Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
War Of Northern Aggression  
User currently offlinePilottj From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 279 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Hey folks, I was at brunch with a distant cousin who lives in Richmond VA. He told us about how the civil war is refered to the 'war of northern aggression'. I know history textbooks usually have a slant but that seems pretty extreme. Is this really common or just an idea among revisionists in the south?

Cheers
TJ


God was my copilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him...
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5395 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Pilottj - only ones I hear refer to it as such are revisionists, League of the South types, closet Klansmen, and MD-90.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineAdam From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

I actually really don't understand what your relative was trying to say, but I've never lived in the South, nor do I ever intend to, nor do I have family in the South, so I really can't comment on how southerners view the Civil War or their enemy, even in the present time. Is that your question, whether or not the South continues, or did view the North as aggressive?


Texas: You'll come for the Alamo, You'll stay because you were wrongfully executed. - Conan O'Brian State Quarters
User currently offline767ALLTHEWAY From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Well in my short stint in South Carolina (where the war started) I have heard it referred to as that on many occasions.


"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear"
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Quoting 767ALLTHEWAY (reply 3):
Well in my short stint in South Carolina (where the war started) I have heard it referred to as that on many occasions.


Sort of fits with reply #1.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Salvery was going to fall anyway, it would have taken longer, but it was going to fall. They call it the Northern Agression because rather than be slower on the progression, Lincoln and the conservative north opted to move in on the liberal south and impose their will. A good move I might add.

Wierd how times have changed, I mean... History has been distorted about conservatives.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 5):
Lincoln and the conservative north opted to move in on the liberal south and impose their will.


Errr. Got your liberals and conservatives a tad confused, haven't you ?


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1783 times:

That was and still is the view taken by some in the Deep South. Furthermore, while Lincoln disliked slavery personally, he realized that the best that could be done was to prevent its spread outside the Deep South. Thus, he never really viewed abolition as a possibility. However, when the southern states began to secede from the Union, that led to the events that gave put him in the position to declare all slaves held in the areas in rebellion free. That only "freed" slaves in the states where the rebellion was ongoing. Slaves held in nothern states, namely Kentucky and Maryland would not be emancipated until 1866 when the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. Also, for the record Lincoln and the northerners were certainly not conservative for their day. Reread your history books and you should note that they were called Radical Republicans. Also, most history books convienantly leave out the fact that each of the states in rebellion supplied troops to the United States Army during the conflict. In Tennessee, the vote on succession failed on the first attempt and only due to a shift in political power led by Gov. Harris, did Tennessee secede on the second vote. East Tennessee was rife with Unionists and this caused serious problems for the Confederate authorities for the duration of the war. Nothing in that conflict was clear cut in any way.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 6):
Errr. Got your liberals and conservatives a tad confused, haven't you ?



Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.

Also, for the record Lincoln and the northerners were certainly not conservative for their day.

Um.. Yeah. Tell that to Lincoln. He'll thank you for re-writing his history.

Have you ever actually read anything on Lincoln? I seriously doubt it.

[Edited 2005-03-03 12:10:17]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 8):
Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.


Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now. It was the more interventionist and Federalist of the parties, whereas the Democrats were the small-government, States' Rights anti-liberal party.

If the Republican Party in Lincoln's day had been as reactionary as todays GOP, you'd probably still have slavery in the US today !


User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now.


...true but you could also put "Southern Democrat" into the second sentence and it wouldn't change a thing, well actually it would, but not to the better...



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now.



Nor is it today. But thanks for trying.

Reactionary? Everyone is reactionary.

September 11th might have been different if everyone were less reactive, and more pro-active:

Read chapter 3.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Allow me to explain...

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

reactionary

adj : extremely conservative [syn: reactionist, far-right] n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism [syn: ultraconservative, extreme right-winger]


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

You still have it wrong. Your perception is warped by a few right extremists with a pulpet and amplified by yapping voices of left extremists.

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

What part of "an opponent of progress or liberalism" do you disagree with, when classifying the current GOP as "reactionary" ?

