Civil War Pics

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by -06, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

  2. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    Excellent comment post by Gary Howell on the pictures and the situation we face today.
    Let's get out history correct---was the real cause of the Civil War slavery? I think not. The facts tell us that only 1 in 10 owned slaves in the South. I can tell you for a fact that my great grandfather nor his 3 brothers went to war because of slavery as they owned none. I had the great fortune of growing up in a literate family including my great grandfather who wrote of why he fought. It was because of an issue we face today---state and individual rights versus an ever encroaching central governement. One of the great discussions I was a part of included one hot August day under a large post oak tree listening to my dad and his 3 brothers discuss the old Confederate Veteran who moved to Texas after losing everything in Mississippi in the Civil War. Though it had no special meaning at the time, my Uncle Roy (who was born in in 1895 and knew the old Reb well) talked of the times he and the old man discussed the Civil War and how the old Reb argued vehemently that the war was not about slavery but about individual rights---at least that is how he saw it. I do think there were some Southern fire brands who were legislators and slavery was at the heart of their fire eating. However, that does not explain how the masses of average citizens of the South were persuaded to fight a war over slavery alone. No, I think the masses of the Confederates (who suffered up to 40% DEATHS) fought, gamely, for what faces us today---an out of control Federal government intent upon controlling our lives and bankrupting us in the process.
  3. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    I've read a lot about the people who fought that war.Both sides.It's a bit eerie To have read this comment after those pictures.Did we win or did we lose?Are we repeating the things that divided us then? Which faction wins next time?
    Alpha Dog, tulianr and tacmotusn like this.
  4. oth47

    oth47 Monkey+

    Some years ago I started digging into my family history.Of the slaveholding members,I found not one instance of fighting in the War Between the States.On my mother's side,I found that my great-great grandfather's 4 brothers and a cousin joined the Confederate side.Of all the war veterans I found,not one instance of owning slaves.Doesn't prove anything,but was interesting to me.
  5. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay

    As a 27 year old I feel that it was not too long ago that I was taught the war was abotu slavery. Hearing stories like these and seeing these pictures helps me to understand things a little better. Thank you for the post!
  6. Suerto

    Suerto Monkey+

    I understood that the war was NOT about slavery when they taught it to me in HS, 18yrs ago..

    Just didn't add up, to me.
    If it was about slavery, why wait 2yrs into the war to declare emancipation?

    I got ancestors who fought on both sides, predominantly confederate though.. Only 1 outta my 4 direct ancestors who fought, might have owned slaves..

    My ancestors who I know owned slaves, did not fight, or atleast, were not officially listed on the rolls. Although three major battles for the lower atchafalaya basin occurred on thier property (sugar cane plantation). They prolly played both sides, leaning towards the confederacy.. For survival purposes.

    My great aunt, blew up half the house, when she used an un-exploded ordinance in the fireplace as a wood grate, back in 1940.. She lived the rest of her life fairly maimed until 1989, so, the civil war and it's knock on affects touched me directly..

    Aside from segregation and desegregation and southern poverty and etc, etc, etc..
  7. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    Not to mention that the emancipation proclamation only applied to the rebel states. Kinda hard to be all holier than thou while allowing continuation of slave ownership in the northern and neutral states.
  8. Suerto

    Suerto Monkey+

    Yes, "not to mention".. I don't ever recall it being mentioned..

    Although much time was spent on heralding the "underground railroad" and such..

    but alas, we are where we are.. NOW.. There is definitely lines drawn in these un-united states, that you can clearly see, by electoral maps, and traveling around talking to people in the different states.

