As to blacks voting, don't be silly. They like women weren't people then. They didn't vote North or South.
yeah, but they officially became people long before the women folk...some minor disturbances down South not withstanding....
Civil war and the movies, North vs. South
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
yeah, but they officially became people long before the women folk...some minor disturbances down South not withstanding....
I wanted to back track a bit here.
From before Sumter, right up through Gettysburg the Union mostly got it's but kicked, and the war was an unpopular one in the North with Lincolns' advisers were telling him to let the South go.. Lincoln refused the peaceful options. The South lacked a decisive victory which would have gained them recognition by England and France (both who had representatives embedded with some of the Southern armies.)
The war was fought as a war of conquest. The lands were ravaged. Sherman's March is a prime example, where his troops robbed, raped and pilaged with the approval of Sherman, Grant and Lincoln. Sherman himself called what they were doing criminal. The effects of that march still echo in the Southern mind. After the war the "Lost Cause" became romantisized, and what you might call the 'bravado of the vanquished' arose. The aftermath (carpet baggers, military rule, suspended elections, reparations, etc) reinforced this. This wasn't "welcome back wayward children" it was "you have sinned, and for that you shall be punished". With the romanticizing of the war, the normal embellishments were made, heroes were that much larger, villains that much eviler, and the causes simplified and simplified, until you get the popular-history we know today. They made several movies about Gettysburg. I've seen most, I've yet to see any that mention the fact that Lee's judgment was off kilter out of desperation and a bad case of 'screamers'. The Turner movie for example seriously downplayed the vacuum that the recent loss of General Jackson had on Lee and Lee's decision making due to Jackson's balancing out Longstreet. But it was a nice movie, and a good novel, historical hiccups aside.
From before Sumter, right up through Gettysburg the Union mostly got it's but kicked, and the war was an unpopular one in the North with Lincolns' advisers were telling him to let the South go.. Lincoln refused the peaceful options. The South lacked a decisive victory which would have gained them recognition by England and France (both who had representatives embedded with some of the Southern armies.)
The war was fought as a war of conquest. The lands were ravaged. Sherman's March is a prime example, where his troops robbed, raped and pilaged with the approval of Sherman, Grant and Lincoln. Sherman himself called what they were doing criminal. The effects of that march still echo in the Southern mind. After the war the "Lost Cause" became romantisized, and what you might call the 'bravado of the vanquished' arose. The aftermath (carpet baggers, military rule, suspended elections, reparations, etc) reinforced this. This wasn't "welcome back wayward children" it was "you have sinned, and for that you shall be punished". With the romanticizing of the war, the normal embellishments were made, heroes were that much larger, villains that much eviler, and the causes simplified and simplified, until you get the popular-history we know today. They made several movies about Gettysburg. I've seen most, I've yet to see any that mention the fact that Lee's judgment was off kilter out of desperation and a bad case of 'screamers'. The Turner movie for example seriously downplayed the vacuum that the recent loss of General Jackson had on Lee and Lee's decision making due to Jackson's balancing out Longstreet. But it was a nice movie, and a good novel, historical hiccups aside.
MAist25
Blue Belt
Lincoln did not want to see bloodshed between countrymen and it was the south who fired the first shot. After that, warfare is warfare. I'm not saying that the north did not commit atrocities but the south certainly did as well. Sherman ravaged the land to cut off and destroy southern food sources as well as to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As far as reconstruction went, I believe things would have gone along smoother if Lincoln had actually been around to manage it rather than Johnson.
The firing of the first shot is one of those interesting things. South Carolina was put in a no-win position. Most of the other forts surrendered peacefully, but Ft. Sumter refused. Lincoln ordered it resupplied, violating South Carolina's territory. They were forced to fire as the options were don't fire, thereby showing weakness or fire and be blamed for the start of hostilities. Even after that however, Lincoln's advisors suggested peace and allowing the states to leave, hoping that when tempers cooled they would seek re-admittance.
(See Tom DiLorenzo's "Real Lincoln" for much of the background on that.)