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

The kind of progress being pursued in the US is not Liberal at all. It's Socialist, there's a difference. Both parties are actually headed that way. One is just slower than the other.

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 15):
The kind of progress being pursued in the US is not Liberal at all. It's Socialist, there's a difference. Both parties are actually headed that way. One is just slower than the other.


You are right about the difference, but the difference is more apparent in Economic policy. Socialism is an economic doctrine, and does not particulary reflect "social" moral or behavioural aims at all. It is possible to be economically socialist and socially repressive at the same time (Nazi Germany, for example). It is also possible to be economically socialist and socially liberal (Sweden, for example), or economically liberal AND socially liberal (the UK, for example).

In the US the differences between the parties seem to me to be mostly in the areas of social policy. The Republican Party is socially conservative, whereas the Democratic Party is socially more liberal (although liberalism is very relative - no matter which party is in power, it is unlikely that the US will ever be as socially liberal as say Sweden or the Netherlands or even France). Economic socialism in US policy terms is out on the fringes at best, there are government economic programs yes, but these are pretty limited.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Pilottj - only ones I hear refer to it as such are revisionists, League of the South types, closet Klansmen, and MD-90.

 Silly When I saw this thread title, I wa sure MD-90 had someting to do with it.

Lincoln and the conservative..

Boeing7E7, you fall in the trap all too many today do-the trap that the GOP was ALWAYS conservative (it was not), and that the Democrats were ALWAYS liberal.

The truth is that Lincoln was liberal, not conservative. Conservatives, by their nature, do NOT want things to change, and the South was fighting against change. Back then, it was the Democrats, especially the Southern Democrats, who were the conservatives of the time. Lincoln and the Republican Party, which had just been founded a few years before that, were the liberal party of the time-they were demanding change, not the status quo.

Lincoln would turn over in his grave if he would have seen what his party has become in the last 150 years. It's the anthisis of everything he stood for.

Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.

Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.

So way to get off subject, 7E7, and I'm glad I could set you straight with that history lesson. Learn from it.

As for the title, the "War of Northern Aggression" is used by Confederate apologists and sympathizers to try to shift the blame for the war on the North. It was the South that seceeded over the election. Hell, South Carolina seceeded BEFORE Lincoln ever took office! It was South Carolina that fired the first shot on the United States ,and occupied Ft. Sumpter. It was the south who defined the conflict as one over slavery, because for all their talk about tariffs and the like, they didn't the end of one thing-slavery-which would change their whole culture, a culture built on the backs of men who they enslaved.

So, like 7E7 trying to rewrite history and say Lincoln was a conservative ,which he wasn't, those who call it The War of Northern Aggression are trying to rewrite history to make themselves look better.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 17):
Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.



Uh... Yeah. Nothing better than a Liberal wanting to lay claim on the Republican Conservative ideals. You guys are good at that. How about you read a bit on Lincoln and GOP history then think about re-stating your claim. I have several books on him and the party, do you? Ask Ike how he managed to F up the party.

Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.

1961?

In case you need help on why the Party was formed? It was to get back to the roots the nation was founded on. Pretty conservative move if you ask me.

Here's a nice liberal quote from Lincoln:

Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

In other words... Get off your ass and build you own wealth.

[Edited 2005-03-03 15:03:28]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Uh... Yeah. Nothing better than a Liberal wanting to lay claim on the Republican Conservative ideals.

You can't get away from it, can you? You're so fixated on what the liberal and conservative and what parties they're aligned with now, that you can't see past you own nose. This has NOTHING to do with me being liberal or you being conservative! This has to do with objectively looking at history, something, as someone who likes to study history, I have always done, no matter my own political leanings.

Go look at the defintions of "liberalism" and "conservatiism", my friend. Liberals want and work for change, they want to always push and change the status quo. Conservatives want things to remain as they are. That's the basic definition of both. Had we listened to the conservatives in the 1770's, we'd all still be singing "Rule Britannia" and "God Save The Queen", because the conservatives back then were the Monarchists. Had we listened to the conservatives in the 1860's, Slavery would have lasted at least another generation before dying.

