Civil War Myths

[Allium]

I think we also need to look at the mentality of the people. Maybe mentatilty is the wrong word but states were founded by like minded people. For example Massatwoshits founded by puritans fleeing religious percecution. Rhode island founded by people fleeing massachusetts religious percecution. So each state had enclaves of like minded people. People didnt travel much. People identified more with the state or area they were from and that was the loyalty. Lee was from Virginia and could side against "his" people. Units were raised and identified by the state nor a mismatch of mixed areas.The states were a confederation more than a single national identity. Lincoln fought to save the Union - the identity as a country. We dont have that anymore. People moved all over and no one really identifies with where they were born. This must be added to the equation.

 

[Maverick0313]

Side note....get a copy of the West Point Atlas of Wars and look at the tactics and weapons. The original post was in may ways correct, we did not change tactics all that much with the advancements in weaponry (line abreast, forward march). Artillery became a true force multiplier wheni t was massed and used properly. Anyway. Great day outside, eh? Bust Fest at AGC today (3/13)...make a trip up!!!!

 

[GNLaFrance]

Vermont isn't really part of the "North" unless you qualify it as "North San Francisco".

Utter nonsense. Excuse me, no, that's outright ********. Compare just the gun control laws in S.F. and Vermont.

Had you read my last couple posts you would have picked up on the simple fact that I in no way took a side over which side was right/wrong/justified.

I've read everything, carefully. You'll see that in a moment.

My entire argument is over the false claim that Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.

See? That's what I mean. The point Threeband and I, at least, are making is that slavery was the reason for SECESSION, and secession was the reason for the War.

When you look at first hand sources it becomes painfully obvious that Slavery was simply a tool or excuse and that the war was principally fought over Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over.

At last! Here's the problem! We keep saying the War wasn't fought to end slavery, and yet, no matter how many times or ways we express that thought, YOU keep saying that we're saying the War was fought to end slavery. Obviously, there are deeper issues here than just a simple, honest disagreement.

Okay, then. I'm going to pop the thing I've been working on this morning into the thread as soon as I close this post, then it's time to move on. Now that I finally see the root problem, I can drop the whole thing knowing that I made a decent effort and chalk the failure up to, as the Captain in Cool Hand Luke said: ""What we've got here is failure to communicate... Some men you just can't reach."

 

[GNLaFrance]

Threeband, ignoring the historical record isn't going to win this argument. You can't dispute facts.

You should listen to yourself.

The confederates actually banned the importation of slaves in the articles of the confederate constitution.

Actually, this is what is in the Confederate Constitution:

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of *****es of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

The South didn't need to import slaves and doing so could have negative results, so despite some opposition the Confederate Constitution banned the international slave trade in the Confederacy, as it had been in the U.S. since 1808. Delegates feared that European governments would not recognize a CSA that did not prohibit the international trade. The international slave trade was distasteful to many slave-owners. Prohibition of foreign slave trade also protected the substantial domestic slave trade in Virginia and Maryland, who had yet to join the CSA.

So, anyway, what was your point here?

The emancipation proclamation quite simply was a political ploy that kept Britain out of the war at a time when Britain was going to side with the Confederates

You're trying to pretend the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t what Lincoln intended it to be. The EP certainly was intended to do that, AND it increased Northern support for the War by making emancipation an “official” goal of the War. The North had realized the Confederates needed slave labor to supply their armies. The EP was a shot in the arm to the growing support for the War by making a goal of the destruction of slavery, by which the Southern armies could be brought down.

But all that aside, what you’re really crying about there is that Lincoln used what he had to try to win – well, duh. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do in a war?

Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of *****es, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottawa, IL; 21 Aug 1858

Okay, so Lincoln was a racist, at least according to our standards. NEWS FLASH: By our standards, 99.99% of the entire population were racists. It would be astonishing if he DIDN’T feel that way, because it was NORMAL. The sin you are committing here is called “presentism”: judging people in the past based on how we think and feel here in the present. It doesn’t work because they, like us, were products of their cultural environment; also, they didn’t know what was going to happen, how things would turn out. Judging their actions by our lights is unfair to them and to us.

When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?"
Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"

That one is going to need better support. I want to see first-person, period documentation for that quote, and please let’s see the entire thing, not carefully selected bits and pieces of it. In any case, it actually makes sense, so what’s your point here?

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." - First Inaugural Address

Another “Duh”. Lincoln believed that as President he had no Constitutional power to interfere with slavery. He was right. Again, what’s your point?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." -- Abraham Lincoln

The hypocrisy of lincoln is amazing....he advocates the above....unless the folks shaking off the existing government are throwing out HIS Government.