    Many people around the country had no idea what it was like, dealing with "entitlement mentality", until they had to accommodate katrina refugee's..
    I think it was a real eye opener for many across the country.
    STANGF150 and Redneck Rebel like this.
  9. DKR

    DKR Raconteur of the first stripe

    RAndy Golden of the Atlanta website

    This was the time of King Cotton. During the war, the British textile industry turned to so-called Egyptian cotton

    Some say simplistically that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Unfortunately, there is no "simple" reason. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors in America's bloodiest conflict.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]Complaints of Georgians[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    Many of the problems Georgians saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints levied from 1816 on in Georgia.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]Constitutional Questions[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    People argued about the meaning of the Constitution since its infancy. From a legal standpoint, the document defines the relationship between the people of the United States and the federal government, detailing the powers and responsibilities of each. In 1828 Vice-president John C. Calhoun said if a state felt a federal law extended beyond the Constitutional rights of the government that state had the right to ignore(or "nullify") the law. This concept dated back the Articles of Confederation. President Andrew Jackson felt the federal government was the highest authority(Article VI, Section 2) and the states had to abide by its law.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]Tariffs and the Nullification Crisis[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]The rhetoric changes[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    However, the political climate changed during this "Nullification Crisis." Designations of States Rightist, Pro-Union, loose or strict constructionalist became more important than Whig or Democrat. In North Georgia when John Thomas, a local politician, was asked what to name a new county he said, "Name it Union, for none but Union-like men live here." Most of the northern tier of Georgia counties remained pro-Union until the outbreak of war almost 30 years later. From this point on factional politics would play an increasing part in the division of a country.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]Economic changes affect society[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    The Panic of 1837 and the ensuing depression began to gnaw like a hungry animal on the flesh of the American system. The disparity between northern and southern economies was exacerbated. Before and after the depression the economy of the South prospered. Southern cotton sold abroad totaled 57% of all American exports before the war. The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]The breakdown of the political system[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    The ugliness of the political process quickly began to show as parties turned upon themselves and politics on a national level were more like local Georgia politics. Feuds and fights in political arenas were common. From 1837 until 1861 eight men became president, but no man served more than a single term in office. One sitting president was not renominated by his own party and another withdrew his name after being nominated. New political parties were created with names like Constitutional Union, American, Free-Soilers and Republican. In Georgia, Democrats were strong, but factional fighting broke the party along pro-Union and States Rights lines.
    With the disintegration of the Whig party in the early 1850's the political turmoil increased. Howell Cobb, former Speaker of the House, molded pro-Union Democrats, mostly from North Georgia, with former Whigs to grab the governorship in 1851. His attempts to help slaves fell on the deaf ears of our state legislature. Although Georgia began to prosper during his first year the coalition fell apart as the Democrats reunited. The increasing power of the West and self-serving politicians like Stephen A. Douglas churned the political environment as the North and South battled for philosophic control.
    By the time Buchanan was elected(1856) the country was divided on many issues, including slavery. Former Governor Cobb spoke in the North as a moderate Southerner for Buchanan and served on his cabinet. Over the next 4 years Cobb changed from pro-Union to secessionist. A similar process occurred across much of Georgia. In 1860 the state was equally divided between secessionist and pro-Union.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]A concise history of slavery[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    At Jamestown, Va. in 1611 a group of Scottish women and children were sold as slaves. 7 years later in Jamestown the first Africans were sold in slavery. From 1611 until 1865 people from virtually every society on earth were sold into slavery in North America. Citizens in each of the thirteen colonies enslaved people, but slavery was viewed as a southern institution after the early 1800's. Along the coastal areas of the South a majority of the slaves were black. In some inland areas whites and Native Americans outnumbered black slaves. Slavery is still legal in the United States as a criminal punishment, but is not practiced.
    In 1789 Georgians, as did much of the rest of the country, saw slavery as a dying institution. Eli Whitney's stolen modification of the cotton gin(1793) created a greater demand for slaves, so rather than "wither on the vine" the institution prospered. The Northwest Ordinance, adopted in 1787 banned the practice in the Northwest Territories. In 1798 Georgia forbid further importation of slaves and the Constitution allowed Congress to outlaw importation of slaves in 1808, which they did. Over the next 40 years lesser skirmishes were fought over slavery including the Compromise of 1820. In North Georgia slavery was not widespread and a majority of the slaves were of Native American, Scottish or Irish descent.
    Slaves often spoke of "our cotton" or "our cattle". The only item they would concede was the master's carriage. Trusted slaves were permitted to go to town unescorted. Others suffered horribly. Conditions in northern factories were as bad or worse than those for a majority of the slaves, but it would be 40 years after the war when they were properly addressed.
    Beginning in the late 1840's the conflict over slavery began to boil over. The Compromise of 1850 contributed heavily to the split in Georgia's Democratic Party. On a national scale David Wilmot, Lloyd Garrison, and Harriet Beecher Stowe enflamed the abolitionists. James G. Birney and Theodore Weld were more effective against slavery. The Dred Scot decision, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and harsher Fugitive Slave Laws gave the South some redress.
    The new Republican Party became a home to the alienated abolitionists. Although they totaled less than 3% of the population at large, they formulated the Republican platform to include the abolition of slavery as a plank. The party then nominated Abraham Lincoln for president. Few gave him any chance of success, but 3 other candidates split the popular vote and Lincoln won. Convinced that Lincoln would ruin the South economically, possibly by freeing the slaves, the heartland of the South withdrew from the Union. Shortly thereafter the upper south joined them. The attack on Fort Sumter launched America's bloodiest conflict.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]So what caused the war? [/FONT]
    [​IMG]The United States had been moving towards a fractured, divisive society for a number of years. Cultural and economic differences served to widen the rift. Battles among North, South, and West grew more heated, especially after 1850. Politicians and the judiciary sent conflicting signals trying to appease each of the groups involved, yet all remained dissatisfied. Georgians saw a federal government controlled by Northern industrialists who were unresponsive to the problems of their state. Tariffs paid by Georgians bought improvements in northern and western states. Now the federal government, they thought, was going to take away personal property without compensation, a clear violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
    The South was wrong to assume Lincoln intended to free the slaves. He had never advocated action to abolish slavery nor did he speak out against the Illinois rules prohibiting blacks from testifying against whites. The true abolition candidate, Gerrit Smith of New York drew few votes. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Even though he made this speech after the South seceded he left the door open for their return.
    [FONT=georgia,verdana]During the war[/FONT][FONT=georgia,verdana] [/FONT]
    Southerners abolished the African slave trade in the Confederate Constitution. In the North "Preserve the Union" was the battlecry and Lincoln quoted "...a house divided shall not stand..." from the Bible. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation(1862), a foreign affair ploy, cost Republicans control of the legislature that November. A year later Lincoln restated why the war was fought when he said, dedicating a cemetery at Gettysburg "..for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live." During the Draft Riots in New York City 88 blacks were lynched.