7E7, quit making this a modern-day, Democrat vs. Republican fight, will you? It's not about that. It's about the fact that, in the 1860's, Lincoln and the Republican Party was the liberal party,and the Democrats were the conservatives. Look at the lineage of the Democrats, from the 1860's until 1948. From about 1861 until 1932, they could only one the presidency like two or 3 times-in 70 years. It took the Great Depression to bring a Democrat in power. Who was his base, back then? In party, southern whites, because they had been Democrats when the South broke away in 1861. What changed southern allegiance? Easy-the Civil Rights movement, which the Democratic party embraced, beginning with Truman and desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. What happened after that? The Southern Democrats, guys like Strom Thurman, ALWAYS a conservative, bolted the party and went to the GOP. It was THEN, not before that, that the GOP was the conservative party. By the 1950s, with the Democrats fully supporting Civil Rights, the ideologies of the parties switched. The GOP, which had been the liberal party under Lincoln, now flushed with former Southern Democrats, became the Conservative standard bearer, and the Democrats became the liberal party, having jettisoned it's southern conservative roots.

You guys are good at that. How about you read a bit on Lincoln and GOP history then think about re-stating your claim.

Lincoln was more in line with modern Democrats like Truman, JFK and LBJ than he was any modern conservative. They held similar values. Again, you can be ignorant all you want, but you're dead wrong on this one. But if you want to keep your head up your butt, and cling to the modern alignments, and sling them back in history, go right ahead. It only makes you look sadly ignorant.

Btw, I meant 1861. My bad, but I think you knew it was a typo. In 1861, the parties were the exact opposite ideologically than what they are today. Sorry for the one number typo.

Unfortunately, you're one of those modern conservatives who will give credit to no one else. I think it might have been you who called the Nazi's "liberal" once (and also communism, in the same sentence). Which was also wrong. Unlike you, I can think beyond modern party ideology, and look at history objectively, without passion for my own beliefs. You obviously cannot.

Lincoln was a liberal. The Democrats, from that time, through Strom Thurmand, before he and his ilk broke from the party in the late 1940's, were the conservatives.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

Lincoln was not a liberal. You'll have to get over that. I know you'd like him to be, but that is not the case. Rant away.

Just stop. Okay.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

You go right ahead and, like a good goose-step conservative, be ignorant, Boeing7E7. Your head is so far up the ying yang of conservatism that is isn't funny.

The ideological descendants of Jefferson Davis were guys like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Barry Goldwater, not JFK and LBJ. The ideological descendants of Lincoln were FDR, Truman and JFK, not modern conserviates like the ones I mentioned. If you look at it objectively, and see the history from 1861 through 1948, you'll see how the ideological lineage plays out.

But wallow in your ignorance. It doesn't bother me one bit. I know I'm right; I know you're dead wrong.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Quoting Pilottj (reply 0):
Is this really common or just an idea among revisionists in the south?


I don't think it will be possible for you to understand the answer if you frame the question that way. "Revisionist" is a word that gets thrown around far too much. It is a catchphrase, and it is not deeply rooted in reality.

It implies, in this case, that southerners are revising the events surrounding the Civil War. This is not necessarily the case.

The northern understanding of what happened during those years has formed the backbone of most of what has been written about the Civil War for the simple reason that they won the war. The winner gets to advance their own version.

Throughout the era, from John Brown to Frederick Douglass to Fort Sumpter to Appomattox and Ford's Theater people of the south understood events one way and people of the north another. There is no "revision" it is just the vestiges of the differences in the way they saw it at the time.

Today you think of the United States of America as a single nation. In 1860 each state thought of itself as sovereign and then as a member of a Union of American States. It was grammatically correct to say "the United States are . . ." Today, the north having won, and states' rights having been eroded, and power centralized to Washington DC as they have, it is grammatically correct to say "the United States IS . . ."

Secession, from the point of view of most rural southerners was not treason, as they were still loyal to South Carolina, Georgia, etc. The "Union" of American States was not their nationality, it was more like a treaty or alliance from which they were withdrawing.

The issue to southern leaders was their right to govern their own states. Of course the economic issue over slavery helped them decide how they felt about things - money bought politicians, then as now. To most rural southerners (and most were rural) it truly was about northern armies invading their states.

So my recommendation is to avoid using modern catchphrases like "revisionist" when trying to understand events of another era. They attach a mindset that does not even relate to the thinking of the times.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 21):
You go right ahead and, like a good goose-step conservative, be ignorant, Boeing7E7. Your head is so far up the ying yang of conservatism that is isn't funny.

The ideological descendants of Jefferson Davis were guys like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Barry Goldwater, not JFK / KJFK), USA - New York">JFK and LBJ. The ideological descendants of Lincoln were FDR, Truman and JFK / KJFK), USA - New York">JFK, not modern conserviates like the ones I mentioned. If you look at it objectively, and see the history from 1861 through 1948, you'll see how the ideological lineage plays out.

But wallow in your ignorance. It doesn't bother me one bit. I know I'm right; I know you're dead wrong.


Look Falcon. I know you'd like every great President in American History to be a liberal, and I'm sure you're working on a way to claim Reagan is also liberal because of the the number of Democrats that voted for him. But your claim that Lincoln was a Liberal is really over the top, if not a hysterical.

You should read the book "Lincoln" by David Donald. It's one of the most insightful books on Lincoln ever written. Just because someone in recent political history envokes the memory of a former President in their ideology does not mean they share the same views. His entire platform was one of returning the nation to the basic tenants and foundation that we were built on, not what the liberals had allowed it to become. He was a conservative Whig in every way.

[Edited 2005-03-03 17:10:55]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Look Falcon. I know you'd like every great President in American History to be a liberal

Again, you just can't let go of your straight-jacketed ideologies, can you? The great presidents are just that-great, no matter what their ideology. I think Lincoln was a great President, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt; Truman. I Think Carter and LBJ, two liberals, were lousy Presidents. I think Reagan, while not being as god-like in his greatness as some want to make him, was an above-average President.

You see, unlike you, I can judge something, or analyze something, and put aside my personal beliefs, and where I stand on issues. And it comes back to one thing: Licoln was no conservative. Your ideological forefather wasn't Lincoln-it was Jeff Davis, and the southern Democrats, who, by 1950, were becoming the backbone of the modern Republican party. Again, I can't help you don't see that, but again, I know I'm dead on in my estimation, and you're so far off the mark that it isn't funny.


