Confederate flag flies again..

[CaptainHaplo]

What astounds me about the whole "slavery" issue to start with is that the first actual slave in the US - and the institution of slavery itself in America, arise because the very first slaveowner in America was in fact, black. The slave was named John Casor, the slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson.

Casor claimed he was an indentured servant who had been held past the standard 7 years indenture. Johnson successfully sued claiming that he owned Casor "for life".

How many of you actually knew that the first slaveowner in America was in fact, a free black man? More importantly, how many of our children learn that little tidbit in history when they learn about the pure evil of the white, southern racist?

[Oberon]

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years. You've had a couple of wars of independence and a civil war, and there's THIS much aggrovation about it?

Do you see me and Jimbuna arguing over who was a Roundhead and who was a Royalist? Do I argue with Xabbarus over who was right or wrong in the Crimean war? Or with Hunter over the...actually, bad example, we rib each other about the Anglo-Dutch war and the Raid on Medway all the time. But sheesh, guys, I know the American civil war was a big deal, but at the end of the day, you're not the only country to have had one, some people really need to let it go.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by desertstriker

of a little from the current discussion trend but my 2 cents
My opinion is an unpopular one to say the least. and even though i am a yankee (live in ohio) my family fought on both sides and i proudly display both flags stars and stripes on top stars and bars on the bottom why the heritage. at first the simpletons would accuse me of being racist then saying i condoned slavery you know the whole shabang. finally i got the neighborhood educated enough that they have no probleme with it and infact send their children to borrow from my civil war library for papers but i do get the accasional knock at the door by another simpleton that isn't local who decided to take offense.
Edit forgot to mention state rights which many felt where being trampled on by the north but that is another subject that will take to much time. to discuss

Now there were many reasons for the civil war. much of it as with any war was econamics. slavery is claimed often by those who do not understand what actually happened during during the war and during some battles and after. even president Lincon made some contrary decisions about the treatment of slaves; some captured slaves where assigned to the northern units as "pillage" and "tactical assets" but this was as much to keep them from returning to their masters and being sent back to the lines. but to the average person yeah the war was about slavery and the politicians knew this and used it for propaganda.

anyways done with my 2 cents.

Actually Gen Grant kept two slaves in Ohio during the war: his excuse was "good help is hard to find" Have driven US 50 in my truck-em-up days thru all of Ohio from ravenswood WVA to Seymour Ind. and im still standn'! If you think the flag is bad try having a vintage jockey statue in the front yard to tie up the mustang at night!

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Armistead

There were about a dozen reason for the CW.

For the Union it was about high tariffs (mostly on the South}, big industry and protectionism. The North wanted the South to buy it's products, not lower priced products from Europe and tax Southern products at a higher level.

For the South it was about low taxes, free trade and economics. The south economics were based off agriculture/farming in which slaves played a major role.

The truth is tariffs had decreased in many aspects to low levels by the 1850's and many were seeking to raise them back up. The bigger issue was how the collected tariffs were spent, mostly to support the northern projects. This is what ticked off many a southern politician.

To say it wasn't about slavery, isn't quite correct. It was about ecomomics based on slavery. Certainly some in the North were against slavery, but not to the point it would interfere with economics. As long as the North got the tariffs from slave labor, it would be business as usual.

Lincoln never thought slavery a good idea, "free labor on free soil" doesn't work well in capitialism. Free labor doesn't create a tax base, you can't tax free labor. Lincoln wasn't radical, but he was against slavery on moral grounds as well. Lincoln worked the politcal climate when he could to support his beliefs against slavery. Certainly Lincoln saw blacks as inferior to whites and we see little of this on TV, but he didn't believe in enslaving man, nor did Robert Lee.


Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"
"From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the northern and the southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods. Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and laborers from cheaper European products. Demanding that "American laborers shall be protected against the pauper labor of Europe," tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave "employment to thousands of [American] mechanics, artisans, [and] laborers."
The vast majority of American industry was located in the northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits.
The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbors and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. The sectional friction caused by the tariffs bills eventually led the country to the nullification controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina declared the tariff laws null and void. John C. Calhoun, the father of nullification, developed the theory of secession and detailed the steps by which a state could sever its relationship with the Union and remove itself from the unfair power of the central government. Federal authority prevailed in the nullification crisis of 1832, but the theories developed by Calhoun would be invoked again when the country split apart in 1861. "

The fact remains the majority of "hicks" that fought in the war didn't own slaves. Many of these poor farmers would suffer from higher tariffs, but few truly understood the issue. They mostly heard radical speeches and would not stand for Northern Armies to invade their states. Like most wars, it was "rich men talking, poor men dying."

We should have the right to honor the history and heritage of those that fought and died.

"A rich mans war but a poor mans fight" was the expression of the time.

[Subnuts]

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What astounds me about the whole "slavery" issue to start with is that the first actual slave in the US - and the institution of slavery itself in America, arise because the very first slaveowner in America was in fact, black. The slave was named John Casor, the slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson.

Casor claimed he was an indentured servant who had been held past the standard 7 years indenture. Johnson successfully sued claiming that he owned Casor "for life".

How many of you actually knew that the first slaveowner in America was in fact, a free black man? More importantly, how many of our children learn that little tidbit in history when they learn about the pure evil of the white, southern racist?

Look up a plantation owner named Ball who owned several rice plantations in the Carolinas. He was black and his rice was highly sought after as a food for the slaver ships bringing their cargos to the Americas in what was the triangular trade, largely financed and conducted by New England ship owners! Required reading of the subject is 'the World Afire: the English involvement in the Civil War'. This lends global perspective to what Americans are myopic on. Lincoln signed the emancipation to keep England from supporting the South on the pretext of a victory at Sharpsburg(Antietam to the Bluebellies) Its investment portfolio mangled by the conflict, England turned to Egypt for long strand cotton to fuel its industrial revolution on the back of countless children working and dying in the textile mills. Contemplating invading Canada to unite the nation after the Trent affair, Lincoln decided one war at a time was enough. The unsung hero in all this was Sec of State Seward who kept the back channels friendly with Victoria's cabinet and was an assassination target the night of Lincoln's own murder.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us.

You'd be interested if there was a Hunley mod and you had a $50 gold piece!

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years. You've had a couple of wars of independence and a civil war, and there's THIS much aggrovation about it?

Do you see me and Jimbuna arguing over who was a Roundhead and who was a Royalist? Do I argue with Xabbarus over who was right or wrong in the Crimean war? Or with Hunter over the...actually, bad example, we rib each other about the Anglo-Dutch war and the Raid on Medway all the time. But sheesh, guys, I know the American civil war was a big deal, but at the end of the day, you're not the only country to have had one, some people really need to let it go.

Yeah but you guys are NASTY! I mean digging up poor Cromwell post- mortem to execute the corpse for regicide. EGAD. Actually my forbears were given the king's grace to flee to the colonies in 1745 rather than be HD'Q'd as good jacobites not in favor of the Hanover line of descent. Recently did the UK and met the clan head Kincaid! The house was a hospital in WWI. I do tend to lurk off Glasgow in my VIIB in my oilskin kilt

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Actually Gen Grant kept two slaves in Ohio during the war: his excuse was "good help is hard to find"

Do you have a source for that? The sources I've seen say that Grant personally owned one slave, whom he freed in 1859.
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years.

Boy, you Brits don't get along with anybody do you!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by eddie

Boy, you Brits don't get along with anybody do you!

Most of their "civil wars" were just guys killing each other to see who got be king this week. The only one they actually call the "English Civil War" ended up with no King at all.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Do you have a source for that? The sources I've seen say that Grant personally owned one slave, whom he freed in 1859.
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

After hastily exploring my extensive CW library, I stand slightly corrected. Grant emancipated his only owned slave in his own right in 1859. His wife however enjoyed the use of four slaves the gift of her father, a slave owner. As a husband of the times, Grant would have exercised control of his wife's property and thus benefitted in Galena IL. These chattel were liberated in the 1860's as well and one was hired as a nurse. Lee and Washington had similar difficulties as they acquired slaves by marrying "up" financially. A 'gentleman' of the times' of officer and Virginia squire set could manage his wife's nuptual holdings but could not enrich himself as he would be socially ostracized by the mores of the period. So much for the code of the South. Lee's slaves actually worked for him after the war, or his sons and many of Nathan Bedford Forrest's chattel worked for him after the war which is amazing as he was a self made millionaire dealing in slaves, for which he had been held in low esteem by the Jeff Davis set. His statue in Memphis has of course been removed but his tactics are still studied...ie "charge both ways" can translate to "shoot from the front and rear tubes simultaneously"... it works for me! Good to hear from u. Am working on VIIC with renewed vigor after your model upload.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Most of their "civil wars" were just guys killing each other to see who got be king this week. The only one they actually call the "English Civil War" ended up with no King at all.

No but they got an 'iron sided' Lord Protector who tried to have his poor son succeed him.

[CaptainMattJ.]

It all comes down to the infinite stubbornness of the average person. People will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them and no matter how biased they may be. Its why ive given up arguing over most things. Talking to people about certain things is often talking to a brick wall with lips. They dont talk to you, they talk AT you, regardless of how good of an argument you present. When it comes to political parties, religion, morality, hindsight, sports, ect, it all becomes pointless arguing.

Its why i stay out of arguments about things like the morality of the civil war.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us.

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

It all comes down to the infinite stubbornness of the average person. People will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them and no matter how biased they may be. Its why ive given up arguing over most things. Talking to people about certain things is often talking to a brick wall with lips. They dont talk to you, they talk AT you, regardless of how good of an argument you present. When it comes to political parties, religion, morality, hindsight, sports, ect, it all becomes pointless arguing.

Its why i stay out of arguments about things like the morality of the civil war.

If more people had attitudes like both of yours' I would still be a moderator and regular here as SubSim.