    For the role cotton played in the war
    Cotton and the Civil War | Mississippi History Now
    Cotton then was like we view oil to day - a major driver in industry.

    Tarriffs were a major player before and just before theCivil war - one might say the seeds were sown in 1832...
    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 web is full of such resources, Slavery was a political factor in the war,economics, or rather - economic tension was the underlayment of the conflict.

    Even all this time later, we still here and feel the echos of that conflict.
    tulianr, STANGF150 and Suerto like this.
  10. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    On the original topic, the LoC has a ton of really interesting photographs from the period.

    Selected Civil War Photographs Home Page

    A favorite of mine of General Robert E. Lee and son Major General George Washington Custis Lee.
    Alpha Dog likes this.
  11. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Good post, DKR

    Interesting post and analysis DKR. Nothing is ever clear cut, and reality is often more complex than the proponents of partisan positions may concede. Some folk (historical revisionists) have a tendancy to refashion history to conform to their own contemporary world view, than to simply discover from the evidence what the the world view was of the enactors of history in their own context.
    oldawg and tulianr like this.
  12. larryinalabama

    larryinalabama Monkey++

    The only justice in the war is Lincolns blood ran into the streets. That SOB ctreated lakes of blood.

    Had the South fought an OFFENSIVE WAR the whithe house coud have never been finished, think how many heartachs that building has created.

    As for slavery there were several bills that would return slaves to their country of orgin but the slaves themselves didnt want that.

    After the war there was a huge problem of what to do with the slaves, as most did not want to leave the plantation.