25 Boeing7E7 : You're so off base that it's not even funny anymore.
26 SlamClick : Would those of you who are debating the relative merit (or lack thereof) of present-day liberal/conservative personalities and organizations please bu
27 Post contains images Falcon84 : Actually, SlamClick, I did make a comment on the point of the post, but what 7E7 brought up is a good sidebar, and I don't see a problem responding to
28 Post contains images SlamClick : Well then perhaps I wasn't talking about you Falcon84 Or I might have been.
29 BN747 : The issue to southern leaders was their right to govern their own states. Of course the economic issue over slavery helped them decide how they felt a
30 JCS17 : Mmmhmmm...yeah buddy, that's what my grandpappy calls it. Them northerners wanted to do away with our trailer parks and 10 foot satillite dishes. They
31 Avek00 : It's funny trying to see people apply the modern definitions of liberal and conservative, as NEITHER ideology was established in America until the Ind
32 BN747 : It's funny trying to see people apply the modern definitions of liberal and conservative, as NEITHER ideology. There's nothing funny about.. and you a
33 FDXMECH : >>>The truth is that Lincoln was liberal, not conservative. Conservatives, by their nature, do NOT want things to change, and the South was fighting a
34 SlamClick : No, that would be Hollywood you are talking about. You need to get to America from time to time. Your rant is so full of stereotypical liberal clich
35 BN747 : No, that would be Hollywood you are talking about. You need to get to America from time to time. Your rant is so full of stereotypical liberal cliché
36 BN747 : But here's the paradox. Is George Bush a liberal? After all,, he doesn't want the status quo in the middle east. Can that somehow be equated with Linc
37 RNOcommctr : Symbols live on. What scares me are the jack-upped pick-up trucks that have Confederate flag stickers and bumper stickers that say "Jeff Davis for Pre
38 FDXMECH : >>>Lincoln tried to avoid war... Bush didn't (not by a stretch.. he even fabricated and excuse to do so).
39 Pendrilsaint : What this boils down to is contract law for the time. Does a state have right to enter and exit a contract if it is a constitution? I would argue that
40 SlamClick : Again - you need to get out of Hollywood. Honestly would you even have heard of Joey Koslowski if the story hadn't been made into a movie. And if you
41 L-188 : Doesen't mean that today either. After all the democrats still have clansmen such as Robert Byrd holding positions of power in their party.
42 DL021 : OK lets take a seemingly innocent question and turn it into full blown conflict..... Oh for Gods sake! Why the hell are we fighting the Civil War all
43 BN747 : Again - you need to get out of Hollywood. Honestly would you even have heard of Joey Koslowski if the story hadn't been made into a movie. And if you
44 Falcon84 : A few historical facts here for some folks. I think it's misleading to say "Lincoln tried to avoid war". Hell, he was only in office a month when Ft.
45 BN747 : and even former Confederate Generals like James Longstreet, and tried to put the onus for the war on the North, which is pure fantasy, but it did help
46 Falcon84 : Can anyone tell me if people in the south still celebrate things like "Jefferson Davis Day", and the like? I know the south used to make a big show of
47 Garnetpalmetto : Can anyone tell me if people in the south still celebrate things like "Jefferson Davis Day", and the like? I know the south used to make a big show of
48 UALPHLCS : JGPH1A First off today's Republican party IS NOT the party you refer to above. I'm sorry if a more literal reading of the US Constitution, and a lasse
49 Allstarflyer : A friend of mine in Arkansas likes to refer to the war as The War of Northern Aggression, but he's more mellow about it. A few of them (not all of the
50 FDXMECH : >>>He was a very good defensive General, and he did have a knack for exploiting a mistake by an opponent.
51 Falcon84 : I think comparing Lee to Grant in offensive strategy is a bit unfair. Lee had very little to work with (the souths small manufacturing base and popula
52 FDXMECH : >>>Point taken, but look at the resources that McLellan, Hooker, Burnside and Pope had to work with, and they couldn't do a damn thing with it. They w
53 Falcon84 : Unfortunately, from the outset of the war and the cry of "On To Richmond!", far too many people, and not just Generals, thought that taking Richmond w
54 UALPHLCS : Falcon84 and FDXMECH you guys have come across one of the great debates over the war. In some ways each one of your aurguments falls into either the "
55 Falcon84 : The "Lost Cause" states that from the first shot of the war at Fort Sumter, the South was doomed. Doomed because it lacked the resources and manpower
56 LTBEWR : The reference of some to the 'War of Northern Aggression' I would say is, in part, the belief that the North imposed their beliefs over those in the s
57 UALPHLCS : Careful you don't fall into the "Lost Cause" trap. What you said is very true. Incompetence and lack of coordination did hamper Union eforsts int he
58 LH423 : Cousins who moved from Massachusetts to South Carolina in middle-school to early-high school years were taught of the "War of Northern Aggression". Th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Theme Song From War Of The Worlds? posted Thu Jul 21 2005 06:38:34 by Qantas077
War Of The Worlds -- Spoilers posted Thu Jun 30 2005 04:11:28 by SATL382G
War Of The Furniture Stores? posted Tue Feb 22 2005 05:06:06 by L.1011
The War Of The Words posted Fri May 21 2004 04:36:11 by ConcordeLoss
A War Of Reserves: The Dollar Or Euro posted Tue Mar 4 2003 18:58:23 by TechRep
The War Of 1812 posted Thu Nov 30 2000 06:18:44 by Mls515
George Tenet Accuses Bush Of Rush To War posted Sat Apr 28 2007 12:38:02 by Joni
Author Of War Novel Das Boot Dies posted Sat Feb 24 2007 18:53:39 by Columba
Two Teens Boil Puppy-Because Of US War? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 03:10:35 by Fumanchewd
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys