that soldier and why do we have a statue of him?"

 

[dmccormack]

What is it I'm missing in my Northern myopia? And if you're going to tell me about the genteel civilization of the landed aristocracy, you'd better remember that they maintained their control of the South's resources through the often brutal use of slave labor. Not a thing to be lauded in my book.

No kidding. But the South lost plenty of good people and cultural ways and artifacts.

The majority of Southerners were not slaveholders.

 

[Gary F]

I can't believe I'm having this conversation. The South got its ass kicked. It was nearly leveled, and with 19th century technology. A big part of fighting the good fight is winning. You talk to kids about how well they did with what they had to make them feel better about loosing.

They are not losing any more. The economy down South is much more vibrant than Michigan where I currently live. Car factories are popping up like fire ant mounds below the Mason Dixon line. Hundai built a factory in Montgomery Alabama, Kia in Georgia, and others. The rust belt is losing now.

 

[Anthony]

Starting a war that could not be won is not high on my list of laudable achievements.

What can I tell ya David. I'm a sucker for lost causes. It it wasn't for slavery, the South was right in wanting States Rights over broad Federal powers.

 

[ScottM]

What can I tell ya David. I'm a sucker for lost causes. It it wasn't for slavery, the South was right in wanting States Rights over broad Federal powers.

Funny that the CSA Constitution was not overly different than the US. IOW the CSA Federal government maintained the same strength of the federal government of the USA when it came to telling states what they could and could not do.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6-1-3), the "Commerce" clause (1-8-3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1-8-18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."

[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
[/FONT]

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

What can I tell ya David. I'm a sucker for lost causes. It it wasn't for slavery, the South was right in wanting States Rights over broad Federal powers.

That's an accurate statement.

Of course, the State Right in question was slavery, and the States Right theory didn't enter the popular lexicon until well after the Confederacy was defeated.

Every time I hear the States' Rights theory, I think about the deeds that are in the desk at home. They're for people. Hell of a "right" to fight for. I've been tempted to destroy them, but they're a visible reminder of a lot of things.

 

[Richard]

What I've always found interesting is that in the North, we're over it. It's done, it's over, can't change it, and we're better off for the result. When I was growing up, we talked about it in school of course, but that was it.

OTOH, I am simply amazed at how much the Civil War is still talked about in the south. I hear a LOT of "If so-and-so had done such-and-such, we would have won!" and the like from people down there.

Because no one in the north is as captivating and eloquent as Shelby Foote.

Actually, the debate continues on both sides. Try going to a civil war reenactment some time to find knowlegeable folks from both sides, academic and laymen.

 

[Richard]

They are not losing any more. The economy down South is much more vibrant than Michigan where I currently live. Car factories are popping up like fire ant mounds below the Mason Dixon line. Hundai built a factory in Montgomery Alabama, Kia in Georgia, and others. The rust belt is losing now.

They even had their own Air Force until the BS PC crap foisted by lilly livered pampered elite of the north attacked again.

 

[NC Pilot]

They fought well for what they had. Did the South get destroyed? Yes. Was it the fault of the Condferate battle soldier? No.

Not sure about the capitals. Charleston and Savannah?

The War of Northern Aggression is over?

The invasion continues...

 

[Richard]

Let's get one thing out on the table and very clear: You are not, nor will you ever likely be, a North Carolinian.

Not true. True, there are certain conditions which apply but Nick and his bride can become Carolinians by association. It's one step below the blue blood but in most circles is completely acceptable.

Once such condition would be to name your kin with 2 first names. Most appealing is if at least on of the names is also a palindrome. F'rinstance, Joe Bob for a boy. Actually, this explains why there are so many Bobs. Even Leroy Bob has a merry ring and slides smooth on the tongue.

Jo Bob for a girl is completely acceptable. Gosh darn, it's near expected in many parts of the state. A permutation of that name is actually derived from a combination misspelling and a failed attempt to form a palindrome. Mary Jo Beth (Bob) is a sweet sounding name which translates into "beloved".

Oh yes, one other important thing to consider. Be sure to pick a name that may appear monosyllabic but in actuality is polysyllabic. Example: Judd. Pronounced; Juh-hud with a rising dipthong on the second sound.

 

[Amelia]

Some people get their current events in mass-media-soundbites, and their history from what is considered 'fit to print' by rewriters, sothere's no surprise that they think slavery was the 'real' reason for the Civil War. There's no reason to expect anybody who has his mind made up would summon the intellectual curiosity to find out any differently.

 

[W. Stewart]

The War of Northern Aggression is over?

The invasion continues...

Now THAT is funny! And true. . .

Wells

 

[dmccormack]

Some people get their current events in mass-media-soundbites, and their history from what is considered 'fit to print' by rewriters, sothere's no surprise that they think slavery was the 'real' reason for the Civil War. There's no reason to expect anybody who has his mind made up would summon the intellectual curiosity to find out any differently.