Why is it that only neo-Confederates see this “hypocrisy” which is invisible to anyone else without a political axe to grind? Lincoln had sworn this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In his mind, defending the Constitution meant preserving the Union. Apparently he wasn’t alone in this, because enough of the rest of the Union spent a lot of lives, treasure, blood, sweat, and tears to help him hold the nation together.

“The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” ~ Abbie Hoffman So what your arguments boil down to, so far, is whining about not getting away with it.

Lincoln KNEW that his provisioning of Ft. Sumter would likely start a war.

Ah, the old, “That devil Lincoln tricked, or forced, or maneuvered, Davis & Co. into firing on Ft. Sumter.” How disappointing. So far you’ve only been lazy and thoughtless in your arguments. Now you’re saying your little brother brought on the fight by forcing you to hit him. Oh, really? Davis had no choice? He had to start the War because feeding a few dozen hungry men stuck on an artificial island in the middle of Charleston Harbor posed a clear and present danger to the new nation? Would you kindly explain how? Because if you bother to look it up, their commander told the Southern representatives who came to demand surrender that they would be "starved out in a few days." All the South had to do was wait a week, maybe. It's true, the men in the fort did indeed send defensive fire back at the ring of batteries sending shot and shell at them, and they actually managed to damage… a horse. Dear God, they killed a horse! The bastards!

And I guess you’re comfortable with the idea that the first and only President of your precious CSA was an easily-outwitted fool.

All the following is just more of your cherry-picked, pointless verbiage. It intentionally lacks background and context. You put it up and let others supply the meanings. This is fine as long as those others agree with you and/or know less about the subject than you do. The problem comes in when you run into people who know better. That’s most everyone with enough interest in the subject to have read a book or two – or, for that matter, two hundred.

Lincoln's letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861, makes it clear that he was pleased by the result of the firing on Ft Sumter... "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

"What then will become of my tariff?" - Abraham Lincoln to Virginia compromise delegation, March 1861.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." From a speech in Springfield, IL; 17 July 1858

"Such separation ... must be effected by colonization ... to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." - From a speech delivered in Springfield, IL; 26 June, 1857

Lincoln to Horace Greeley Aug 1862
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

"I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social or political, between *****es and white men." Opening speech, fourth joint debate with Douglas, Charleston, IL; 18 Sep 1858

This is supported by the historical record by facts and events such as:
The fact that nearly 60% of all US Exports pre war were Cotton.
The panic of 1837 and 1857
Railroad Issues of the day
South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union
Tariff of Abominations in February 1833
Pratt Street Riots (Baltimore 1861) http://www.mdoe.org/riots_balt_1861.html
The list goes on and on and on.

Your argument ignores the simple fact that 3 slave states did NOT Secede and slavery actually CONTINUED in those states through the war (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland).

Anecdotal facts:
Confederate General RE Lee freed slaves he had inherited back in 1862

Union General US Grant owned slaves up until 13A was signed in 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Slavery was a tool, it was not the Cause of Secession or the resulting Civil War.

Lincoln didn't give a shit about Slaves or Slavery....his only concern was forcing the southern states to capitulate to the Federal Government.

Lincoln forced the continent into a war that resulted in upwards of 700,000 American Casualties at a time when the entire population of the US was only 31,443,321 including 3,953,761 Slaves

The war was principally fought over Self Governance, Power, Control and Money...THIS IS NOT DISPUTABLE

Anecdote is not data. Opinion is not fact.

 

[Minuteman]

Don't let me interrupt your little 'black panther party' (forest gump), but I found this most interesting: "Your argument ignores the simple fact that 3 slave states did NOT Seceed and slavery actually CONTINUED in those states through the war (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland)."

 

[jpk1md]

GN, the only counter you have to the evidence presented is to attempt to paint me as a supporter of the Confederacy which is clearly not true as per my posts.

My entire argument is over the false claim that Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.

So, instead of name calling why don't you stick to the facts.

The simple fact remains that the argument and first hand quotes/sources directly contradict your assertion that the Secession of the Southern States and subsequent Civil War were principally due to slavery.

Lets also recognize that the Secession and subsequent Civil War are in fact two separate events......Lincoln refused to allow the southern states to govern themselves and there's no Constitutional Basis/Justification for the war Lincoln started.

Lets also not forget some of the atrocities/actions that Lincoln foisted upon the citizens of the north during his crusade.

