hi,

since no one has posted any new threads here for a while, i thought id try this one,

as it is mentioned so often in the forums, either people are reading about it, or refering to it, i thought id ask, what happened?

i know almost nothing about the US civil war, other than it was north versus south.

can someone explain the main points about it

cheers

joe

Hi greatbrit. I think the answer you are looking for here will depend a great deal on who happens to answer this, and their feelings about this peroid of American history. This conflict, the reasons for it's starting, and it's aftermath, is still a subject that is very much debated in this country to this very day, and will probably continue to be debated as long as there is a United States in existence. To some extent you probably see this in your country as well, in the period of the War of the Roses, the reign of Cromwell, and such events of this general time of English history.

The North says the War was fought over the issue of slavery, the South says it was an issue of states rights. And there is a whole lot of other smaller issues as well, but to me, the above two are basically what eventurally led to the conflict itself.

Now nobody in their right mind upholds the issue of one gourp of people or race holding another in a state of involuntary servitude for their own personal and/or financial benefit. Being some what of American Indian extraction I hate the concept of slavery more than most, as 'the people' have had this dealt on them just about every since the first white man set foot on the western continents. And to some extent, in a back-handed way, it still goes on over here to this very day.

I see the civil war, and it's aftermath, simply as this nation going from a country where one race, or group, of people were held in a state of involuntary servitude due to their color, for the benefit of the richer classes, both of the South, and indirectly, of the North, to a nation where all races are held in a state of involuntary servitude by an untra-strong central goverment, and the small, but very powerful group of people that control it. So, in a nut shell, I'm against slavery in every thought, word and deed, but I'm also very much for the issue of states rights. Go figure.

We all know that the founding fathers really screwed up big time by not outlawing the concept of slavery at the close of the American Revolutionary War. After all the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created free and equal. So basically speaking, this very important document of the American nation isn't worth the paper it's wrote on, well before the ink was dry on the original. (From what I've heard the original is in a state of total unreadablity now, and the one on display in Washington is a copy written by a lady who was serving time in prison for forgery. There's something ironic there I think).

And, of course, after the war was fought, and with the assassination of Lincoln, the ball was once again dropped, big time, as the group that was basically labeled as the 'Radical Republicans' in Washington took power and made a situation that could have be much improved, both for the blacks and whites in the South--and the nation as a whole-- a whole lot worse, simply to fill ther pockets with gold and keep themselves in power. And the after affects of this time has still, after over 150 years, not been totally cleaned up, or probably ever will as long as a few can use it as a way to fill their pockets by reigniting the issues of race.

So in my readings of the Civil War I deal with the war itself, and don't concern myself as to who was right and who was wrong. After all, we all know there is no such thing in any war as the 'good guys in white hats vs. the bad guys in black hats.' And that the first casualty of any conflict is 'the truth.'

It is without a doubt that the Ameican Civil War is one of THE most written about periods of any time frame in world history. A person could read their entire life just one this one time frame and never get all the books about it read. There is no way. It just can't be done. And I consider myself far from well-read on the subject. I do have other points of interest, fortunately speaking. Even the Civil War, like W.WII and American Indiand history, and other hobbies, can get a little boring after a while without a little break into something else.

Take care, Sgirty #:-)

The one thing I would like to add to sgirty put so well is this. I understand those that say slavery wasn't the only cause of the Civil War, but to that I would like to ask, if there WAS no slavery would there have been a civil war?

Now I've got one for you Joe. Our civil war was fought a hundred and forty years ago and it is still a matter hotly debated. To the point that flame wars get started over it. Your civil war was fought hundreds of years ago. Is it still debated with nearly the intensity that ours is?

thanks guys, thats given me a much better idea of what went on,

rodger, like you say our civil war happened a long time ago, and its maily been consigned to history, obviously its well studied and people have differing opinions. but its mainly just considered ancient history.

id say modern history takes a far more prominent place in this country, everything from ww2 to the miners strike!

cheers

joe

I think that there was a pretty good chance that the ACW could have broken out without slavery since states' rights was a very big issue. Slavery came to be the focal point in the argument between state and federal governments, but it was one of many sore points. Many people didn't like the concept of a strong central government because they feared it would turn into another form of tyranny much like that imposed on the colonies by the crown (no offense, English friends :-) ). People didn't like the concept of a government far away being able to tell people how to live their lives. Most southerners who fought in the war didn't own slaves and didn't care one way or the other about the issue. They felt there was much more to the situation than that single issue. The film "Gettysburg" had a good line which to me (and my admittedly unauthoratative knowledge of the subject despite a college course) summed up the feelings of many in the south. In the film, Longstreet says, "We should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Fort Sumter." Slavery became the "hot button" topic for the war, but there was much, much more to it than that.
Just my 2 cents worth!

war machine, whilst i take no offence to your comment, id like to point out, that britian was the first country in the modern word to outlaw slavery!

cheers

joe

Not knowing much about the US Civil war, sgirty's summing up was very clear and enlightening.
Re: our little family set to Joe is spot on, its regarded as something that happened. period.
We still have a good fun poke at white and red roses, but I've never known anyone take offence.
Maybe the US Civil War is still too recent for some?
Cheers

The main issue of the Civil War at the times the States suceeded from the Union was for what was called "States Rights". Many Southern Leaders believed that local governments should be able to run their own States w/o interferance of a Central Federal Government.
Slavery at the time wasn't even brought up. Until almost a year to two years into the conflict.
The reason I say this is. During those (1to 2) years Northern Generals were under orders to confiscate any material the may contribute to the "Southern War Effort". One northern General. (The name escapes me at this time). started confiscating slaves from farms and plantations. When Senators and Prominant citizens started complaining to Washington about this. Orders from Washington and Lincoln himself said that they were private property and the Generals were to "Give them back" and not to confiscate them anymore.
Slavery really never became an issue until the North started enlisting free black men to the Army.
Lincoln was known to say that he "in good concious could not send these brave men back into bondage" Thus he issued the" Amancapation Proclamation"on Jan 1, 1863 Which if you were to read it never really free the slaves but leaves it open enough to be interpided as such. This is when Slavery became the issue of the Civil War.
The Slavery Issue can be debated here and noone would be wrong. The War would have been fought If Slavery was outlawed.

Sgirty is right. Maybe the forefathers should have outlawed slavery from the get go. Lots of people forget that George Washington himself left it in his will that when he died all his "Servants" would be free at that time. He would take would also take his "Servants" north with him and not bring them back if they wanted to stay. I even believe Jefferson had the same clause in his I believe.

So the debate can continue about whether Slavery was a main issue or not. In my opinion from what I have read and can gather. It could have been. Was it a deal breaker to stop a war..No it would have been fought anyway. Due to the fact that the Southern States wanted to govern themselves w/o interferance. that was the real hot button at that time.

It is also worth noting that the two most prominant figures in the "Southern Cause" were against secession from the outcome.. Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. Lee himself was against slavery also and thought is should be outlawed.

Sorry so wordy but I love god dialog about this and also love to hear what other people think as well..

Thanks for asking the question.. It is a great subject..

Paul

Hi, very good reply warlock 0322. I beleive one of the Union generals you are talking about was Fremont, and I know there was another one--whose name escapes me as well, I believe out in the Missouri area. Plus Ben Butler, who even through he didn't go out looking for slaves, I beleive did start the concept of 'contraband'. Using those former slaves who had escaped into Union lines to do work projects and paying them for it.

Your right about the slavery issue itself not becoming 'the key issue' of the Union till after the issuing of the Emacipation Proclamation right around Jan 1. 1863. Lincon finally had to give some ground to the Radical Repuclican element in the north in order to gain the funds and troops to fight the South. I also think still that indirectly speaking these same people were somehow connected to Lincoln's assassination after the war's end, due to his 'let them up easy' approach to the former enemy states.

Lincoln's MAIN concern throughout the conflick was saving the Union itself and he was not all that concerned with the slavery issue as it stood in the states that already had it. He also did not want the institution of slavery excpanded into any new terriorties either. Which didn't go down well with the sothern hot-heads who were just looking for an excuse, any excuse really, to bring to a head the succession quesion.

Once he got elected things just sort of got out of control and event happened that really shouldn't have if the southern people would have jsut took the time to think things through a bit. But they were basically being led by the landed aristocracy of the South and once these people go the control, things just snowballed out of control. Neither side really belived the other would go go actual war in order to enforce their points of view. In the end , both were wrong and they found themselves engaged in a long a bloody struggle that they couldn't get out of.

Like you, I enjoy talking about this period. Thanks and take care, Sgirty

sgirty:

Your comment about Lincoln is dead on. No matter the issue isbeing debated, reasons that things were they way they were.. All lead back to Lincoln's resolve to preserve the Union. That was the only reason in Lincoln's mind that things were done. "Excellant Point"

There are 2 what if questions I have about the war that I would love for some people to chime in on.

1) What if: the South actually saw the man power resource that they had with all the slaves there and used that resource as the North did late in the war ?

2) What if : Europe got involved during the war as the Confederate States had hoped for? I have read that part of the Southern Strategy was just to hold out long enough until the cotton and other exports were at a criticle level in Europe to were they would feel they had to become involved in the war. Luckily from sources I have read. That Europe stock piled the goods that they recieved from the South primarily I.E cotton et.al. So no involvement was required.

IMHO the first question would have had a little impact on the war. It is the second one though that really makes me scratch my head and may have had a huge impact on the war.
I would love to hear what others think about these. The Scenerios and Speculations would make for some great discussions..

Paul

Several posters have made excellent points.

Philosphically, many of the founders really thought of the several states that came fromthe colonies as independent "nation states" and the United States as a plural concept rather than a singular concept and the federal government moreas a treaty type of organization along the lines of NATO.

Our HOuse and Senate reflect that as does our "electoral college" which comes from allowing the "states" to have influence above and beyond what the overall population might choose. (The 2000 election was a case in point, where the popular vote was slightly higher for Gore, but the breakdown in the electoral college went to Bush).

Slavery was the major accelerant/catalyst. There was a great deal of abolotionist feeling in the North as well and they wanted to eliminate it throughout the country. Lincoln was seen as supportive of this.

The issue of the Emancipation Proclamation was indeed both political and military and was issued with the hope that the freed slaves would rise up agianst the slave masters. It is noteworthy this applied initially only to slaves held in seccessionist states.

Would there have been a Civil War without slavery? Maybe, but there woiuld have had to have been some coming to agreement on what the power of the federal government was going to be since the compromises in the forming of the constitution left the door open.

Europe's entry would have prolonged the war and probably have resulted in a stalemate/negotiated peace with at least two seperate countries.

Some possible outcomes: The European powers, especially Britain, see the West as territory for the taking and annex great portions of the Northwest moving south out of Canada.
Mexico retakes Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.
Neither of trhe above happens and Eurppean history continues on its course to World War I. France falls, Britain negotiates with the Kaiser. No World War II as we know it.
Somehow Britain manages to get the Treaty of Versaiolles as we know it. The 20's and 30's happen as we know it. Hitler arises and takes Poland, France, etc. Britain is isolated and does not have the baking of a single powerful United States to back her up. Britain falls. Operation Babarosa still happens and Russia takes Eastern Europe and continues to move west beyond Berlin.
Ultimately, the United States never are (note the plural use rather than the singular use we currently have) strong enough to be a world power, and likely become Balkanized in a series of shifting regional alliances.
Harry Turtledove explores a lot of this territory in his books.

,

Hi. Good questions here warlock0322. I can't remember at this very moment what southern general it was that propsed the use of slaves as soldiers in the souther armies, although I'm pretty sure is one one of the higher up officers in the western Army of theTennssee. And I think it was in early 1864 that the proposal was made. (Loss of memory is a terrible thing. Ha!) Anyway, his idea was quashed rather quickly by the higher commands and those in Richmond as well. It wasn't until the very last days of the war in 1865 that the government officicals finally began to see the logical light of this solution to their manpower shortage, and I do believe did form some black units to fight, but by then it was way too late to affect anything. To me, this would have be the logical solution right at the start of the conflict. Like War_Machine has written about the character who played Longstreet in "Killer Angles". "We should have first freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." Unfortunately the rich, and thusly powerful in the South, made their living, and held on to their power base only by the use of this system. And even through a lot of them saw that this was a flawed way of doing things, to say the very least, they still refused to alter their life style(s), because they were afraid of losing all that they had gained by it. Which, in the end, they did anyway. Ingrained lifestyles are sometimes very hard to break, even when you know it would benefit everyone, esp. if you will lose some of your community standing by doing so.

As to the second of yoru questions, yes, this was one of the main supports the South looked for in keeping the war going long enough for Europeans to become involved in it and "save their butts.'' Unfortunately for the South and it's cause, Washington had, at least to me, at this time, one of the men who comes the closest to be a genius that has ever occupied the White House in the history of American politics. Lincoln was just a simple country boy, but he had more common sense than all the rest of those in power in Washington at that time, could ever dream of having. So he was able to steer a straight course though all the rough waters and keep the Union out of conflict with Europe, esp. Great Britain. The Trent Crisis shows this to be true.

May I recommend to you a book I picked up a couple years ago that talks more of Lincoln and the foreign policy of the Untied States during this time: It's called "One War at a Time" By Dean B. Mahin--The International Dimensions of the American Civil War. Very good reading.

And it's also my opinion that the South was saddled with probably one of the worse characters it could have chosen to be the President of the Confederate States--Jefferson Davis. Now this isn't to say that he wasn't a smart man, and would have most probably made a good field commander, a whole lot better than some that were made army commanders in the South at one time or another, but he was out of his league in politics, esp. the politics of a newly formed nation, that was strapped at being at war with a much more powerful adversary. He had a real bad habit of taking every attack on himself and his office personally. And in politics this is a big no-no. He made a lot of enemies this way and did a lot to cause the South to fight under a bigger handicap that would have been the case if somebody else, with a more understanding political nature, would have been president.

And since Europe couldn't get cotton any longer from the southern Untied States, they went ahead and started planting their own cotton in Egypt and other of their more southern colonical possessions, and once they got this started, didn't need the South's cotton crop. Also the holding back of the cotton crops at the very start of the Civil War, when it could have been shipped out with absolutely no hinderance of a Union blockcade was another of Davis's hair-brained ideas that back-fired on the southern cause by not allowing them to get the arms and other materials necessary to start the war off in fairly good shape.

Another point as far as cotton, and it's sale goes too, is also that some of the cotton crops were being sold through northern buyers to Europe, and thusly it's profits were being channeled back through northern businessmen into the South and thusly allowed the South to obtain quite a bit of the sorely needed supplies to maintain their armies and homeland, and thus prolong the war by at least a year. Just read about some of this in Bruce Catton's two-volumn series on U.S. Grant, and all the trouble he faced with these businesmen who were obtaining licences through the government to go into his area of operations to buy cotton from southern planters. Interesting. If there's money to be made there's no such thing as good guys vs. bad guys when you can profit from both sides of the fence.

Hope I haven't talked to much here and bored everybody to tears.

Take care, Sgirty

I'm ashamed to say that I don't know as much about the American Civil War as I probably should. One thing that I've read, The Killer Angels, that was the basis of the movie Gettysburg, has Longstreet saying something to the effect that Europe would never come into war on the side of the Confederacy as long as it had slavery. Longstreet goes onto to say that the south should have freed the slaves first and then succeeded.

Al and SG:
No Sg you haven't bored me to tears. Like I have posted earlier. I never get bored with this stuff. I could talk about this kind of thing all day.

Al you raise some very good, interesting, and possible points. The only one thing I would have to disagree with is the two nations point you make.
Yes I think a comprimise would have or could have been made. The only thing is I think the two counrtry part would not be negotiable. The points you make about Mexico and Europe are well taken and I think Lincoln saw this too. That is why he would have never gone for it. Remember he was out to preserve the Union first and foremost.Thus he would have done or probably fought anything/anybody to preserve it.

Another point I think that may have or not had to Europe's involvement was the technology that came out of the War.
Tactics had changed, the Rifled Barrel, the Repeating Rifle, the Gatling Gun, and the Ironclads. It is said that these were the reasons for the amount of casualties being so high during many of the battles. Could Europe have caught up and kept up to make a differance? The North was making all of these right there in their own back yard. They had the foundries and the ironworks all ready in motion.

I cannot say for sure but it just another angle that I thought I would throw out there. Maybe and it a big maybe that if Europe were to have become involved in the War. It may have been a purely diplomatic involvement.

Just thought I would throw this out there to hear some more opinions on this.

Paul

Hi. Yes warlock0322, as I rremember from someplace or other, purely diplomatic feelers were given out to both sides at different times by Great Britian and France. Of course, neither side took them up seriously.

It's a small wonder that Europe didn't somehow or other get involved in the war. After all, communications being what they were at the time, misunderstandings abounded on both sides of the Atlantic. Come to think of it, it was misunderstandings and the long lag time in communications that led to the War of 1812, both the start of it and in the final battle at New Orleans too.

As I've said, I think a lot of this 'walking on thin ice' was successful handled by Lincoln's ability to successful negotiate through the rough spots of international dilplomacy during this period. A less intelligent president, or one who was more prone to follow his cabinet's thinking, and advice, on certain issues, would not have been so successful and would have gotten the world in a 'world war' before it was all over. The Trent Affair is a very good example of this, and also the dealings with Great Britian over the 'raiders' they were producing for the Confedrate States all during the hostilities. The latter went on longer, and was, at least to me, a far more touchier situation between these two nations than the Trent Affair. But it also was successfully dealt with, or at least put up with, and as time went on was eventually all solved after the war was over without the necessity of shedding blood.

Of course, a lot of credit has to go to the government of Great Britian as well. Even though they were hurting for a time as far as the supply of cotton went to keep their many textile mills in operation, they had the good sense to just let the Americans fight it out among themselves and go with whoever finally won. I think that those in power over there knew that things would all work out in the end if they DIDN'T get inovled any more than they did. And, of course, everybody knew that France wasn't going to do anything on it's one unless Britian was invloved as well.

There was that happening down in Mexico that both Britian and France were involved in, but once again, England had the good sense to pull out and let Naopleon III sit in his own 'kettle of soup' and deal with the eventual consequences of it.

Now if Jefferson Davis had decided to allow the South to ship out their reserves of cotton before the advent of the blockade, or before the North could build and man enough of a navy for enforce a blckade physically, that might have been a different story. Then, with the South not having a navy or merchant marine of any consequence, you were bound to have English ships in close to the American coast and events could have more easily led to the exchange of thoughts, words, and evetually deeds. If this had happened I don' t think even Lincoln himself could have straigthened out the mess, which would, without a doubt, led to Southern recognition.

Of course if Jefferson Davis had decided to fight the war just heavily defending certain areas of the Confederacy instead of trying to hold on to every square inch of it, the South would have done a lot better too, militarily speaking. You just can't defend everything against a superior enemy if you yourself are the weaker force.

Here's a question I'll through out: What do you think would have happened to the United States IF, for whatever reason it came about, the South was allowed to go it's own way and we had two separate nations existing side by side. Would war have eventually come about anyway? Would the South have eventually collapsed due to it's heavy reliance on the antiquated slave system and be drawn back into the United States evetually? Could two separate nations, with the same history, same culture, same ancestors, have been able to successfully make a go of it, side by side? Just curious here.

Take care, Sgirty

Wow Sg that is some food for thought. I would have posted earlier, but I was hashing that one over a little.

I am not really sure if they could exist the way you suggest or not. My best guess would be what the trade practices between the countries would be.
Would the South trade with the North and vice versa? With the mentality and pride of the Southern people at the time ( no disrespect intended on that comment, they were/are a very proud people).
They thought they didn't need the North at all , but at that time wasn't most of the industry in the North? I guess it would all hinge on whether the South could build, or import what they needed from either Europe, or have the cost of starting an independent infrastructure. I say this because of Lincoln's mentality at that time he would probably cut off ALL trade to the South.

I am still mulling this one over.. Just thought I would post this to see if anyone else would chime in , but it a great question to throw about and see what opinions would come out of it.

Paul

The general in question was Patrick Cleburne. Not only was the idea "squashed", but Cleburne was then looked upon with suspicion/derision by many of his fellow officers. The shame of it was that Cleburne was a very competent and successful division commander in the West, and always performed his duty admirably. He, like several other Army of Tennessee generals, was killed at Franklin in late 64, in one of John Bell Hood's trademark frontal assaults.

Hmmm I forget the writer..Witman?

"The Civial War was fought over a single word: is or are"
The United States Is....The US are.... two very different meanings

Another point to throw out...the reason why slavery wasnt elminated during the founding was that the slave colonies would not join if the practice was outlawed...so the framers believed that the problem ie slavery...would be solved later and that it was better to have a union. Kind of ironic that the solution was a civial war.

Sean

In 1776 the original draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned slavery. The Southern colonies would not sign until the clause was removed. SInce it had been decided earlier to make the acceptence of the Declartion unanimous, the framers of the Declaration (Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin; the founder of the first abolitionist society in the US) conceded.
In 1861, Palmerston did not want to get involved in the US Civil War. The Queen did, most of Parliament did. The Prince Consort agreed with Palmerston. On his death bed he made Victoria agree not to intervene. The War Ministry in its wisdom did send nearly 50,000 additional troops to Canada "just in case"
Napoleon III wanted desperately to intervene in the Civil War as well, but he would not without Britain's consent. He already had Britain's tacit consent to do as he wanted with Mexico so had his troops in place as well. Even the Tsar in Russia wanted to intervene and Napoleon III tried to get him to convince the British at times. Bismarck had his own ideas and sent military observers to see what modern warfare was like so he could put his plans into action to make Prussia THE German power.
It all hinges on Lee's invasions of 1862 and 1863. If instead of Antietam, there had been say a repeat of 2nd Manassas, with a conclusive Confederate victory; there is enough evidence to say that Britain would have changed her mind, and Palmerston would have been forced to follow his nation's opinion which was decidedly pro-Confederate.
After-all, Britain was shipping arms to the Confederacy, building ships for them even making uniforms for them.
What form that aid would have taken, is open to specualation, would we have seen HMS Warrior take on the US Monitors? Would British/Canadian troops have invaded the Mid West and upsate New York? Would Maximillian's Mexico have conquered the South West? Who is to say. THough I do especially like Harry Turtledove's take on the whole thing. I also recommend Russell F. Weigley A Great Civil War.

I heard one comment from a fellow reinactor that has always stuck with me. Very few southerners owned slaves. They were mainly the province of the very wealthy. Yet, how many poor "dirt" farmers fought. If the issue wasn't States rights, how many would have fought to let some rich man keep his butler. For the vast majority of the Union solders , the issue was the reunification of the country. They didn't want the black populace coming up north to "steal "their jobs. Slavery was one of the catylists that helped ignite the separation, but regional differences was the fuel. Oh and where I come from, we call it the War of the Northern Aggression.

you are right Blaster all my Southern friends call it that.. God I love them for it... We have many a great humor filled discussion over some ice cold ones...
All I tell them is if the north aggressed why was it you fired the first shots.. We were just sleeping in our little old fort is all.....

#:-)

Let's have a toast and hope that this can stay light and humorous

Warlock Out

Hi. I'm coming more and more to think that this war finally did come about simply because the Souther elite of this time period was just looking for a way, any way really, to cause a split and bring about an excuse to exercise the 'right of sucession' of their part of the country from the Union. Thus the basic reasoning for the spliting of the Democratic Party at the 1860 convention in Charleston into two separate groups. One going for Douglas and the other for Breckinridge, knowing full well that this split would give the newly formed Republican Party the White House. Thus their 'needed' justification.

I've sometimes wondered myself, if a small minority of folks in the South owned slaves, why did the majority, who didn't, still pitch in and do the majority of the fighting? For the privilage of owning slaves? Not hardly, or likely. States Rights? Maybe. We have to remember that basically speaking, there was no what we would call a 'middle class' in the south at this time. Basically either you were rich or you lived by subsistence farming. And the 'big boys' of the Southern aristocracy were used to calling the shots, so the little people just naturally followed them out of the Union, right or wrong. Now there were areas in the South that had the guts to tell the rich planter aristocracy to 'shove it' Places like western Virginia, western Tenn. and certain areas in N. Carolina as well. But I believe that most folks in the South just went ahead and joined the Confederacy simply bacause they were told that this was the thing to do, as they were basically used to being told what to do by the rich elite.

I think that we can pretty much apply this same kind of thinking to just about any period of history we would care to look at. The average, middle-or lower-classes are used to being told what to do by the rich elite of any country, which are in power. Most generally those in power aren't doing what they did, or are doing, simply because of any nationalistic or partiotic sentiments, but simply just to fill their pockets with more money and thusly, more power. Nothing more.

I've read a lot of history down through the years and I've found that when you start really doing some digging into a particular period and go beyond what the basic history books tell you about it, you start running into all kind of 'little things' done here and there, by those in power in the various countries concerned, that tend to put quite a different light on the things that happened at the time. I would be most curious what others think about this. Maybe I'm way off base here, or maybe not.

Take care, Sgirty

If you want to get into the mindset of the Southern soldier, I recommend Writing and Fighting from the Army of Northern Virginia. I picked up a copy at the bookstore at Gettysburg and really enjoyed it. We can debate why this and why that, but this compilation of letters home from soldiers lets us see why they fought.

I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of thought provoking ideas here.

Patrick