The average soldier was 5'6" tall, weighed around 140 pounds, had blue eyes and dark brown hair.I'm still trying to figure out who or what the "average soldier" is supposed to be. If I ever get clear on that, I might have a thought on why he fought, if indeed he existed at all.
I doubt the average Union soldier believed he was fighting to emancipate slaves even after the EP. There were many arguments in the Union army over the EP.One of major arguments against the Emancipation Proclamation, was that it would stregthen support in the south for independence and cause the csa armies to resist restoration of Constitutional authority all the more fanatically. Which it did.
The avg. soldier in the Union quickly came to the realization that slavery was the mainstay of secession and thus the war and Union armies transformed themselves into the cutting edge of emancipation.
In historical terms, the avg. soldier in rebel armies had to realize that they were fighting to resist emancipation and thus, whether they wanted to or not, would have to become the shield for slavery, or their war for independence was lost, i.e. without slavery, there was no reason for independence and southern armies would melt away.
Well, I don't know the exact words, so "extremely critical" seemed unnecessary. Can't agree more on the sneaky, cowardly part. If it was an honest whacking - say they got into a fist fight - that would actually be understandable, but a sneaky cowardly whacking was looking for blood for blood's sake, not to balance any unbalanced scales.Well, to be fair, it was a little more than just highly critical... Still no excuse for whacking on somebody, though. Particularly not in such a sneaky, cowardly way.
I liked Stephen Douglas' take on the situation when he heard Sumner's speech: "That d____d fool is going to get himself killed by some other d____d fool." Which sums it up perfectly and is very nearly what happened.
In my opinion - and thus my usage of the term - the average soldier is the typical, ordinary, commonplace, most common, etc.I'm still trying to figure out who or what the "average soldier" is supposed to be. If I ever get clear on that, I might have a thought on why he fought, if indeed he existed at all.
Not as many as lost causers would have you believe.I doubt the average Union soldier believed he was fighting to emancipate slaves even after the EP. There were many arguments in the Union army over the EP.
I think Brooks may have been offended by all the sexual language Sumner put into it, directed at the elder senator from SC. All that talk about wanton harlots and the like was probably not necessary. But if it bothered him that much, he ought to have called Sumner out, Andy Jackson style, pistols at dawn. Instead he snuck up and whaled on him. Lame.Well, I don't know the exact words, so "extremely critical" seemed unnecessary. Can't agree more on the sneaky, cowardly part. If it was an honest whacking - say they got into a fist fight - that would actually be understandable, but a sneaky cowardly whacking was looking for blood for blood's sake, not to balance any unbalanced scales.
Academic literature is supposed to present both sides of an issue, so we can acquire a "balanced view" of the subject matter. We're not talking about an editorialized rendition of a subject, i.e. a position paper.
You ask why the South wanted independence from the Union. Let's hear the reason from a couple of folks:
"The cause of the South was the cause of Constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public servants. No nobler cause did ever man fight for!"
(From- The Case of the South Against the North; or Historical Evidence Justifying the Southern States of the American Union in Their Long Controversy With Northern Statesby Benjamin Grady), and then there's the words of Robert E. Lee,
"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be admininstered in purity and truth."
(I think they stated the reason better than I ever could).
I stated that the Southern States attempted to peacefully withdraw from the Union. Of course there was violence i.e. the vicious threats against Lincoln to the point that he had to secretly enter Washington, D.C. before his inauguration, to insure his safety. Secession wasn't to blame...Lincoln's political positions put him in this dilemma.
The secession of the Southern States would destroy the U.S.Constitution? Give me a break...were the Northern States going to forego the Union, also? I never heard that one before. What proof do you have of such thinking?
You were doing pretty well until you "slipped" and referred to the legitimate delegates sent to Washington, D.C. from first, South Carolina and second, the Confederate States of America, as "criminals". You just can't help yourself, can you?
Huh, that's where you find artillery...forts. They're built for protection from "bad guys".
Why can't you give me an answer as to why the North couldn't accept the peaceful secession of the Southern States? Why did over 600,000 lives have to be lost just to keep the Southern States in a Union where they were so disliked?
I'm sorry you don't approve of Larry Tagg's opinions, but he has a right to his viewpoints, don't you agree? This is the United States of America and we have the First Amendment to protect our freedom of speech. I read his comments from an interview he gave re: the book I listed as reference.
In all of your extensive "research", you haven't come across any other issues that lead to the outbreak of hostilities between the North and the South? Interesting...I wonder why?
Since when did the Congressional hearings always involve the issues of concern to the average American? (Aren't you aware of how political leaders "deliberate"...over select "pork-barrel" projects, that one politician can convince another politician to support, and vice-versa?) And since the issue of slavery was not the major concern of the majority of Americans in the antebellum timeperiod, they could've cared less about Congressional hearings involving slavery.
You're attempting to compare "apples and oranges" here. Yes, the political leaders were consumed with the issue of slavery for reasons I have previously stated. However, the average American was not.
You really like to "nitpick", don't you? I said that slaves were discussed in the U.S.Constitution...what was meant by the 3/5 th's reference? Come on, I know you know the answer.
Yes, unfortunately the Bible has been used to defend various positions... many times in direct conflict with each other. (Sorta like you do with statistics).
What you really mean to say is that I can be just as sarcastic as you are, when the occasion requires such a technique.
I know an insult when I see one, and the use of "Mississippi inbred" is an insult, no matter how the "cookie crumbles". I would hope you are too professional to stupe to such depths to try to make a point. If you have to use insults to convince someone of your point-of-view, then perhaps your point-of-view is faulty. Re: the largest slavetrader in North America, the DeWolf family, was located in Rhode Island, and was involved in the slave trade up until 1875. I first learned of them from a PBS series on the slavetrade, as it existed in the United States.
Why do you think more people lived in the Northern States than in the Southern States? Would it have anything to do with: 1) the availability of more jobs, i.e. cheap immigrant labor, for the business leaders to profit from, and 2) the availability of more land for agricultural use, than was available in the Southern States? Oh, I know, you attribute it to the dislike of slavery. Is that correct, Cash?
There had been too much dissension between the North and the South by that time for Southerners to put much trust in the court system. They believed the only solution to their survival was to secede from the Union, which they did, because secession was not illegal.
I am well-aware how historians operate, thus I made my statement re: official records and historical authors. Have you had the "pleasure" of editing historical works? I have, and I stand by my comment.
Northerners wanted nothing to do with slaves...period. Abolitionists had a problem with the Fugitive Slave Law, not the average American...North or South.
Who's "sugercoating" anything? Although a good sugar donut would be nice about now. LOL.
If well put means riddled with falsehoods, like every pro-secession and anti-American (I cannot comfortably use the word "Northern" for "the rest of the country" except when we're talking about latitude) Confederate supporting arguement since 1860, I couldn't agree more.Dvrmte said:Excellent post. Very well put.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Did the average Confederate soldier fight in more battles than his Northern counterpart?||Civil War History Discussion||39|
|The Average Yankee Soldier by the Numbers...||Civil War History Discussion||2|
|Average soldier wounded how many times???||Civil War History Discussion||1|
|Average soldier||Civil War History Discussion||7|