How about Executive Order #1 from Lincoln regarding "Political Prisoners" http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69792#axzz1GVZbrXvc its quite a piece of work.

You ignore the events leading up to the CW as well as actions of Congress, the economic environment, tarriffs and that the South was treated primarily as a "Colony" by the North and Federal Government to provide resources for the mills of the Industrial North,

Hell, even the rest of the world recognized the aggression of the north for what it was

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." Charles Dickens, 1862.

The Slavery was no more the CAUSE of the CW than the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the CAUSE of WWI.....it was merely a Justification.

As to the quotes provided, if YOU want to look further then please feel free, I've provided the sources in most every case for you to look up on your own.

Lincoln, when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace"? replied; "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

Lincoln had absolutely zero Constitutional Basis for the Civil War and the argument you present to that effect is specious at best.

The simple fact remains that not only wasn't Lincoln an Abolitionist, he was a racist even by the standards of his own period.

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and this I and my friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money." Private circular of Northern banker, late 1861.

When you look at first hand sources it becomes painfully obvious that Slavery was simply a tool or excuse and that the war was principally fought over Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over.

"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit...Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the last years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of his country." Frederick Douglass, noted African-American leader.

The simple fact remains that Lincoln was NOT the shining example that history books paint him as, quite the opposite.....he was a tyrant.

 

[jpk1md]

Don't let me interrupt your little 'black panther party' (forest gump), but I found this most interesting: "Your argument ignores the simple fact that 3 slave states did NOT Seceed and slavery actually CONTINUED in those states through the war (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland)."

Its simply more evidence that the war was not about Slavery per se....nothing more nothing less.

Had it been about Slavery then Lincoln certainly would have ordered at the very least the immediate emancipation of slaves in Maryland and Delaware......certainly after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation don't you think?

The entire point of my argument is not to defend the actions of the south but rather point out the truth that Lincoln was far from the plucky historical figure he's described as in the history books.

The Civil War quite simply was about Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over.

 

[jpk1md]

Vermont isn't really part of the "North" unless you qualify it as "North San Francisco".

Utter nonsense. Excuse me, no, that's outright ********. Compare just the gun control laws in S.F. and Vermont.

Actually it IS in fact true.

Do you have any first hand experience as a citizen of Vt?

Are you familiar with their laws beyond Constitutional Carry?

Obviously not.

Aside from its great gun laws its a Socialist/Marxist hell with high taxes, oppressive regulation over business and a "free" social program for just about anything you could possibly imagine soaking the taxpayer for.

Next time please check your facts first.

 

[Threeband]

Man you just don't get it, do you?

What's this crap about Lincoln would have freed the slaves in MD etc?

We're not claiming anything remotely like that. Why do you waste so much effort on irrelevent ******** about Lincoln and the slave trade (outlawed two generations previous) blah blah blah.

You keep repeating the same tired meaningless drivel.

We're talking about Secession (that big word you have trouble spelling).



Secession (please learn to spell it) was foisted on the MAJORITY by a MINORITY in order to save the long-term future of slavery.

The north went to war to save the Union, not because of slavery. That's what we've been saying all along.

People chose up sides based on sectional loyalties (Baltimore's Plug Uglies rioting for "Jeff Davis and the Southern Confederacy" ) as well as cultural and class identities.(Western Virginia seceding from Virginia, North Alabama virtually seceding from Alabama, etc.)


The north fought to preserve the Union. The South fought for Independence. The reason for declaring Independence was to preserve Slavery. Thus slavery was the root cause of the war.

There's your 800 pound gorilla.

 

[jpk1md]

Man you just don't get it, do you?

What's this crap about Lincoln would have freed the slaves in MD etc?

We're not claiming anything remotely like that. Why do you waste so much effort on irrelevent ******** about Lincoln and the slave trade (outlawed two generations previous) blah blah blah.

You keep repeating the same tired meaningless drivel.

That "Meaningless Drivel" is a very significant part of the historical record and helps to illustrate the utter hypocracy of the revisionist history

Why you ask? Because without significant details like that folks like you are allowed to paint a picture of history with a broad brush that covers up the reality of what happened.

That reality is that Lincoln waged a war to force the capitulation of the South,

The north fought to preserve the Union. The South fought for Independence. The reason for declaring Independence was to preserve Slavery. Thus slavery was the root cause of the war.

While your assertion that the South fought for Independence is true your assertion that the reason it declared war was over Slavery is patently false.

Slave owners accounted for a small minority of the population.

