Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30
I agree. I love the South. However the Albatross of the image of slavery, Jim Crow and the 60's Civil Rights Movement has been hung around the Southern white mans neck. It's just as pernicious as is the white Southern angst over the "War of Northern Aggression" that is shown on this thread. What's done is done. The restoration of Southern, antebellum culture (sans the slavery), is as likely as are reparations to blacks for that slavery. In other words, the answer to the question of when will the "South rise again" is a: "You can't get there from here". Blacks have to remove their hairshirt of historical slavery and whites remove the gray tunic of the Confederacy for both to progress. Neither is likely.
It's like Israel and the Palestinians.
I've been doing homework on this tidbit. I'm finding it to be a very very interesting topic, especially the religious affiliation of the major players. The patterns that surface are fascinating
What have you found so far?????? Please.
Been there, love it!
Think of how would it have ended if the South had an industrial base and/or was able to eliminate the Union blockade of Southern ports.
That's at least a little doubtful. Southerners didn't have any trouble fighting a guerrilla war in the 1780s during the later phases of the revolution. It was more West Point, Napoleon's reputation, and 19th century Romanticism that dictated the tactics that Civil War commanders used than anything especially Southern.
And I see you are unable to answer my other question on what 'states rights' were being violated.
trek wrote: Most import were industrial goods. At the time northern manufacturers were at a significant competitive disadvantage to British and other European manufacturers. They used the power of the Federal Government to levy onerous tarrifs on these imports.
Hmm, -- to you, "onerous tariffs" made war necessary. Weird idea.
This profited merchants and manufacturers in the north at the expense of largely poor farmers in the south (most of whom owned no slaves).
If tariffs were that bad, a black market in smuggled goods would have solved the problem. -- Nope, your idea that civil war came because of onerous taxes just does not wash.
Try again.
Bottom line is the universities and their religious affliations at their founding, and how those changed over time. Harvard I believe was the first to abandon trinitarian principles for Universalist ones.
When you enter into the problem from that direction, the biggest patterns emerge. The ones most hostile to the South were Unitarian types.
Nah, you're not.
Southern is, statements are not. A Southerner (notice the caps) need not claim he is a Southerner, nor does a virtuous woman have need to state that she is a lady. What is, is, and needs not explanation.
You do know that without the Cal and Australian Gold Rush's that there would not have been enough gold in the world to allow our trading partners to be on the same standard as us. It's considered fact by many historians (just google it if you need to) that Lincoln would not have been able to finance the Union side at least at that time, except for the extra buying power going into the treasury from the West and that the actual timing of the commencement of the Civil War was pushed up due to this factor.
ha...whatever you say...i guess being born and raised in the southern most part of the heart of dixie is not enough.
Here in North Carolina, it couldn't come a day too soon!!
English aristocrats were, of course, on the side of the Confederacy. Less a matter of class solidarity as a desire to see the USA broken up. A continuing Union was a threat to Britiain entire position in the Western Hemisphere.
That's right. Southern is a state of mind, not geography... (Said with an avuncular smile...)
The hard money laid a foundation for the expansion that took place during the war. Not enough to sustain a long expansion , however. The competing silver interest was there until the next gold strikes in Alaska and South Africa.
Agree completely with your remarks. But a greater understanding of our history might help some understand better the problems we face today. The idea of limited government is lost in the current debate. Our ancestors fought a war over it. A better understanding of history in general and the War between the States in particular might help some see better where we are, how we got here and why we might want to be in a place more attuned to the ideals of the founders.
Well, to name just a few:
Priscilla Owen (Texas)
Edith Jones (Texas)
J. Michael Luttig (Texas)
William Pryor (Alabama)
Michael McConnell (Kentucky)
He knew that it would take almost a year to build up his forces enough to challenge the Japanese in a full fleet offensive, so he adopted a hit-and-run strategy with Admiral Halsey that was absolutely brilliant. These slashing attacks with small carrier task forces kept the Japanese off balance and forced them to commit a number of stupid blunders. The only time we attempted to stop them with a show of force was the ABDA (Australian-British-Dutch-American) fleet action in the Java Sea that resulted in a crushing defeat for the Allies.
By the time the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway came around, the United States was in the midst of a massive rearmament and further risks could be taken to halt the Japanese advance. Even though the United States lost the carriers Lexington and Yorktown in these battles, they still had the Enterprise, Hornet, and Saratoga, with the Wasp and Ranger as backup, and they dealt a crippling blow to the Japanese Navy by sinking five carriers and crippling a sixth in these two engagements.
The South lost the war because they had fewer men left after four years of war.
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.