Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
rudi32

war of northern aggression

Recommended Posts

[quote name='rudi32' post='605775' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:19 AM']I will post my views, but aside from world war 1 and 2, I relly enjoy the american civil war or war of northern agression.[/quote]
You mean the American Civil War, otherwise known as the "Southern Rebellion to Keep Niggers As Chattel Property." <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cant start the topic and not post your views to get it going......


/The south had WMD's. We had to liberate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' post='605872' date='Dec 8 2007, 01:33 PM']Do you really believe that the Civil War should be called "The War Of Northern Aggression"?
:huh:[/quote]
[font="Arial Black"][b][size=3]THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN[/size][/font][/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='605854' date='Dec 8 2007, 11:45 AM']You mean the American Civil War, otherwise known as the "Southern Rebellion to Keep Niggers As Chattel Property." <_<[/quote]


:thumbsup:

[quote name='Ben' post='605856' date='Dec 8 2007, 12:08 PM']You cant start the topic and not post your views to get it going......


/The south had WMD's. We had to liberate them.[/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]Random Thoughts on the Issue:


* I don't harbor any romantic nations about Lincoln and blacks ... I realize he thought many would go back to Africa ... and that emancipation was more of a strategic move .... however with that said .... The "Emancipation Proclamation" is the 2nd greatest document in US history ... after the Declaration of Independence


* Gettysburg was analagous to Stalingrad in WWII .... changed the entire tide. "Pickett's Charge" was probably the worst folly of the whole war.


* Shermans march to the sea was necessary ... and apparently looking at many Southerners now ... he didn't burn them out enough - as they think they'll still "rise again". Plus if you believe in karma ... Sherman was repaying the place and it's people for slavery.


* I support the right of states to secede .... however not the right for states to own other human beings as Chattel


* Robert E Lee was the best military mind in the whole affair .... sadly he was leading yokels and was underequipped.


* The South should have employed more Guerrilla tactics. The southern generals were "gentlemen" and believed in this nonsense of lining up in straight lines to shoot at each other .... not realizing that with their numerical disadvantage ... they needed to use hit and run tactics and terror. [/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rudi32' post='605933' date='Dec 8 2007, 08:40 PM']I think the south had the right to leave the union.

The war was not based on slavery to the vast majority of southerners over 80% did not own slaves. 1/3 of the confederate soldiers did not have shoes. Slaves were exspensive, only the rich had them.[/quote]

[b]The south should have realized that the war would be more costly than just freeing all the slaves and paying them wages. The issue of slavery was very important from a PR standpoint for the North. In fact crucial I would contend. It allowed them to percieve themselves as the just fighting against the slave holding tyranny of the south. (Forgetting that the North could have cared less 10 years earlier with John Brown at Harpers Ferry). [/b]





[quote name='rudi32' post='605933' date='Dec 8 2007, 08:40 PM']Lincoln cared about 1 thing, keeping the union together. In a speech in 1862 lincoln said, "if i could keep the union together and the south still had salves I would" He didnt care (initially) about slaves. after 2 years of losing in 1863 lincoln turned the war from keeping the union together to freeing the slves.[/quote]

[b]Agreed. Although the emancipation was more a strategic move ... you have to admit it took a lot of Chutzpah to do it (feelings of blacks in the North weren't that great either at the time) ... and I would contend helped lead to him getting a bullet with his popcorn at the theater. Northern Presidents had been pushed to emancipate since the 1830's ... and finally someone had the gumption to do it. [/b]






[quote name='rudi32' post='605933' date='Dec 8 2007, 08:40 PM']If the south was just for states rights, to rule themselves, i would fight for them, if the south would still have slaves, then i would fight for the north,....dont know if that makes sense............[/quote]

[b]It makes sense. And I don't see anything wrong with that stance. If the issue was solely state power vs central power ... and slavery was removed ... then the South has more of a compelling argument. [/b]






[quote name='rudi32' post='605933' date='Dec 8 2007, 08:40 PM']I guess i still have a romantic view of it and the time period, it might be all wrong, i admit that. but to me the 18 year old soldier was fighting for his family, name, friends etc, he cared little about the politics of the war, (both sides)[/quote]

[b]As a fan of the underdog ... there is no doubt that the South was the overwhelming underdog here. When you place slavery aside and think of the poor farm kid rebel fighting against the large industrial army of the Union --- then sure there are possibilities for romanticism. They were sort of the "Guerrillas" or shall I say "Insurgents" of their time ... but with muskets instead of AK 47's.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='STRAYCAT' post='605934' date='Dec 8 2007, 09:11 PM']Best it worked out the way it did. Why bring this up. :huh:[/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]

[b]This is a forum for discussion of Historical topics. And he is a history buff (as many of us are) and thus wants to discuss the historical implications and events of the time.