If in fact the war was over Slavery then why would the non slave owners choose to support the South and Secession? They wouldn't of course.....and there's little if any documented evidence of OPPOSITION to Secession in the south,

In fact quite the opposite....take a look at the election results for the 1860 election.

Lincoln was SO UNPOPULAR that he didn't even get onto the ballot of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

And in the Southern states he WAS on ballot like Maryland he only garnered ~2.5% of the entire vote. In Va Lincoln only got 1.1% of the ENTIRE VOTE.

Secession and the Civil War quite simply was about Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over.

 

[GNLaFrance]

The CW myths I had in mind for this thread have to do with the weapons and tactics. Plenty has been written about the various muskets, rifle muskets, rifled muskets, rifles (yes, those are four different things), and all the other myriad firearms used by the army (let alone handguns, artillery, bladed weapons and so on), but only recently has much research been done on those used by the Navy.

"What Navy?" you ask; "The Navy was in the Civil War?" Ah, that's the myth I'm going to deal with here, that the Navy had nothing to do in the War. Suffice it to say, the US Navy was essential and made victory possible. The blockade, for one thing. And the Army was late to the party when it came to taking New Orleans, the largest city and most important port in the South; the surrender of the Crescent City was accepted by two unarmed naval officers on 29 April (my birthday), 1862, and Gen. Butler and entourage didn't arrive until 1 May. There are many more examples of naval and joint army-navy operations during the War. One of my favorites is the taking of Ft. Fisher in North Carolina as recounted in Rod Gragg's excellent book Confederate Goliath.

Unfortunately, to most people the story of the Navy in the Civil War consists of "the Monitor and the Merrimack" and "the Alabama and the what's-its-name, that Yankee ship...", and maybe the Battle of Mobile Bay ("Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"). C'est triste.

One small item that even many naval reenactors are unaware of is the wide variety of firearms used by the Navy and Marine Corps before, during and after the War. One of the cool things about doing naval reenacting is that you can get away with using almost any period-correct firearm; at one time or another, some bluejacket or leatherneck carried it.

For example, the Smith carbine. Granted, it was actually used by very few members of the wet service, but at least one is solidly documented in a letter by Admiral David D. Porter, as described in John D. McAulay's Civil War Small Arms of the US Navy and Marine Corps.

As I still have plans for (read: harbor delusions of) reenacting in the Western Action Shooting world as a retired Lieutenant Commander who kept his personal weapons when he left the service after the War, I have a Pietta-made Smith carbine and a pile of stuff to make it go boom and vomit clouds of smelly, glorious smoke. The following is some pics and blather about it. A great chance to show it off.

First, here's what I have: Smith artillery carbine made by Pietta for Navy Arms. It’s 50 caliber with a .512 inch bore. The .515 inch bullets available from Dixie Gun Works fit the bore very well. This breech-loading carbine uses brass or hard rubber (now plastic these days) cartridges. Ignition is done by a standard musket percussion cap. Black powder only, of course.

Some accessories, appendages, etc. (see pics below) are:
• Leather sling;
• Powder-filled cartridges that can be used as blanks or add a lubed bullet for live firing;
• Unfilled plastic cartridges;
• Dixie Gun Works (DGW) hollow-base bullets;
• Musket caps;

The pics are thumbnails - click on them to expand them.

The carbine broken open for loading.


Right side of the receiver; hammer, nipple, drum, trigger, etc.


Left side of the receiver; the patent markings and access plate.


Interior of the lock, tumbler in full cock position. The brown stuff is factory grease, not rust.


Looking down the bore. Three grooves and lands, equal width. Grooves are pretty shallow.


What it eats. L to R, empty plastic (period: hard rubber) case, filled case with paper seal, bullet, complete cartridge, percussion cap in foreground.


The case has a small hole in the center bottom to allow the flame from the percussion cap to ignite the powder. If the powder is fine enough and/or it isn't compressed, a few kernels can leak out; to prevent this, a small paper disc can be put in the bottom of the case before it's filled with powder. The cap flame will burn right through it.

That cap flame has to negotiate two 90 degree turns to reach the chamber. Keeping the channel clean is a priority.

Handling: That barrel is like half the weight of the thing. It's thick and heavy, and the carbine is muzzle-heavy, but not badly so. Loading is a breeze compared to the nine steps of stuffing a rifle musket.

"So, Guy, what's it like to shoot this beast?" I hear you ask. I don't know. I've fired blanks and live rounds from .58 Springfields, a .44 Henry, and too many cap 'n' ball revolvers to count, but shooting a Smith, this one, will be a first and something I hope to do soon.

 

[jpk1md]

Are any of those period firearms actually safe (relatively) to fire?