Well....

Slavery was at the heart of the States rights and western expansion controversies.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Some people get their current events in mass-media-soundbites, and their history from what is considered 'fit to print' by rewriters, sothere's no surprise that they think slavery was the 'real' reason for the Civil War. There's no reason to expect anybody who has his mind made up would summon the intellectual curiosity to find out any differently.

For all I care, you can say it was over sweet tea.

 

[steingar]

Some people get their current events in mass-media-soundbites, and their history from what is considered 'fit to print' by rewriters, sothere's no surprise that they think slavery was the 'real' reason for the Civil War. There's no reason to expect anybody who has his mind made up would summon the intellectual curiosity to find out any differently.

And some people are far too invested in the romantic version of history to understand it's uglier factual basis. Yes, the South lost a generation of young men and a way of life, as evil as its foundation was. By Odin, legal documents outlining the ownership of people! Such things can't be destroyed. Evil is as much a part of history as heroism.

I have always thought that even had the South won the war, it is enormously unlikely that it's economy would have been viable in the long term. I doubt that a Feudal aristocracy could have competed economically with the burgeoning industrial powers of the day. The South that emerged from such a victory would have been a different entity than what entered, and probably would have more closely resembled its neighbor to the North.

 

[Kelvin]

All this hubbub from a guy quoting freaking Aunt Bea in his signature line....

Let's get one thing out on the table and very clear: You are not, nor will you ever likely be, a North Carolinian.

Not true. True, there are certain conditions which apply but Nick and his bride can become Carolinians by association. It's one step below the blue blood but in most circles is completely acceptable.

Once such condition would be to name your kin with 2 first names. Most appealing is if at least on of the names is also a palindrome. F'rinstance, Joe Bob for a boy. Actually, this explains why there are so many Bobs. Even Leroy Bob has a merry ring and slides smooth on the tongue.

Jo Bob for a girl is completely acceptable. Gosh darn, it's near expected in many parts of the state. A permutation of that name is actually derived from a combination misspelling and a failed attempt to form a palindrome. Mary Jo Beth (Bob) is a sweet sounding name which translates into "beloved".

Oh yes, one other important thing to consider. Be sure to pick a name that may appear monosyllabic but in actuality is polysyllabic. Example: Judd. Pronounced; Juh-hud with a rising dipthong on the second sound.

I think the sky is the prettiest. Especially when you're up there with the world at your feet.
--Aunt Bea

 

[alaskaflyer]

What I've always found interesting is that in the North, we're over it. It's done, it's over, can't change it, and we're better off for the result. When I was growing up, we talked about it in school of course, but that was it.

OTOH, I am simply amazed at how much the Civil War is still talked about in the south. I hear a LOT of "If so-and-so had done such-and-such, we would have won!" and the like from people down there.

The vast majority of the battles were fought on southern soil. Might have a tad bit to do with it.

 

[Everskyward]

The vast majority of the battles were fought on southern soil. Might have a tad bit to do with it.

Plus the fact that they lost...

 

[Keith Lane]

When you truly believe that Bar-B-Que is something you EAT, and not something you DO, then you will finally be on your way to being a Southerner.

And we are sensitive, not so much for the loss of the War, but for the treatment after the war.
Germany and Japan, got a really sweet deal in their defeat compared to us.

Signed, A Southerner, married to a Yankee, who invaded 30 years ago next month!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Because no one in the north is as captivating and eloquent as Shelby Foote.

I must say, I really enjoyed Dave's thread on the Civil War that was inspired by his reading Shelby Foote's books, and I really liked watching the Shelby Foote videos on YouTube.

 

[Ted]

What I've always found interesting is that in the North, we're over it. It's done, it's over, can't change it, and we're better off for the result. When I was growing up, we talked about it in school of course, but that was it.

OTOH, I am simply amazed at how much the Civil War is still talked about in the south. I hear a LOT of "If so-and-so had done such-and-such, we would have won!" and the like from people down there.

People talk about events of significance. For most of America, WW2 and later wars (thinking specifically of Vietnam and Korea) are of the greatest significance because of the personal connection many of us have in the form of friends and family who fought in those wars. Another common theme with those is that, regarldess of whether we won or lost, the human toll was significant. We mourn the lost troops in the Middle East, but there aren't nearly as many.

In the South, there is still a significant connection to the Civil War. Many of my grandparents' friends (they lived in Richmond, VA) were the grandchildren of people who fought in the Civil War, complete with lots of memorabilia, uniforms, and stories. Many of these people still live in houses that date back that far. Right or wrong, this fosters a connection.

With any war that I've observed, the true cause was not a righteous one, it was about politics. There are enough wars that we could be fighting to support the greater good, but the ones our leaders choose to fight are the ones that have political significance. These causes are spread as the reason help to provide support of the people for the war, and motivate the troops to fight.

While it is nice to say that this was a morally righteous war that was fought to emancipate slaves and preserve human rights, the reality is that it was a political war fought because the North wanted to keep the South around, and the South didn't want to stay.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

With any war that I've observed, the true cause was not a righteous one, it was about politics.

....

Good observation. You nailed it - not only for the Civil War, but for pretty much everything else from ancient times through today.

 

[dmccormack]

Good observation. You nailed it - not only for the Civil War, but for pretty much everything else from ancient times through today.

Uhh, no.

Western philosophy has been molded by Augustine's "Just War" theory, which was his attempt to justify warfare for Christians.

Some Christians have adopted a pacifist approach that forbids warfare. Most have not.

There has never been nor will there ever be a truly "righteous" war, but the ends of some wars are more noble than others.

The destruction of slavery as an institution was a goal of the Civil War, and that end was achieved.

 

[TMetzinger]

Since my relatives are from Virginia, I was brought up calling it the War of Northern Aggression, and being told the stories of the gentleman being forced to surrender his sword to the drunk. An interesting contrast to the view north of the Mason-Dixon line of the rednecks vs. the civilized folk.

No doubt about it, the South was the underdog, fought a hard fight, and did incredibly well considering all the negatives they had going against them.

But they still lost.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Uhh, no.

Western philosophy has been molded by Augustine's "Just War" theory, which was his attempt to justify warfare for Christians.

Some Christians have adopted a pacifist approach that forbids warfare. Most have not.

It's a very nice theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Certainly there are people that choose to abide by it, but they're not the ones that make the decisions.

Wars are fought over politics - power, money, resources, because what might be gained outweighs what might be lost - not over "good" desires.

There has never been nor will there ever be a truly "righteous" war, but the ends of some wars are more noble than others.

The destruction of slavery as an institution was a goal of the Civil War, and that end was achieved.

Agreed that some wars turned out better than others. Those results aren't really the reason that they're fought, however.

American wars are perhaps the best examples of it. Everything from the American Revolution through modern times.

 

[dmccormack]

It's a very nice theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Certainly there are people that choose to abide by it, but they're not the ones that make the decisions.

Wars are fought over politics - power, money, resources, because what might be gained outweighs what might be lost - not over "good" desires.

Sorry, but that's old, 1960 era Marxist-bent historigraphy, right there and that dog don't hunt.

 

[Keith Lane]

But they still lost.

So did the Oregon Ducks....
They fought a good fight against long odds.
They lost.
That doesn't diminish the efforts of the participants.
The Confederate soldier "did his duty".
The German soldier (with the possible exception of the SS) did the same.
I don't think most of these guys had lofty political goals. Just do what you are told, "in the name of your government", and get back home alive.
For good or bad, and I don't really care what they think "up North", kids of my generation in the South grew up to be proud that they were Southerners, much the same way that Texans are proud of Texas. Yes, there was a picture of Robert E. Lee in most of my classrooms (until desegregation in 1969, but that's another story), but also there was a picture of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We had to recite from memory the preamble to the Constitution as well as the Gettysburg Address.
In short, we understood, we lost. The problem was that the North relished not the victory over slavery but the defeat of a people. People in the South did not forget the post war treatment. I work all over this nation and still run into people that are convinced that we eat possum and date our sisters.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Sorry, but that's old, 1960 era Marxist-bent historigraphy, right there and that dog don't hunt.

I see you come to debates well-prepared to debate.

Suit yourself.

 

[Ted]

Uhh, no.

Western philosophy has been molded by Augustine's "Just War" theory, which was his attempt to justify warfare for Christians.

Some Christians have adopted a pacifist approach that forbids warfare. Most have not.

There has never been nor will there ever be a truly "righteous" war, but the ends of some wars are more noble than others.

The destruction of slavery as an institution was a goal of the Civil War, and that end was achieved.

There are lots of just wars that we do not fight because there is no political gain. The Civil War, like every other war, was a war over politics. Had the South been an independent country, or if they seceded and the Union didn't care, the Civil War would never have been fought. The attempt was first to preserve the union. It was pushed to the people as defeating the evil of slavery, and is still pushed that way in the history books. It is not correct, though.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery made a point about what makes us human, and described it well in the scenario of 10 men who will go into battle to free one imprisoned soldier, and willingly sacrifice their lives to save that one man. Logic says this doesn't make any sense, yet most of us I believe would view that as a just cause, and a just death.

Managers are not the people who fight this, or any war. They understand that the people must accept it as a "Just War" in order to have sufficient support from the people and the soldiers to make the war a success. Certainly, the positive outcomes of many of the wars we have fought make it easier to swallow the toll. Who doesn't think World War II was just? I can't think of anyone. However, if Nazi Germany stuck to killing their own Jews and wasn't bent on world domination, I highly doubt we would have interfered.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...In short, we understood, we lost.

Were you alive at the time?

The problem was that the North relished not the victory over slavery but the defeat of a people. People in the South did not forget the post war treatment.

I'd say the post-war treatment was, at least in part, a consequence of the "look how many people we killed, we put up a good fight" posts above. Considering that the Confederacy seceded and then started the war on its own, I'd expect a little resentment over a years-long war that was, at the very best, unnecessary.

I'll agree with you that the soldier on the battlefield wasn't caught up in the politics of it all. He was the one facing the bullets - and had I been a Union soldier, or a family member of one, I wouldn't have been sympathetic to the "you treated us harshly after the war;" nor would I have been sympathetic to the Germans complaining about an occupation after either World War. You start a war, and you suffer the consequences when you lose it.

I'd say the South was treated fairly generously, what with losing a rebellion and all.

I work all over this nation and still run into people that are convinced that we eat possum and date our sisters.

You can blame stupid movies like Deliverance for that.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
Managers are not the people who fight this, or any war. They understand that the people must accept it as a "Just War" in order to have sufficient support from the people and the soldiers to make the war a success. Certainly, the positive outcomes of many of the wars we have fought make it easier to swallow the toll. Who doesn't think World War II was just? I can't think of anyone. However, if Nazi Germany stuck to killing their own Jews and wasn't bent on world domination, I highly doubt we would have interfered.

Again, you're right on.

It's worth pointing out, though, that why you get into a war isn't necessarily the thing to look at. What you do with the victory is the better thing to look at.

Look at, say, the Civil War. The origins lie in economics; when it's all boiled down, the war was fought over money. But, did the war result in Union backers getting nice coin collections? Not really - the result of the war, the one that all of us still feel today, was the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amdmts. Those two are huge; frankly, they're just as important to what we think of as "America" as the Constitution itself is.

You can do the same with the American Revolution, and the end of both WWI and WWII (although what happened after the first didn't work out very well at all, and predictably so).

And so it goes. War is a very "results-oriented" business.

 

[wsuffa]

Good observation. You nailed it - not only for the Civil War, but for pretty much everything else from ancient times through today.

It is worth stating that at one time in the world's history (still true in some places) politics and religion were inextricably tied together.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It is worth stating that at one time in the world's history (still true in some places) politics and religion were inextricably tied together.

Absolutely - but, even then, the wars fought were over money or power. The Spanish Armada, for instance, wasn't "right v. wrong" or "good v. evil."

 

[Gary F]

It's a very nice theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Certainly there are people that choose to abide by it, but they're not the ones that make the decisions.

Wars are fought over politics - power, money, resources, because what might be gained outweighs what might be lost - not over "good" desires.

Agreed that some wars turned out better than others. Those results aren't really the reason that they're fought, however.

American wars are perhaps the best examples of it. Everything from the American Revolution through modern times.

I have to agree but some wars are more justified than others. I still don't know why LBJ was so hell bent on fighting the Vietnam war, politics is as good of a reason as any. How do we justify Gulf War I? I think almost everybody believes WWII was a just war and politics was not why it was fought.

That doesn't diminish the efforts of the participants.
The Confederate soldier "did his duty".
The German soldier (with the possible exception of the SS) did the same.
I don't think most of these guys had lofty political goals. Just do what you are told, "in the name of your government", and get back home alive.

I ran into a few Iraqi soldiers during Gulf War I at a field hospital. With the exception of one Republican Guard soldier (who we believe had been shot by his own troops) these guys were ordinary people like farmers or shop owners who did not want to be there any more than I did.

For good or bad, and I don't really care what they think "up North", kids of my generation in the South grew up to be proud that they were Southerners, much the same way that Texans are proud of Texas. Yes, there was a picture of Robert E. Lee in most of my classrooms (until desegregation in 1969, but that's another story), but also there was a picture of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We had to recite from memory the preamble to the Constitution as well as the Gettysburg Address.
In short, we understood, we lost. The problem was that the North relished not the victory over slavery but the defeat of a people. People in the South did not forget the post war treatment. I work all over this nation and still run into people that are convinced that we eat possum and date our sisters.

I have lived about half my life up North and half in the South and agree with this. I experienced culture shock when my family moved from Michigan to Alabama when I was 15. The public school day started with a prayer and you had to address adults as ma'am or sir. Strangers were generally friendlier and more polite. My kids experienced culture shock when we moved from Arkansas to Michigan. One of my boys was severely chastised for calling his teacher ma'am. She thought he was calling her an old lady. I look forward to moving back South in a few years, at least to escape the snow and lousy weather that keeps me on the ground for the better part of 5 months each year.