Why the hell are you here reading if you don't want it brought up. I am sure there are a myriad of tittie pics somewhere else on the internet ... or I can post some for you. [/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BlackJesus' post='605939' date='Dec 8 2007, 09:30 PM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]

[b]This is a forum for discussion of Historical topics. And he is a history buff (as many of us are) and thus wants to discuss the historical implications and events of the time.

Why the hell are you here reading if you don't want it brought up. I am sure there are a myriad of tittie pics somewhere else on the internet ... or I can post some for you. [/b][/quote]

Why don't you include him by posting some civil war-era tittie daguerreotypes.

I know you've got 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' post='605872' date='Dec 8 2007, 01:33 PM']Do you really believe that the Civil War should be called "The War Of Northern Aggression"?
:huh:[/quote]

That is how it is still widely referred to in southern states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that somehow the North was against state's rights is laughable. And the idea that the South (as a GROUP of states) seceding was about state's rights is equally laughable.
Slavery sure as shit was a major component of this war...especially the spread of it to new states like Kansas.
Hell, Lincoln was amenable to the idea that slavery where it already existed could stay, it was the enforcement of it not allowing to be perpetuated in new territories that was causing such a stink.
And, even if as some assert that Lincoln was less than genuine about the ideals set forth in the Emancipation, few could argue today that the wheels that got set in motion that day and thereafter due to that stance against slavery were anything less than noble in principle, if it has taken 150 years after to get to where it should have been from the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BlackJesus' post='605939' date='Dec 8 2007, 09:30 PM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]

[b]This is a forum for discussion of Historical topics. And he is a history buff (as many of us are) and thus wants to discuss the historical implications and events of the time.

Why the hell are you here reading if you don't want it brought up. I am sure there are a myriad of tittie pics somewhere else on the internet ... or I can post some for you. [/b][/quote]


It was the northern aggression I was making fun of dipstick.....and you post enough titties here anyway. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rudi32' post='605964' date='Dec 8 2007, 11:27 PM']first off i chose the title to spark a debate

second, in the south the war is called that, and its not a made up name

ie the vietnamese dont call the vietnam war, the vietnam war,...maybe BJ can help me out, but i think they call it the american war


so dont laugh -_-

lol
so, the same war is often called different names depending on what side ur on[/quote]


I was just making a joke as to what it might be like if things had turned out different and just asked why this was brought up and have to read his jerkoff comment. Both sides of my family are from the south and that term was never used so I never heard of it. So go ahead and debate and discuss something else already done and gone. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' post='605953' date='Dec 8 2007, 10:47 PM']The idea that somehow the North was against state's rights is laughable. And the idea that the South (as a GROUP of states) seceding was about state's rights is equally laughable.
Slavery sure as shit was a major component of this war...especially the spread of it to new states like Kansas.
Hell, Lincoln was amenable to the idea that slavery where it already existed could stay, it was the enforcement of it not allowing to be perpetuated in new territories that was causing such a stink.
And, even if as some assert that Lincoln was less than genuine about the ideals set forth in the Emancipation, few could argue today that the wheels that got set in motion that day and thereafter due to that stance against slavery were anything less than noble in principle, if it has taken 150 years after to get to where it should have been from the outset.[/quote]
Bung has hit the nail on the head, here.
People also forget that the Emancipation Proclamation just outlawed slavery in the rebellious states. Lincoln didn't want to endanger the Union's place with the Border states ("I hope to have god on my side, but I must have Kentucky," etc.).


I think the North Vietnamese call the war something like the "War for Independence against America." Of course, I still concede that Ho Chi Minh was a Freedom Fighter, so what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As this thread has more of a Romantic and nostaligic aura, than it does of hard-nosed historiography, I thought I'd pass along two letters that I received from my grandfather's estate. Written by the Cobb, of Cobb's Battery, 1st Kentucky Brigade (otherwise known as the Orphan Brigade), they are responses to letters apparently sent by my grandfather's grandfather, who served as a private in the battery.

Written at the turn of the 20th century, you can get some of the flavor of the times from them. There are a few illegible words that I could not transcribe; you'll see them noted in brackets. Otherwise, spelling and punctuation is faithful to the originals.

[quote]Wichita Falls, Tex, May 17th 1899

W.E. Thompson, Esq.
Flag Fork, Ky

My Dear Comrade,

When your very kind and thoroughly welcome letter reached me, I determined to answer it promptly. But about that time I moved my office and in the shuffle of moving, your letter was misplaced, and I could not recall your post office.

Recently however in overhauling, and under a "Sunday morning inspection" it turned up. So that I proceed, even at so late a day, to reply.

I surely remember you, particularly as associated with our gallant boy Decius Wayne, whom our brave and much loved Maj Graves so much admired. The circumstance of the explosion of our limber chest at Hartsville Landing, resulting in the death of poor Davy Watts, and the wounding of six or seven others remains vividly in my memory, but I had forgotten who it was who caught my horse which had broken away from me at the time. I was dismounted I know, and leading my horse or had someone holding him for me while I was at the chest giving some directions to the men about it, not exceeding three minutes before the explosion, and had just turned away to consult Col Morgan and Col Thom Hunt (of the 9th Infantry) as to a movement to our left in order to get the battery out of the ugly predicament we were in on the hillside covered with snow as you will remember, and to get upon the enemy's right flank. This last was accomplished, and three or four shots from Lieut Gracey's section at the enemy in line with their extreme right but back at a right angle thus: [handwritten graphic] which struck the angle squarely, and sufficed to throw the whole into confusion, of which the 2nd Infantry took prompt advantage and the battle was practically won by the simultaneous charge of that regiment and the 9th (under Capt Morehead.[)] You may remember that that day we marched nearly three times as many prisoners across the Cumberland river as we had men engaged. And do you remember that the last position we took at the eastern edge of the enemies camp, brought us face to face, at only about 30 yds distance between us, with the 104 ills [104th Illinois?], standing in perfect line, and order of battle, numbering nearly a thousand men; and I had given the order to load with double canister; the guns were shotted, lanyards fixed, when Lieut Bob Matthews called out from the right "Capt, here is a white flag"? I had barely time to ride out front and give the cautionary command, "as you are" and averted the fire, when Capt Crouch of the 9th Ky came up to me, arm in arm with a bareheaded officer, bearing in his hands a musket with a white handerkerchief tied to the fixed bayonett, and introduced him to me as Col Moore. Upon my demand to know who he was and what he desired, he replied that he was in command of the camp and desired to surrender the whole command, but desired to see Morgan. I ordered him to remain where he was, and immediately gave the command to the regiment in my front to "ground arms" which was promptly obeyed, and the battle ended finally. So you see I had the honor to receive the surrender of Col Moore of the 104th Ills (I think it was).

I just as well remember at Murphresboro (Stone's River Yankees call it) the shot from a 10 pds parrot gun on Tuesday afternoon before the grand battle on Wednesday that cost you your arm, and Decius Wayne his life besides wounding two others whose names I can not recall. The same shot absolutely gutted all six of the horses without wounding either of the three drivers. These were dismounted holding horses. Every horse fell except John Brockman's lead horse and this stood for a while with the bowels hanging entirely out. Do you remember it? Poor Dear Graves had made me provoke the shot from the enemies' battery. I ordered, under protest to Graves, two shots from two bronze rifles of Lumsden's Ala battery, which were serving with me, but Cobb's Battery received the return fire, with the above result. Of course it was a chance shot because the horses and limber were out of sight below the crest of the ridge.

And having indulged in so much of the history of the two battles in which you participated with me I must tell you something of myself. I have lived here 14 years--practiced law-- made good money, and spent it to care for and educate my children--six in number--boy at the top and the foot of the class, with four daughters between--having lost one little girl at Paducah before coming out here. My baby boy will soon be a voter--21 in Aug next--have one daughter married--has two girl children-twins, and is now living with her husband Mr Albert Sidney {illeg}nett at Fort Worth (Tex). I will be 63 years old next Sunday and am in good health--and my whole family are I am glad to say in good health. {illeg} good health is one of the attractions of this country.

Of course all my tribe--voters and non voters-- are Kentucky and Texas Democrats--free silver democrats, and anti-expansionists--in this last of which and only this, we agree with old gut-headed Cleaveland, who so ingloriously sold us out, along with Carlisle and Bill Lindsay and other apostates, to the gold bugs and money changers of the world.

Do you ever meet Maj McDowell of the glorious old 2nd Ky, or any of the other dear old Comrades of the dear old Brigade? If you ever meet any of these remember me to them. I love you all--God knows I do.

It gives me unbounded pleasure to know that you are prosperous and happy, and I sincerely trust you may live long and prosper, and enjoy the society of your six boys and the darling girl, to all of whom I shall love to be remembered always as well as to the fortunate lady who was so successful as to capture as gallant a boy soldier as you were.

I must tell you before closing that notwithstanding the three score years and more that I have passed, I still feel like a four year old, and believe I should enjoy commanding the men of Cobb's Battery (and, the Good Lord could--but never did permit a braver set of fellows to live) as much as I did in the War between the States--especially if the lines of battle were drawn up again for the same causes that actuated us in 1861-65. I am still a State Sovereign Democrat.

God bless you and yours and believe me
Faithfully Comrade!
R Cobb

Write me of any of the old comrades you meet.[/quote]

And the 2nd letter, a few years later.

[quote]Wichita Falls, Tex Oct 6th 1904,

My Dear Thompson,

Mr {illeg} promptly delivered the bottle of E. H. Taylor Jr and Sons' spiritus frumenti, which came to me like a "balm in Gilead": First because it came as a reminder of a true and faithfull comrade of that kind of men who made Cobb's Battery famous and linked my name imperishably with the cause of our beloved Southland--the cause of real liberty on the Continent: Secondly because the excellence of the spirits awoke within my memory the glorious recollection of grand Old Kentucky; the old Kentucky of the halcyon days of my youth. Accept therefore, my thanks for the {illeg} and for the remembrance of me which it evidences.

I wrote you long ago in reply to a letter you wrote me; but no reply has ever been received: and as had on it the usual return notice, I supposed it was lost in transit, or that you had passed away to that goodly land where no material mail routes, and communication can only be had in the spirit: so that your present was thrice welcome.

I cannot express to you in language adequate, the pleasure it would give me to meet you, and the old comrades once more in this life. I know we'll meet in the world beyond--in the realm where all true and faithful Confederate Soldiers, must go to meet our Breckinridge, Hanson, {illeg}, Preston, Lewis and all the great host who gave up their lives for the cause.

But as I am now in my 69th year, and not "flush" in this world's goods, I must content myself with the privilege of a letter now [and] then from the remnant of the survivors of my old command. Write to me!

Faithfully comrade!
Yours
R Cobb[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascinating, Homer. I really liked this paragraph for it's eloquence and vibrancy of belief:

"[i]Mr {illeg} promptly delivered the bottle of E. H. Taylor Jr and Sons' spiritus frumenti, which came to me like a "balm in Gilead": First because it came as a reminder of a true and faithfull comrade of that kind of men who made Cobb's Battery famous and linked my name imperishably with the cause of our beloved Southland--the cause of real liberty on the Continent: Secondly because the excellence of the spirits awoke within my memory the glorious recollection of grand Old Kentucky; the old Kentucky of the halcyon days of my youth. Accept therefore, my thanks for the {illeg} and for the remembrance of me which it evidences[/i]."


I often wonder what happened to the loquaciousness and variety of our vernacular in the English language. Words like "halcyon" just aren't really used anymore, but they evoke something in me that I can't really put a finger on.

Spiritus frumenti indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who were literate in those days were literate, indeed!

The part that makes me laugh a little is this:

[quote]I just as well remember at Murphresboro (Stone's River Yankees call it) the shot from a 10 pds parrot gun on Tuesday afternoon before the grand battle on Wednesday that cost you your arm, and Decius Wayne his life besides wounding two others whose names I can not recall. The same shot absolutely gutted all six of the horses without wounding either of the three drivers. These were dismounted holding horses. Every horse fell except John Brockman's lead horse and this stood for a while with the bowels hanging entirely out. [b]Do you remember it?[/b][/quote]

I'm thinking, my great-great grandfather is laid out, arm blowed up real good, and Cobb is asking if he remembers some horse with it's guts hanging out. I've always joked that some folks in KY think more of horses than they do of people; though this isn't proof of that as I know Cobb cared about his soldiers, it still kind of supports my thesis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rudi32' post='606572' date='Dec 9 2007, 04:22 PM']my grandfather fought along side yours for Ky on the confederate side.

kinda cool if you think of the history, and here we are almost 150 years later talking about it..[/quote]
It is cool. Too bad they fought on the wrong side, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rudi32' post='606679' date='Dec 9 2007, 07:36 PM']thats ur opinion..
lol[/quote]
That's just it...the Confederate side was the wrong side to be on, regardless of their bleak prospects of winning the war against the North....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rudi32' post='606679' date='Dec 9 2007, 07:36 PM']thats ur opinion..
lol[/quote]
Yes, it's my opinion. It's also the truth. What you fail to understand is that one cannot separate the causes of the Civil War into distinct autonomous categories. You fight for the South, one of the causes you fight for is slavery. Doesn't matter what your views on slavery are, or even if one has no view at all about it at all. The people who promoted the rebellion, who engaged in developing policy during the rebellion, and who callously used the population under their control in order to get them to help prosecute the rebellion, were pro-slavery. This is a matter of fact.

You can delude yourself as much as you want by slicing and dicing. But you are only fooling yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Kentucky was never in the Confederacy (neither were Eastern Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, or anywhere else that yeomen farmers outnumbered the elite planter class, but a military dictatorship can force people to do odd things). Missouri is the same kind of deal. Kentucky had a few pro-confederate officials (Magoffin comes to mind), but their votes in the Confederate legislature were conducted my military men who were not elected officials from the area.

Not to sound exceedingly Marxist, but the Civil War was waged by southern slaveholders (who made up the upper echelon of the population), and the media and army were controlled by these people to keep the rest of the population in line. The South was the most un-American institution in its day, and not just because of the obvious problems that enslaving fellow human beings brings up. Southerners could only read Southern newspapers that promoted pro-Slavery, pro-Democrat ways of thinking, and anything else was illegal and extremely dangerous to have around.

This is the reason that folks in the mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia (who split off and formed a new state), and other areas where the ground wasn't suitable for short-staple cotton production were forced by conscription (which the South began in this country) to fight for policies that they didn't believe in. People in East Tennessee (when they were still able to vote) voted against secession 3-1, but the "Lost Cause" myth and its pervasive effect on our historiography makes it so that people down there are just as like to fly the confederate flag as the correct one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent points, 22.

Textile workers in England, dependent upon cotton from the US south, were in opposition to the rebellion, partly because of the organizing done by Marx. He also was a correspondent to one of the NY papers (I forget which.)

[url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm"]Some interesting reading here.[/url] NSFCAOM (Not Safe For Conservatives Afraid Of Marx.) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='#22' post='607098' date='Dec 10 2007, 04:33 PM']Also, Kentucky was never in the Confederacy (neither were Eastern Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, or anywhere else that yeomen farmers outnumbered the elite planter class, but a military dictatorship can force people to do odd things). Missouri is the same kind of deal. Kentucky had a few pro-confederate officials (Magoffin comes to mind), but their votes in the Confederate legislature were conducted my military men who were not elected officials from the area.

Not to sound exceedingly Marxist, but the Civil War was waged by southern slaveholders (who made up the upper echelon of the population), and the media and army were controlled by these people to keep the rest of the population in line. The South was the most un-American institution in its day, and not just because of the obvious problems that enslaving fellow human beings brings up. Southerners could only read Southern newspapers that promoted pro-Slavery, pro-Democrat ways of thinking, and anything else was illegal and extremely dangerous to have around.

This is the reason that folks in the mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia (who split off and formed a new state), and other areas where the ground wasn't suitable for short-staple cotton production were forced by conscription (which the South began in this country) to fight for policies that they didn't believe in. People in East Tennessee (when they were still able to vote) voted against secession 3-1, but the "Lost Cause" myth and its pervasive effect on our historiography makes it so that people down there are just as like to fly the confederate flag as the correct one.[/quote]

Weren't there 2 capitols in Kentucky during the war? One in Frankfort and one in Bowling Green?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...