 

[Threeband]

Back in my skirmishing days, a number of guys shot original Smiths. They had a good reputation. One little carbine that was pretty popular as a shooter was the Maynard. The Maynard is so tiny, people used to call them "BB guns". Because they have no forearm, you want to wear a welder's glove when shooting one. Smiths and Maynards are some of the best shooting breechloaders.

I remember one guy trying his original Burnside in a match. It shot way high, so it wasn't really a success. Two of my friends had Gallaghers rebarreled and chambered for Smith cartridges. (The Smith cartridge is more durable than the Gallegher's.) They called them "smalleghers". I think they were good shooters.

One guy on our team shot the Sharps carbine. That was a high-maintainance carbine. It needed a maximum powder charge to shoot well. I had wanted a Sharps for years until I saw him fuss with his.

I went the cheap and simple route. I shot the Enfield Musketoon (Parker Hale, Birmingham). .577 Muzzleloader, three rounds a minute. The Smiths and the Maynards could miss three times as fast, but the Musketoon could get the job done.

Three rounds a minute might sound slow to you AR shooters, but I spent a very pleasant day at the range today, shooting my Garand and my new Swiss K31 a lot slower than that.

 

[Llyrin]

Along with the blockade, the US Navy also had to hunt down the blockade runners. The most famous is CSS Alabama, sunk by USS Kearsarge off Cherbourg 19 JUN 1861.

Battle of Hampton Roads: ushered in the era of ironclads.

Every nation in the world paid attention to the US Civil War. Various tactics were used here first (like trench warfare) and employer late elsewhere. Also, by the end of the war, no other nation would risk taking on the US, because we had an extremely large, powerful, and experienced army and navy.

 

[GNLaFrance]

Not trying to bust your chops here, but...

Along with the blockade, the US Navy also had to hunt down the blockade runners. The most famous is CSS Alabama, sunk by USS Kearsarge off Cherbourg 19 JUN 1861.

Alabama was a commerce raider, not a blockade runner. Kearsarge and Alabama engaged on 19 June 1864, not 1861.

Battle of Hampton Roads: ushered in the era of ironclads.

Not really, there already were ironclads in Europe; HMS Warrior and France's Gloire were two of them. Hampton Roads, USS Monitor vs CSS Virginia (ex-USS Merrimack), was the first combat between ironclad ships.

Every nation in the world paid attention to the US Civil War. Various tactics were used here first (like trench warfare) and employer late elsewhere. Also, by the end of the war, no other nation would risk taking on the US, because we had an extremely large, powerful, and experienced army and navy.

First use of photography on the battlefield, first war fought with rifled muskets, the first to use railways, iron-clad steamships, electrically exploding mines, trench warfare, chloroform used as an anesthetic, and the telegraph was... the Crimean War, begun October, 1853.

First tactical use of railways: First Manassas (Bull Run), 21 July, 1861. First use of a balloon for military observation: near Arlington, Virginia, 24 September, 1861.

Like I said, not trying to bust chops, just want to keep it real.

 

[JRBENJR]

I was a Civil War re-enactor for a few years. One of the biggest things I hated to hear was that the war was all about slavery. I even heard it on TV the other night. They talked about how Lee was a big slave owner. FYI- Lee was given slaves for his wedding present from his in-laws BUT Lee set them free right away. FYI- less then 5% of the people that fought for the south had slaves them selves. So why would you fight for something you dont even have?? They fought because they were being invaded just like we would do today. If someone was to invade your country, state, city or your home I am sure that you would fight back just like they did.

Actually only 1.4% of the population in the South were slave owners. Slavery was not the issue of the war, it was State's rights. Up to that point in time the States made their own laws. Most beeiived that the Federal Government did not have the legal authority to impose it's will on the states or overturn the laws that they had inacted.

 

[hairba111]

You tell 'em jarhead!

 

[captsin]

Damn Yankee's

 

[Wiley-X]

Are you familiar with their laws beyond Constitutional Carry?

I believe that women can walk around topless in Vermont. How can anyone oppose that?

 

[Wiley-X]

Actually only 1.4% of the population in the South were slave owners.

True. Far too many people think that everyone in the South owned a darkie. That just wasn't the case.

My father-in-law's family has been in North Carolina since before the revolution, tracing the family tree, he could find no evidence that anyone owned slaves. They were too poor.

My mother-in-law's family was in South Carolina since before the revolution, no evidence of slave ownership there either.

I still think that is is hilarious that N-egro won't fly on this forum but Dago will.