Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
..."to honour civilians who were injured or killed as a result of Sherman's campaign through the South; and also to capture the remnants of what were once beautiful, prosperous cities."
Was Richmond not once a beautiful, prosperous city? Could these women be mourning the loss of their homes and loved ones?
That is why I posted this photo and many others; and why I started this thread...to show the loss and cost in human suffering.
Dawna
Dear Dawna,
The title of your thread certainly implies the destruction was done by Federal soldiers. In Richmond this was not the case. There was loss and suffering, but it was done by retreating confederates, not by Federals.
Forgive my oversight on your post # 425 to me. I have just now felt good enough to respond, my friend.
I certainly take no objection to what you wrote. Thanks for taking the time.
My reference to "US army draftees," I must clarify. My reference to the draft issue was intended to mean in the middle portion of the war, forward. You are correct in saying no draft existed at the onset. Sorry for not making this statement with more clarity.
**********************
Re: other inquires/questions, I respectfully add:
I believe that the south seceeded for many reasons and not just per the official declaration of President Jefferson Davis, individual State declarations or other 'official' "Slavery" statements. In my most humble opinion, some reasons were: economic, political, sectional strife/differences, slavery, invasion (meaning post-secession and in particular, 1862), hotheads on both sides, differing ideals, a euphoric vision of hope for the south in being apart, A. Lincoln's election, hopelessness of a peaceful settlement, perceived northern domination, southern perception of northern arrogance, honour/manhood and hateful abolishionists stirring the whole pot. None of these are in any order of importance. All were significant IMO and on the minds of southerners. Slavery is only one of a number of reasons, in my opinion.
I would like to hear from other members as to their perceived causations of the WBTS? I have taken my step forward, stated my humble opinion and I only ask to be respected of my opinion; right or wrong. At least I have placed my thoughts forward which takes some courage on this board! ;-)
PLEASE NOTE: with the intermingling of the top three posts evident, I'm taking the chance that I have posted this reply on the correct one? If not, I hope my reply can be moved to the proper post and I'll not catch flak for doing so??
The interchange below is unfortunate. It would not have occurred about a year ago. At that time we were all courteous to one another. I certainly hope that we can return to courtesy because frankly, I think it is wrong to close down threads simply because of one or two persons who simply will not follow the rules of common courtesy. And Rob, I am certainly not referring to you because in every instance you have been pushed beyond the limits of common courtesy.
Why do you always summarily dismiss ALL opinions differing from yours?
Only the ones that are clearly wrong.
Anyone can read and interpret WBTS history, as well as your monotenous supply of 'professional historians.'
Apparently not.
Opinions about history should be based on historical fact. Whose historical fact, mine, or yours? What makes you the Clarion Call on historical fact? It ill behooves a historian, whether he's an amateur, or a professor, not to keep an opinion mind.
I have been on this board for quite a while and I have never seen that this type of sarcasm and blatant baiting has ever produced a single positive response in debate. For one poster to apparently believe that only "his" sources, "his" professors are the penultimate and others presented by someone of a different persuasion are absolutely wrong, or "incorrect" as you so often call them, shows an utter refusal to entertain another person's opinion.
Although I take exception to this thought by another poster, he has certainly stated it in a non-confrontational way: I am personally of the opinion that it was ultimately a good thing that the U.S. did not submit and allow the South to "peacefully leave the Union". We are all better for it today, both North and South, and today we can have these discussion about the history of our nation as fellow countrymen rather than as 'foreigners'.
Naturally you are entitled to your personal opinion, but we will never know now, will we? We are not all the better for it, in my opinion. The South is certainly not all the better for it. We have the highest poverty level, the level of illigetimacy is appalling, even the recent weather of two years will have disastrous effects on the economy for years to come. I could go on and on but I would sincerely like to get back to the theme of this thread if others with their "slavery agenda" would just permit it. We have a slavery thread, please retire to it.
I invite one and all to return to the horrendous pictures Dawna has posted here of what happened in South Carolina. We can get this thread back on track from there because one picture is worth a thousand words.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Hi,
I just read an interesting post on another blog, "History News" It was a comparison by an embedded Civil War scholar comparing CW troops' specifically on their bloodthirstiness, with our people in Iraq now. Its worth checking out. It's very complimentary to our guys at the private to sergeant level in Iraq and on target.
I'm confused. Which of the posters in Thea's post was being rude and obnoxious?
Quote:
one picture is worth a thousand words.
What picture? Which words?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The title of your thread certainly implies the destruction was done by Federal soldiers. In Richmond this was not the case. There was loss and suffering, but it was done by retreating confederates, not by Federals.
Cash:
Since South Carolina was the state that Sherman's army chose to inflict retributive punishment upon, I thought my thread was appropriately named. Are you suggesting that most of the destruction in the South was not caused by Federal soldiers?
And I have posted other photographs of the ruins in Richmond, so I'm curious to know why you seem to take exception to this particular photo?
Dear Ole,
I assume Cash. He tends to be so "thorough" in his replies to other posts, hence the thousand words. The pix are Dawna's of ruined Southern cities.
Dear Samgrant,
I read Grimsley's website. I liked it a lot.
Who ever is being accused (me?), Let's call him "mr. X" (if no one is offended by my assumption that he/she is a mr. and not a ms. or a mrs. !), anyway, mr. X may not display what would be considered 'empathy' for his opinions of others, but I don't see any overt hostility on his/her part.
mr. X does seem to have a tendency to reply to other posters in a somewhat pithy point by point manner, which apparently irritates those to whom he/she is responding.
On the other hand, mr. X appears to be a fairly knowledgeable guy/gal, and often contributes some informative points to the discussion.
In light of all this, perhaps mr. X might modify his approach, as not to be ostracized by the community; or not.
On the big other hand, there are (if I am not mistaken, and I have been in the past), other posters on these threads who one might characterize as being rather "thin skinned", if that's the correct expression.
I've seen plenty of posts in which a seemingly innocent comment, is taken by someone else as a gross indignity/insult, etc. by another.
I won't go into the issue of which camp might appear to be the most vociferous in their arguments. (I'm in enough trouble now.)
I'd like to just suggesting as MobileBoy did in another thread, that we attempt to use this board as a venue for "conversation" as opposed to confrontation.
Irv Kupcinet, an originator of TV talked shows, referred to it as: "The Lively Art of Conversation".
Now I'll bow out of this thread.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Shall we say mr/ms X's style might be considered abrupt. I've been slapped around once or twice by him/her. But, as you said, there is no hard edge to it if not first offered.
I consider his/her style abrupt. Terse, perhaps. Direct, certainly. However, I do not consider "you are wrong" as anything other than an uncushioned observation. We should be accustomed to that style by now and take it for that. You say tomato, I say tomahto sort of thing, wouldn't you say?
In the subject post, it strikes me that mr/ms Y was considerably more offensive than mr/ms X. Yet Y was obviously offered as the aggrieved party and X was vilified as offensive for having a "superior" attitude. Unusual.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
