Posted on 04/25/2009 12:18:26 PM PDT by presidio9
I disagree.
I think we are fighting the same battle today the south fought for. States Rights.
A good and noble cause.
We do not like the dictates of D.C. still and it is growing./
In the same sense that the outcome the war with Japan was. The North had larger a population, infrastructure and economy. In other words, they had more men and more guns. They also had more money to purchase things, and a greater ability to get them where they needed to be. As soon as the war started the only question left was how many people would die and how much suffering there would be before the South admitted they were defeated. Anybody who would debate this is out of touch with reality.
Were we to fight a defensive war I think we could take the north today.
Course there is no way I’d send our boys to some parts of N.Y. or Chicago to try to defeat.
Incorrect. States do not have the right to seceede.
Sherman was a national hero and on the right side of history. He deserves a monument for his sacrifice and vision.
I understand that the industrial strength of the North foretold the outcome. Along with far greater manpower.
Still like many here in the south, I’ll take an ass whoopin, but I’ll not be dictated to by any man or govt.
States have the right to stand up to the federal govt. and tell it to take a hike when the federal govt. tries to take powers that are not bestowed upon it by the constitution.
Course we have to allow for activist judges who try to legislate from whatever bench they hold.
And whether Texas can leave is debateable.
Personally I’d like to see them do it.
I wolked the Nations Capitol and when I went around the corner and saw that there I nearly wretched.
Son of a bitch burned out what was not necessary.
South was gone and it didn’t need to get it’s teeth kicked in too.
Only made reconstruction last longer and the hatred too.
There is no debate: Once you joined this union, you gave up the right to leave it. That’s one of the reasons why Puerto Rico is not a state right now. Texas can’t leave without the Union letting it, so it’s not going anywhere.
I’m all for states rights, but you can’t lose a right you never had.
You must not be the student of the Civil War that you think you are: The South refused to be dictated to by the North on the issues of slavery and secession. The North, with the help of General Sherman administered that ass whoopin that you were talking about. The result was that the South got the ass whoopin, AND every state rejoined the Union without slaves. Where is the nobility in that?
The South wasn’t finished. In fact, Lincoln was abandoned by the Republican party and was facing certain defeat before Sherman took Atlanta. And it was Confederate general Hood who torched Atlanta, not Sherman.
Your reasoning was proven wrong in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Cold War - only counting wars where the US alone was involved.
Just like there is today, the North was under tremendous pressure to give up and sign a peace treaty with the north from internal forces. If the South had marched on Washington following the first battle of Bull Run, the North likely would have given up right then.
Gentlemen, PLEASE! Must every thread devolve into a pi$$ing match over: Who-started/Who-won/Who-should-have-won/Who-committed-atrosities/Lincoln-was-great/Lincoln-was-Satanic/etc.? Civil War I is over. Get ready for CWII on another thread or, better yet, by Freep-mail!
There was only a war the first time because the militias were all organized by state.
I agree that the North managed to prolong things by using incompetant generals early on, but the idea that the South almost won because they almost marched on Washington is stupid wishful thinking. This only occured because that Capitol was located directly on the front line at the beginning of the war -perhaps the only time this has happened in a major war in the history of the world. Its not like the South ever had a major advance into populated Union territory. And if the US didn't surrened after the British sacked Washington in 1813, wishful thinkers can't possibly have any way of knowing what would have happened in 1861. What we do know, is that Baugrgard did not sack Washington. Anything else is wishful thinking. The people of the North voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln, because they wanted to see the Union held together. Revisionsists like to play what if, but since the Union never did give up, neither you or anybody else has any way of knowing what the breaking point is.
England lost the Revolutuionary war because the French intervened, England had to send its troops 3000 miles by sail to fight, and the war was increasingly unpopular in Parliment.
England did not fight the War of 1812 to recapture its lost colonies. That's what the history books say here. The opinion there is that they won that war, especially because the US tried unsuccessfully to capture English colonial territories in the New World and faild.
The idea that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War in spite of overwhelming militiary, infrastructural or economic superiority is just plain stupid.
No pissing match here. I know why the war started and who won. And why they won. These are only matters of opinion to people who are delusional.
As far as I’m concerned, the South had plenty of legitimate gripes, but secession is always unforgivable.
Obama is too egotistical to share a mountain. He’ll have his own mountain.
It’ll also be easier to erase his memory after he messes up his country.
Janeane Garofalo just got a tingle up her leg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.