As to Reconstruction going smoother, it might have. Lincoln was a tyrant, but not necessarily an evil one. He did what he did because he believed it to be right, not because he was a malicious person. Johnson....well many in the administration after Lincolns death were revenge minded folk.
(See Tom DiLorenzo's "Real Lincoln" for much of the background on that.)
As to Reconstruction going smoother, it might have. Lincoln was a tyrant, but not necessarily an evil one. He did what he did because he believed it to be right, not because he was a malicious person. Johnson....well many in the administration after Lincolns death were revenge minded folk.
MAist25
Blue Belt
If the south was so intent on being non-combative and the north was non-aggressive then why were Buchanan and Lincoln not allowed to re-supply THEIR troops in land that was once part of their nation? Taking northern forts and military installations sounds pretty aggressive and warlike to me. Refusing a nation to resupply its troops stationed in your country even though their was no aggressiveness, and that the personnel delivering the resupply were unarmed sounds pretty warlike to me as well. The way I see it is that South Carolina took over northern forts. They demanded that all US military personnel abandon their posts. Then they fired upon an unarmed ship trying to send them supplies. The north only violated South Carolina's territory because it used to be their territory and they still had federal military property and personnel their. To order evacuation is an act of hostility.
MAist25
Blue Belt
Also, in regard to Lincoln being a tyrant, he definitely did push the boundaries of power he was bestowed as president, but I'm not sure if he should be described as a tyrant. I believe that a president taking action to do what he feels is right for the nation is the most we could ask of him. Some of the best presidents have pushed the boundaries of the presidency. Think about Roosevelt. He pushed a lot of boundaries but the nation needed someone to take control and start making things happen. I dont hear too many Americans calling him a tyrant...
Which Roosevelt? Teddy who many thought insane, or FDR who only death removed from the throne? (Those 2 are interesting discussions btw)
Was Lincoln a Tyrant? by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
Lincoln:
- When he took office, claimed that in spite of the secession of the first seven Southern states, he would continue to collect federal tariffs in the South.
- Committed an act of war by sending ships into Southern waters to resupply Fort Sumter forcing the South to retaliate and begin the war.
- Requested troops from the states still within the Union. Many governors such as John Letcher of Virginia and Claiborne Jackson of Missouri responded to Lincoln’s request by very sternly denouncing his illegal, revolutionary, and bellicose beliefs and stating clearly that they would not honor it. In the minds of many Americans, even in the North at the outbreak of the war, Lincoln’s raising of troops to march across his own country and invade the homes of neighbors was inconceivable.
- After personally initiating a state of war without congressional approval, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus illegally and had thousands of dissidents in the North arrested and jailed without trials during the war. Newspapers that disagreed with his actions were shut down.
- Even congressmen who disagreed with Lincoln’s wartime policies were not safe. Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio was arrested and exiled from the United States for his vocal opinions.
- When Lincoln needed more votes in the Congress for his policies, he unconstitutionally created the State of West Virginia out of Virginia without the state’s approval.
- His generals were handpicked to usher in an age of total war against the civilian populace of the South.
- He ousted popularly elected governments across the South in states such as Tennessee and installed military governors supported by federal troops, violating the Constitutional guarantee of republican governments across the states.
Text taken from link above, bulletized and shortened.
Points also notated in previous links.
Before the start of hostilities, the various seceding states sent numerous peace envoys to seek a peaceful solution. All were refused audience with King Lincoln. As to territorial disputes, once property is no longer yours, you have no right to it. The South offered to pay for the forts at fair price. They were refused.
MAist25
Blue Belt
Haha I was referring more towards FDR. As for Lincoln, like I said, he did push the limits of his presidential powers but I do not disagree with his decision to continue to collect tariffs in the south; he still believed them to be a part of the US. As far as committing an act of war by sending an unarmed ship into southern waters to resupply his own men, I do not see that to be an aggressive or threatening action at all. For Lincoln to refuse offers by the south to basically buy northern forts, I can see why he would turn them down. To agree would to basically give up and accept that the south seceded and it would force him to view them as a sovereign nation, which he was not going to do.