    The result of the civilwar is a centural goovernment that does not reconize state powers anymore. State are in reality left "POWERLESS" against the tiranny of the fedural government.
    Gator 45/70, Alpha Dog and oldawg like this.
  13. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    An Offensive war strategy by the confederacy may not have necessarily altered the outcome of the American Civil War in the Confederacy's favour.
    I am not as familiar with American Civil War military history as I am with the military history of other times and places, but I would argue, that even if the WhiteHouse had been captured and destroyed, though that would have been a considerable symbolic set back for the Union forces, it would not of itself necessarily resulted in the defeat of the North. The British in the war of 1812, as I understand it, torched the White House, but to no strategic or diplomatic benefit to the British, with Britain and the USA ultimately negotiating a peace settlement that essentially failed to alter the status quo.

    The destruction of the Whitehouse building would only have had the effect of increasing the determination of the Union to defeat the confederacy. Hitler found to his own destruction that attempts at destroying symbolic political objectives (Lenningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow) only undermined his capacity to achieve economic and military objectives. Destroying the Whitehouse but not destroying the Union's industrial capacity to wage war would have resulted in the same outcome as did actually occur.

    It could be argued that prosecuting an "Offensive" war may have resulted in the defeat of the Confederacy earlier than was the case. Given the Union economic blockade of the Confederacy, and the great manufacturing disparity between the two side's capacity for prosecuting the war, a defensive strategy was the only sensible course of action to be taken. That is not to say that the Confederacy could not have been better at exploiting strategic offensive opportunities earlier in the war when the Union were ill organised and appallingly led.

    By the time the likes of Grant and Sherman and others of similar capability were ramrodding the Union forces, the attritional aspects of the conflict could only have led to one outcome favour of the Union: albeit an expensive outcome for both sides.

    Bearing in mind that slavery and slave owning was an American institution in society since the 1600s, and that slavery was not confined only to Africans, that American Indians and indeed "whites" were also held in slavery, Bills returning freed slaves to their country of origin were neither sensible, nor practical solutions.

    Remember that the progeny of slaves were not considered "free" but were considered the property (chattels) of the slave owner (a practice consistent with the Biblical take on slavery). Where were slaves to be rapatriated to who were born in America? Where were slaves who had lost their associations and connections to their tribal origins be repatriated to? This is particularly so if indeed their tribal roots could be located or still even existed at all. (assuming that their tribe had not been utterly decimated and destroyed by the slavers in the first case). Just dumping slaves back in the port of origin of the country that they were shipped from is not quite the same as returning slaves to their homes, and providing the restitution necessary, in any sensible way to enable them to live their previous existence of pre-enslavement.

    Just because slaves did not want to be repatriated back to their country of origin, did not justify the institution of slavery, did not justify their continued ill treatment and oppression even when freed, and did not justify the denial of their human rights, as as enjoyed by American society in general as defined under the US Constitution. To have forcibly repatriated slaves would have been a denial of the former slave's right of self would have merely perpetuated the former slave's status as a slave without any real freedom as such until the "former" slave had been dumped at their port of origin.

    Some former slaves may not have wanted to leave their plantation, it was after all, all that many slaves had ever known. But as free individuals they had the right to leave when they wished, which is something that they most often didn't have before their freedom. Former slaves also had the freedom of choice to want to stay with their former slave owner...or to find work with a plantation owner who offered better treatment, better pay and better conditions elsewhere.

    The problem that you cite was more a problem of the virtual destruction of the economy of the Southern States. Machinery, plant and real property can be mothballed, stock such as cattle can be sold, consumed or destroyed if keepin them is unsustainable, but selling, destroying, or consuming newly freed slaves surplus to requirements, were neither legal nor morally conscionable courses of action open for former slave owners to take.

    I have little sympathy for slave being a problem of their own creation. If they had taken the morally defensible action of fairly employing free people for at least a living wage, then maybe I might have some sympathy for plantation owners that were downsizing due to economic hardship. However if in persuing wealth and profit, at the expense of the human dignity and the freedom of others, all I can say is...suffer!!

    tulianr likes this.
  14. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    I tend to agree Chello... only thing that would have come of a burn DC would have been Sherman's March x1000.
    chelloveck likes this.
  15. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    These are some of my favorite's.

    Men who died for their home and way of life and belived in a just cause .

    [​IMG]Unknown confederate soldier

    [​IMG] General R.E. Lee and Travler A true leader of men!!!!!!

    [​IMG]His men would have followed him into the gates of hell and never questioned his commands.

    A rich man's war and a poor man's fight..."

    Southern opposition slogan, in The Civil War by Shelby Foote

    Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."
    General Robert E. Lee,
    August 1870 to

    Ours is a just war, a holy cause. The invader must meet the fate he deserves and we must meet him as becomes us, as becomes men."
    John Pelham

    It is hard for alot of people to belive they were lied to by most history books they was taught in school. Our country's goverment from the start has lied to the people and changed history over time to put them in the holly light as the savior of man. Those of us who dispute and see the truth for what it is are considered the enemy just as the Southern people were for their way of life that did not suit the goverment and aid in the making of money to make them rich on the blood of the poor man. A friend of mine was joking with me the other day we went in a mom and pop restraunt and he said I got the tab they quit taking confederate money years ago and laughed. My reply was thats fine my old confederate money in another month or two will be worth as much as the US dollar with the way the goverment is going. Then I just smiled and said I wonder if thangs would of been different if the war had ended different and the Sotuh had won? My die hard Yankee friend still hasn't made a comment about my Southern ways. ​

    larryinalabama and Redneck Rebel like this.
  16. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    The world would be a different place without a United States

    I do indeed feel sorry for Confederate civilians who suffered unnecessarily at Union hands in Sherman's march to the sea. One lot of wrongs do not justify another lot of wrongs.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the Confederate cause in wanting to secede, and I sometimes speculate on what kind of nations the Confederacy and the Union would have become. It is very unlikely that the lot of slaves would have improved, at least in the short term, but it is unilkely that slavery would have been sustained into the 20th century. The moral justification for slavery was well on the wane (despite appeals to the Bible by some), and it is likely that international economic sanctions would have eventually been put into place to stamp out this diabolic blot on humanity's history.

    Without slavery, the economic base of the Confederacy would have been critically wounded, relying on cotton and tobacco and primary industry as it did. The North had much more of the nation's natural resources and industrial capacity so would always have dominated its southern neighbour. I am doubtful that a separated America would have become as powerful and influential as a United States of America, and I often have considered that the rejoining of the two separated parts would not have been out of the question, at least in the early 20th century. The world would be a quite different place without a United States of America...that is without any doubt whatsoever.
  17. Suerto

    Suerto Monkey+

    I read the exact opposite concerning Lincoln, that he was sympathetic to the south and had he lived, he had plans to help rebuild the south.. But there were many "war profiteers" who did not want that..

    One word for your slavery "repatriation"
    look that beautimus country up..

    Also, google "General Butt Naked".. When I was younger, he was my friggin hero..

    Aw hell, I couldn't resist.. here's a links for you.
    Liberia's General Butt Naked: 'The most evil man in the world' | Mail Online

    The legacy of the civil war lives on in Liberia..
  18. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    Don't fall into that trap. Do not lay Liberia's woes upon the US. They made their own bed. They've had more than a century and a half to make something better of themselves. THEIR problem, not ours.

    In an odd way of looking at things, the South did 'win' the "War of Northern Aggression" - our states and cities are in many ways more successful, with better State Laws and economies. Took us a good while..... but we "got 'er done"!

    When the next round of seccession happens though, there will be many more states than just the south departing the failed Union.
  19. Suerto

    Suerto Monkey+

    Sarcasm, my friend..

    Liberia to me, is akin to many other interesting cities in our country..
    Washington DC
    Just a couple off the top of my head..
    I'm sure you can spot the common threads, and statistics show it plain as day
  20. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

    Not for wages,not for glory,was for home and right they fell!
    Alpha Dog likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary