Good Morning...Most Storied Event in American Military History

[Okla-homey]

July 3, 1863: Confederate forces attack the center of the Federal line at Gettysburg, but fail to break it.

144 years ago on this day in 1863, after two desperate days of slugging it out in the July heat in southern Pennsylvania, Robert E. Lee sends the equivalent of three divisions of infantry up the middle in a last ditch attempt to crack the Federal line at Gettysburg.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6158/gmap69la.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The battle began inauspiciously enough. Lee had hoped to bring the war north out of Virginia in order to take the pressure off his fellow Virginians as her farmers worked to raise their 1863 crops which were vital to both feed the army and the civilian population. Lee also hoped to expose the Northern civilian population to the war's horrors and thus bring about an armistice.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6742/gallo14gk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Scene from a 1988 reenactment

Day One as you'll recall ended with US forces fixed in a long fishook shaped defensive position anchored by high ground at both ends.

Day Two saw intense fighting on both ends as Lee tried to gain an advantage on either end and thus roll-up the Federal line with powerful flank attacks.

Day Three dawned hot and muggy with the Federals still firmly dug-in and unmoved. Lee reasoned that since they were clearly well manned on both ends as he had found on Day Two, the Federals had to be weak in the center and so he planned to order a frontal assault at that point.

Lee cobbled together an assault force built around George Pickett'sdivision of Virginians who had been in reserve the previous two days and thus relatively fresh. The men were drawn mostly from Lieutenant General "Pete" Longstreet's corps.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8721/gpicket7vz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Major General George Pickett. He was never the same after Gettysburg. Before Day Three dawned he was itching for the fight and the chance for glory. Afterwards, speaking of his commander Bobby Lee, he was said to say, "That old man threw away my division."

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7823/scharge4rm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
As you can see from this graphic, they stepped-off from a wide front and were planned to converge at a common apex on a copse of trees at the precise center of the US line.

The attack was preceded by the most intense artillery bombardment in the the history of the western hemisphere. Unfortunately for Lee's gray-clad legions, much of the artillery fire was poorly laid and flew relatively harmlessly over the heads of the Federal defenders.

Just past noon, the artillery stopped and Lee's last best hope stepped off from its assembly area in the woods approximately one mile over open fields opposite the Union center. They marched at ordinary quick-time in close order with flags flying and bands playing.

Veterans who watched never forgot the awesome sight as the grim-faced Rebs came on into the teeth of the Federal defense. It's been commonly called "Pickett's Charge" but it wasn't a charge in the usual sense. These men didn't run or jog at double quick time. They simply marched to glory with their muskets at shoulder arms.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/8624/gthirteen0zh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
What they saw as they trudged west towards the Federals. The clump or "copse of trees" was the landmark all Rebel eyes were focused on as the point of convergence.

As they marched, they were under the fire of accurate Federal artillery and lost thousands to the deadly shot and shell. They had to break ranks to climb farm fences, but carefully reformed under fire on the other side to continue the attack.

As they closed within 500 yards, the Federal rifled-musketry opened and thousands more fell in agony. Finally, within a couple hundred yards of making contact, those still on their feet broke ranks and began to run at the Federals while whooping and hollering the "Rebel Yell" -- hearkening back to the wild and violent charges of their Celtic and Pict ancestors.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/214/glpr0096pb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Lead elements of the Confederate assault force made it to the Federal line and an intense hand-to-hand struggle ensued. Lee's "Johnies" almost pulled-it off, but the Federal's held and Lee had nothing left to reinforce the limited breakthroughs his lead elements had achieved. Thus, the attack withered and was repulsed.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2226/gmpjps0549ky.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Brig. General Lewis Armistead led one of Pickett's lead brigades. He was shot down just as he reached a Federal artillery battery positioned on the US line. Armistead's father had been in command at Ft McHenry during the British bombardment during the War of 1812 under "the Star-Spangled Banner." It is worth noting that in this picture, Armistead is depicted backed by several Confederate battle flags. Ordinarily, each of those flags would have been accompanied by around 600 men. As you can see, the regiments to which those flags belonged had been whittled away to very few during the mile-long assault under deadly fire almost every step of the way.

Afterwards, Lee approached Pickett who seemed disoriented having observed the carnage and the shocked survivors streaming back to the relative safety of their pre-assault assembly areas. Lee, worried about a Federal counter-attack is said to have told Pickett, "General, look to your division" to which Pickett replied, "General, I have no division."

Lee's commanders spent the evening gathering up the tired and bloody Confederate forces which he aimed south and back across western Maryland to their base in Virginia. Some modern historians have been critical of the failure of the Federal command to order a counter-attack to cut-off Lee's retreat -- but those nattering nabobs simply don't understand that the Federals were wore slap-out and completely incapable of prosecuting a coordinated counter-attack against Lee who was retiring in good order.

The war would go on two more years and the proud and brave Confederates would soldier on but the South's best hope for victory had bled to death on the farmfields and rocky hillsides of the Gettysburg battlefield. America would thus eventually be re-united in the nineteenth century and poised to be a powerful force for justice and right in the coming world wars of the twentieth.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6817/g03955977229tb.gif (http://imageshack.us)
My favorite book on "The Charge." It contains a minute-by-minute chronology carefully reconstructed from original accounts of surviving participants and defenders.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4494/insane7zo0kj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[12]

That was downright poetic.

[jk the sooner fan]

i've been to gettysburg 4 times and loved it more each time.......everybody should go to those hallowed grounds

[SoonerStormchaser]

I walked across that field (from Seminary Ridge to the Angle)...that whole damned field was a freaking kill zone waiting to happen.

Pickett= PWN3D!

[jk the sooner fan]

best fun i ever had at gettysburg was the bike tour i took, there's a little place in the middle of town that rents out mountain bikes

getting up little round top was a bitch

[mikeelikee]

A lot of people don't realize just how close the Confederates came to gaining the high ground on Cemetery Hill the first day. They were routing the Union soldiers, but basically ran out of daylight, and that allowed the Unions to regroup. As demonstrated by the slaughter of Pickett's Charge, the high ground was critical at Gettysburg, and if the Confederates had gained control of Cemetery Hill after Day One, the course of history could have literally changed.

God definitely is involved in the affairs of men, especially at the critical moments.

[XingTheRubicon]

Fred-ricks-burg!

Fred-ricks-burg!

Fred_ricks-burg!

[FaninAma]

Pickett's Charge was the defining/turning point of the Civil War. Up until that time the Confederate forces under Stonewall Jackson and others had cleary been the superior military force...at least from a tactical standpoint.

The loss of thousands of Confederate soldiers was a loss the Confederate forces could ill afford.

The 2nd turning point of the Civil War, IMO, was the loss of Stonewall Jackson at the hands of one of his own men.

[jk the sooner fan]

frankly i think the actions the day before Picketts charge were more pivotal.....that flank held the line, if not for great men like Joshua Chamberlain, that battled would have been over that day

the 3d day was more desperation than anything, it was already lost

[Scott D]

damn those imperialist bastards for causing the loss of life of good southern men who did what was right for the country!

[TUSooner]

frankly i think the actions the day before Picketts charge were more pivotal.....that flank held the line, if not for great men like Joshua Chamberlain, that battled would have been over that day

the 3d day was more desperation than anything, it was already lost

Agreed. I think a bigger event was when Chamberlain's men on the left were running out of ammo and instead of drawing back, they launched a bayonet charge.

Pickett's Charge is "storied" because it drips with the tragic element of manly dash and valor for a Lost Cause that die-hard confederate romantics feed on and which makes even a few staunch Unionists a little warm & runny (not me, but a few :D ).

[jk the sooner fan]

Chamberlains actions are still taught in leadership classes in the Army

[Okla-homey]

For my money, the reduction of Vicksburg by US Grant was THE pivotal event of the Late Unpleasantness. Unfettered control of the Mississippi split the Confederacy in half and from that moment on, it was just a matter of time.

[SicEmBaylor]

Chamberlains actions are still taught in leadership classes in the Army
That part of the battle, the fight for Little Round Top, has always held my interest more than Pickett's charge on my visits to Gettysburg. My Great-Great Grandfather was in the 15th Alabama under Oates that fought against Chamberlain.

It's always surreal to me to walk right over ground that a not terribly distant relative fought over some 140 years ago. Actually, I had 3 relatives in the 15th but he's of my direct line.

Another thing neat about Gettysburg is that they are (or they may have finished by now) in the process of restoring as much of the battlefield to its original state as possible. Meaning they're removing trees where none existed, they got rid of that god-awful observation tower, etc.

My favorite battlefield though is still and always will be Vicksburg followed by Petersburg.

[jk the sooner fan]

shiloh is a really cool battlefield to tour

i've been to vicksburg several times, but its so damn big and with all the rolling hills, its more difficult to get a sense of the layout of the battle.....at least when compared to gettysburg and other places

[85Sooner]

Great post homey. Hows everything going?

[Okla-homey]

Great post homey. Hows everything going?

Thanks for asking. It's going about as well as can be expected. Mrs. Homey told me last night she still catches herself reaching for the phone to call her Mama and tell her something. She was the kind of daughter that called her Mom about every day just to see how she was doing.

[FaninAma]

For my money, the reduction of Vicksburg by US Grant was THE pivotal event of the Late Unpleasantness. Unfettered control of the Mississippi split the Confederacy in half and from that moment on, it was just a matter of time.

I disagree. If the Confederates had somehow prevailed at Gettysburg and pushed their advantage(something Lee would have done) I don't think there would have been a Union force large enough to carry out any significant operations in the western theatre....much less lay siege to Vicksburg because Lincoln would have been forced to reinforce troop levels in the North just to protect Northern cities with their manufacturing and industry centers.

Additionally, I think Europe would have been more willing to send fincancial and military aid to the Confederates if they thought Lee and his army had a very good chance of prevailing.....a possibility that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have validated.

And finally, a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have demoralized the civilian population of the North as well as Northern governmental leaders and I really think there would have been a good chance that Lincoln would have been removed from office due to escalating civil unrest/riots in the Northern cities.

I think the siege and capture of Vicksburg was a foregone conclusion and pretty much inevitable.

[Okla-homey]

I disagree. If the Confederates had somehow prevailed at Gettysburg and pushed their advantage(something Lee would have done) I don't think there would have been a Union force large enough to carry out any significant operations in the western theatre....much less lay siege to Vicksburg because Lincoln would have been forced to reinforce troop levels in the North just to protect Northern cities with their manufacturing and industry centers.

Additionally, I think Europe would have been more willing to send fincancial and military aid to the Confederates if they thought Lee and his army had a very good chance of prevailing.....a possibility that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have validated.

And finally, a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have demoralized the civilian population of the North as well as Northern governmental leaders and I really think there would have been a good chance that Lincoln would have been removed from office due to escalating civil unrest/riots in the Northern cities.

I think the siege and capture of Vicksburg was a foregone conclusion and pretty much inevitable.


I respectfully disagree. Vicksburg fell because the CS commander (John Pemberton, a transplanted Pennsylvanian) was timid and Grant was audacious.

Also, if Lee had prevailed on July 3 at G'burg, his guys would have been just as spent as they were after their repulse. Further, they were in hostile territory with their lines of supply stretched to the snapping point. I doubt Lee could have pursued a routed US force any better than Meade was able to pursue the defeated ANV. There are limits to what can be expected of human and horse flesh, particularly in summer when your force is already malnourished.

I subscribe to the view that the essence of the operational art of war is to recognize what is logistically possible and to adapt operational planning accordingly. There is no way the ANV could have long run amok in Northern territory. My view is bolstered by the fact that Lee had depleted his artillery ammunition stocks to dangerously low levels in the July 3rd pre-attack cannonade.

Finally, historians generally agree that European recognition was not going to happen because of the slavery thing, especially in the case of the Brits -- and they were the only European power possessed of sufficient naval might to break the Federal blockade, which is the only thing that might have saved the CS.

Queen Victoria, and just as importantly, Prince Albert were foresquare opposed to Confederate recognition because of slavery. Lord Palmerston, the PM was pro-South, but after the CS defeat at Antietam (Sep 1862), he never again urged CS recognition. You may note that resounding Southern victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville of the winter of 1862 and spring of 1863 followed Antietam yet Palmerston was unmoved. I doubt a symbolic and expensive victory at G'burg in the summer of 1863 would have changed Palmerston's opinion having previously written-off the CS almost a year earlier.

[Harry Beanbag]

Pickett's Charge was the defining/turning point of the Civil War. Up until that time the Confederate forces under Stonewall Jackson and others had cleary been the superior military force...at least from a tactical standpoint.

The loss of thousands of Confederate soldiers was a loss the Confederate forces could ill afford.

The 2nd turning point of the Civil War, IMO, was the loss of Stonewall Jackson at the hands of one of his own men.


Jackson was already dead at the time of Gettysburg. I believe it was the first major battle after his death two months earlier.

[Harry Beanbag]

shiloh is a really cool battlefield to tour

i've been to vicksburg several times, but its so damn big and with all the rolling hills, its more difficult to get a sense of the layout of the battle.....at least when compared to gettysburg and other places


Shiloh is one of the best. My parents took me on a whirlwind tour of the great battlefields when I was about 12. Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Lookout Mountain, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Pea Ridge, and a few others. I'd like to do it again someday.

[Okla-homey]

I recommendall American families with any interest in US history have a "Civil Wargasm" some summertime.

Just assign about ten days for the project, start in Charleston where it began, see all the sights. Let the kids enjoy the beaches. play a little golf, let mom shop. Then, hit I-95 and proceed up to Virginia/DC/Richmond (the Cockpit of the Civil War) and see all the sights in DC/Richmond and the battlefields within a couple hours drive of DC. Of course, include Colonial Williamsburg. While on the VA peninsula, let the kids do Busch Gardens for a respite for the history-heavy stuff. Culminate with a couple days at G'burg.

Anyone who is interested, peem me and I'll map it out for you. I guarantee you'll make family memories that will never be forgotten -- and cheaper than the Mouse place in Florida.

[ric311]

I'm impressed by the historical knowledge on display in this thread.

After reading General Grant's memoirs, I'm convinced that the South's chances for victory were extremely slim. Once Lincoln recognized Grant and Sherman's abilities, that spelled the end for the confederacy. Sherman viewed the secession as a personal affront and was hell bent and determined to inflict massive devastation upon the South. Grant basically gave him free reign to do so.

The South was banking on the North's distaste for war and it's consequences. Lincoln was unrelentant in his determination to preserve the union, even if it meant destroying a good portion of it in the process.

All the talk about if the South had prevailed at Gettysburg or held on longer at Vicksburg is nonsense. Lincoln had the will and determination to carry out the war to it's conclusion. The only chance the South had to win the war was if Lincoln had been assasinated in 1862 or 1863.

[SicEmBaylor]

All the talk about if the South had prevailed at Gettysburg or held on longer at Vicksburg is nonsense. Lincoln had the will and determination to carry out the war to it's conclusion. The only chance the South had to win the war was if Lincoln had been assassinated in 1862 or 1863.

All is the pity.

If he had been assassinated at that time then it would have been militarily and morally justified. They SHOULD have done it at that time. It's impossible to morally or ethically justify his assassination after the war had concluded. During the war, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he was fair game. Just as Davis would have been......

It's highly distasteful though.

[FaninAma]

Jackson was already dead at the time of Gettysburg. I believe it was the first major battle after his death two months earlier.

Yes, that is true and why Jackson's death had such a negative impact on the Confederate military. Jackson's tactical leadership in the Civil War is still used as teaching lessons at West Point where he is considered one of the best tacticians that The US Military Academy ever produced. If he had been around to supply his brilliant tactical leadership at Gettysburg the Confederates may have very well prevailed. I think I recall reading that Lee essentially thought the same thing.

And I agree that the South could not hope to prevail in a long drawn out campaign against the North. Not only did Lincoln realize this but so did Lee. That's why he surrendered at Appomattox instead of continuing to fight.

My contention is that if the Confederates had prevailed at Gettysburg and continued to inflict heavy casulaties on the North over the next few months, the riots that had already started in NYC and elsewhere as a protest to conscription and involvement in the Civil War would have grown much larger and eventually Lincoln would have been removed from office. Lincoln's unconstitutional actions during this part of the war indicates he knew this was a real possibility.

After the smashing Confederate victories in the first few months of the war Lincoln's presidency was hanging by a thread. He took extreme, tyrannical measures to stay in power and by doing so set the precedent for a future tyrrant to do the same thing.

A question for all of you Lincoln admirers: how many of your civil rights and civil liberties are you willing to surrender to the federal government in exchange for security and "preservation of the union"?

BTW, if you ever get a cahnce to tour West Point you really need to. It is probably the most scenic campus in the US. Not only that but the history and beautiful architecture found there make it well worth the trip. If OU ever played Army that is one trip I would definitely make.

[jk the sooner fan]

agree on the tour at west point, it is beautiful

jk3 is hoping to get a nomination this coming year.....

[Okla-homey]

Yes, that is true and why Jackson's death had such a negative impact on the Confederate military. Jackson's tactical leadership in the Civil War is still used as teaching lessons at West Point where he is considered one of the best tacticians that The US Military Academy ever produced. If he had been around to supply his brilliant tactical leadership at Gettysburg the Confederates may have very well prevailed. I think I recall reading that Lee essentially thought the same thing.

And I agree that the South could not hope to prevail in a long drawn out campaign against the North. Not only did Lincoln realize this but so did Lee. That's why he surrendered at Appomattox instead of continuing to fight.

My contention is that if the Confederates had prevailed at Gettysburg and continued to inflict heavy casulaties on the North over the next few months, the riots that had already started in NYC and elsewhere as a protest to conscription and involvement in the Civil War would have grown much larger and eventually Lincoln would have been removed from office. Lincoln's unconstitutional actions during this part of the war indicates he knew this was a real possibility.

After the smashing Confederate victories in the first few months of the war Lincoln's presidency was hanging by a thread. He took extreme, tyrannical measures to stay in power and by doing so set the precedent for a future tyrrant to do the same thing.

A question for all of you Lincoln admirers: how many of your civil rights and civil liberties are you willing to surrender to the federal government in exchange for security and "preservation of the union"?

BTW, if you ever get a cahnce to tour West Point you really need to. It is probably the most scenic campus in the US. Not only that but the history and beautiful architecture found there make it well worth the trip. If OU ever played Army that is one trip I would definitely make.

Tulsa has a road game up there this fall. I made the trip when I was a cadet at The Citadel for a game (we won!.)

here's the thing, I'm just not too sure much of the measures Lincoln took were not constitutional under the circumstances. I mean, the biggy everyone cites is his supension of the writ of habeas corpus, BUT(and this is a very big but) it was not a "right" under the Constitution or the English common law. In fact, Article I, Section 9 states "The Privilege (emphasis added) of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion (emphasis added) or Invasion, or the Public Safety may require it."

Now, the only rub is that Article deals with the powers of Congress. The debate centers on whether the President has such unilateral power. The Courts said "no" in the decade following the war -- after Lincoln was dead.

Personally, to answer your question, I'm fine with it under the circumstances (rebellion) that President Lincoln suspended it. I do not subscribe to the fantasy that the southern states had the option of leaving the Union after joining it. Thus, the United States was dealing with an outright rebellion.

Perhaps interestingly, subsequent presidents did the essentially the same thing. President Grant did it to get SC under control when the KKK was running amok. FDR did it during WWII, particularly to Japanese Americans.

[FaninAma]

Homey,

I really appreciate your great posts regarding the history of important human events. As always, this has been a thought provoking thread conducted with unusual civility(for the SO.)

And of course I have one more question for you. In light of the fact that today is the B-Day of our great country I would like to have you point out a few differences between the the US declaring its independence from Great Britain and the Confederacy declaring its independence from the US.

The only difference I see is that Great Britain did not prosecute the Revolutionary war as brutally as Lincoln did the Civil War and eventually allowed the US to govern itself. Both wars were fought over largely economic issues. And you cannot claim that if Great Britain had turned their full military might against the US that the colonial rebels would have prevailed. Especially if Great Britain had persecuted the civil population of the US like Sherman and the North did in the South.

[Okla-homey]

Homey,

I really appreciate your great posts regarding the history of important human events. As always, this has been a thought provoking thread conducted with unusual civility(for the SO.)

And of course I have one more question for you. In light of the fact that today is the B-Day of our great country I would like to have you point out a few differences between the the US declaring its independence from Great Britain and the Confederacy declaring its independence from the US.

The only difference I see is that Great Britain did not prosecute the Revolutionary war as brutally as Lincoln did the Civil War and eventually allowed the US to govern itself. Both wars were fought over largely economic issues. And you cannot claim that if Great Britain had turned their full military might against the US that the colonial rebels would have prevailed. Especially if Great Britain had persecuted the civil population of the US like Sherman and the North did in the South.

First off, the colonies declaring their independence was different from the rebellion of the Southern states in one very important sense. The union of the United States was voluntarily entered into by all each and every member.

There was no discussion about exiting the partnership and the Constitution is silent on procedures to be utilized by a state which wanted to pick up its marbles and go home.

I believe that is so because it was considered by the Framers, many of whom were Southerners, to be a sacred and irrevocable bond. If those guys had contemplated a scenario in which a state might "secede" they would have included it in the Constitution. Lord knows, they covered everything else. Think about it, just 27 amendments in the over 200 years since it was penned -- and think about how much life has changed since then!

Frankly, the Civil War came down to a contentious issue of whether or not human beings should be able to own other human beings. Those on the side of right and good prevailed on that issue. I think that was a good thing.

I do admire Abraham Lincoln. He had the courage, strength of will, and great intellect to take the initiative to stamp the rebellion into the dust. For that, he's right under Washington in my book. Frankly, I don't think Lincoln cared much about emancipation either way, but he knew in making it a military and political objective, he would hurt the rebellion by giving the US the moral advantage. That was genius in my book.

Next, I believe the Revolution was prosecuted by the Brits far more brutally than the US government prosecuted the Civil War. In fact, the Brits' heavy handed tactics of "no quarter" and horrible attrocities vs. Southerners was in fact the catalyst for widepread Patriot sentiment in what had been generally a "ho-hum" reaction to what the folks up in New England were doing.

Do a little reading on a cat named Banastre Tarleton. He was the inspiration for that British dragoon officer character in Mel Gibson's "The Patriot."

[FaninAma]

First off, the colonies declaring their independence was different from the rebellion of the Southern states in one very important sense. The union of the United States was voluntarily entered into by all each and every member.

There was no discussion about exiting the partnership and the Constitution is silent on procedures to be utilized by a state which wanted to pick up its marbles and go home.

I believe that is so because it was considered by the Framers, many of whom were Southerners, to be a sacred and irrevocable bond. If those guys had contemplated a scenario in which a state might "secede" they would have included it in the Constitution. Lord knows, they covered everything else. Think about it, just 27 amendments in the over 200 years since it was penned -- and think about how much life has changed since then!

Frankly, the Civil War came down to a contentious issue of whether or not human beings should be able to own other human beings. Those on the side of right and good prevailed on that issue. I think that was a good thing.

I do admire Abraham Lincoln. He had the courage, strength of will, and great intellect to take the initiative to stamp the rebellion into the dust. For that, he's right under Washington in my book. Frankly, I don't think Lincoln cared much about emancipation either way, but he knew in making it a military and political objective, he would hurt the rebellion by giving the US the moral advantage. That was genius in my book.

Next, I believe the Revolution was prosecuted by the Brits far more brutally than the US government prosecuted the Civil War. In fact, the Brits' heavy handed tactics of "no quarter" and horrible attrocities vs. Southerners was in fact the catalyst for widepread Patriot sentiment in what had been generally a "ho-hum" reaction to what the folks up in New England were doing.

Do a little reading on a cat named Banastre Tarleton. He was the inspiration for that British dragoon officer character in Mel Gibson's "The Patriot."

The Civil War was not fought over slavery. The Northerrn Industrialists controlled Lincoln and the US Congress and through the use of tarrifs and other unfair trade practices they used the South as a source of cheap raw materials while forcing them to buy their finished manufactured products....in essence the North treated the South much worse than Great Britain treated the colonies.

The respective economic impact of the Civil War on the North and South: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354_17/Civil_War.html

Secondly, it's a stretch to contend the barbarism of Sherman, Sheridan and Grant was exceeded by the Brits during the Revolutionary War. One only has to look at the civilian casualties inflicted by Sherman's and Grant's scorched earth tactics not to menyion the total devastation of the Southern economy to understand the ruthlessness of the North's campaign against the South.

Lincoln's "legacy" : http://www.americandaily.com/article/10955

[Scott D]

How much of your article accounts for population booms between 1780 and 1855?

[Okla-homey]

The Civil War was not fought over slavery. \


I'm sorry. I trust you realize, that when you say things like that, it's exceedingly difficult for reasonable people to give an ear to anything that follows.

[jk the sooner fan]

the civil war may not have been fought over slavery....but secession was all about slavery (http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/the-american-civil-war-was-fought-over-slavery/)


Some South Carolinians deny that the Civil War was fought over slavery, maintaining that it was fought over the rights of the states to control their own destinies. Slavery, they believe, was incidental.

But when South Carolina delegates walked out of the 1860 Democratic National Convention in Charleston as a prelude to secession, their spokesman William Preston minced no words in declaring that “Slavery is our King; slavery is our Truth; slavery is our Divine Right.” And a few months later when the signers of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession issued their Declaration of the Causes of Secession, they specifically referred to the “domestic institution” of slavery. They objected that the free states have “denounced as sinful the institution of slavery.” They charged that the free states had “encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures, to hostile insurrection.”

[FaninAma]

\


I'm sorry. I trust you realize, that when you say things like that, it's exceedingly difficult for reasonable people to give an ear to anything that follows.

Oh really? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

Some would say that it is the fervent Lincoln supporters who have swallowed the spoon-fed revisitionist swill taught in public schools today and refuse to look critically at the real reaons the war was fought.

If Bush committed 1% of the violations of Constitutional and international law that Lincoln and the North did he would be thrown out of office. Of course if he was a smart tyrant like Lincoln he would already be ruling the country along with the military making his removal impossible.

Lincoln essentially conducted the war and ruled the North via a military junta. He ignored Congress. He ignored the SCOTUS. And he ignored the Constitution and international law.

[jk the sooner fan]

is there a timeline somewhere......a sequence of events.....all these evil things Lincoln did, were they done before the war/secession started? or after?

[jk the sooner fan]

fan - a question for you

you've said that you believe slavery would have ended on its own, eventually over time, peacefully

ok, so lets suppose that the confederacy secedes with no opposition from the Union whatsoever......and slavery does end eventually

do you think eventually the confederate states would have re-united with the union? or would we be living in amongst two separate nations?

[jk the sooner fan]

Oh really? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

Some would say that it is the fervent Lincoln supporters who have swallowed the spoon-fed revisitionist swill taught in public schools today and refuse to look critically at the real reaons the war was fought.

If Bush committed 1% of the violations of Constitutional and international law that Lincoln and the North did he would be thrown out of office. Of course if he was a smart tyrant like Lincoln he would already be ruling the country along with the military making his removal impossible.

Lincoln essentially conducted the war and ruled the North via a military junta. He ignored Congress. He ignored the SCOTUS. And he ignored the Constitution and international law.

a quote from the page you linked


The Old Testament of the Bible affirms that slaves are a form of property and that the children of a slave couple are the property of the slaves’ owner (Exodus 21:4). Abraham and Jacob kept slaves, and the New Testament says nothing against slavery. Slaves built the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis of Athens, and the coliseums in the Roman Empire. Africans exported 11,000,000 Black slaves to the New World – 4,000,000 to Brazil, 3,600,000 to the British and French West Indies, and 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions in Central and South America. About 500,000 slaves, 5 per cent of the total number shipped to the New World, came to America. Today slavery still exists in some parts of Africa, notably in Sudan and Mauritania.

wow

[FaninAma]

a quote from the page you linked



wow

As usual I see that the main essence of the article went completely over your head. I even predicted to my brother who has been discussing this issue with me that you would find that segment and try to play it up to discredit the article.

The author, in that segment, was not saying that slavery was morally defensible. In fact, he states many times in the article that it was not. In the segment you cited the author is merely pointing out that slavery was not an institution new to the country or the world or invented by the South but was in fact an institution that had been accepted by the Founding Fathers when the nation was created. As such, the premise that the war was fought to end, what at the time, was a legal constitutional practice is ludicrous. He also points out how the vast majority of other nations handled their slavery issue and even lauds Great Britain for the way they ended slavery a mere quarter century before the Civil War began.

But I understand you seizing on that single passage and creating a strawman argument since you really have no real substantiative rebuttal to the article.

If you really insist that the Civil War was fought to end slavery then in essence you are saying that the North initiated an unconstitutional war to force the South to accept an unconstituional, unilateral decison made by Northern politicians and government leaders.

There is a way to change a legal Constitutional practice. It's called amending the Constitution.

[picasso]

go visit the place in the fall.

I highly recommend it.

kinda creepy in a sad ghostly way.

[FaninAma]

fan - a question for you

you've said that you believe slavery would have ended on its own, eventually over time, peacefully

ok, so lets suppose that the confederacy secedes with no opposition from the Union whatsoever......and slavery does end eventually

do you think eventually the confederate states would have re-united with the union? or would we be living in amongst two separate nations?

They would have reunited with negotiated guarantees of stronger State's rights. I agree with the article that slavery was untenable and would have ended way before the beginning of the 1900's. I also agree with the article that besides being a tyrant Lincoln was a hypocrit. The real reasons the North did not want the South to secede was due to the fact the the South payed most of the taxes which went largely to benefit the North and in return the South "got" to supply the North with cheap agricultural products and raw materials. In essence, the US economy at the time was similiar to the European feudal system of the Middle Ages with the South playing the role of the serf to the North's priviliged ruling class.

Slavery was and is immoral. Initiating and prosecuting an action that resulted in the death and wounding of over 1 million US citizens was and is immoral. Creating an omnipotent central government that will continue to steal more and more of its citizens civil liberties as well as squander more and more of the wealth it confiscates from its citizens was and is immoral.

Personally I think having slavery end 2 to 3 decades later was the lesser of 2 evils and held far fewer ominous consequences for later genrations of Americans than did Lincoln's actions.

[jk the sooner fan]

As usual I see that the main essence of the article went completely over your head. I even predicted to my brother who has been discussing this issue with me that you would find that segment and try to play it up to discredit the article.

The author, in that segment, was not saying that slavery was morally defensible. In fact, he states many times in the article that it was not. In the segment you cited the author is merely pointing out that slavery was not an institution new to the country or the world or invented by the South but was in fact an institution that had been accepted by the Founding Fathers when the nation was created. As such, the premise that the war was fought to end, what at the time, was a legal constitutional practice is ludicrous. He also points out how the vast majority of other nations handled their slavery issue and even lauds Great Britain for the way they ended slavery a mere quarter century before the Civil War began.

But I understand you seizing on that single passage and creating a strawman argument since you really have no real substantiative rebuttal to the article.

If you really insist that the Civil War was fought to end slavery then in essence you are saying that the North initiated an unconstitutional war to force the South to accept an unconstituional, unilateral decison made by Northern politicians and government leaders.

There is a way to change a legal Constitutional practice. It's called amending the Constitution.

thats ok, i had a bet with myself that you'd lead this thread where you did

so we're even.......i suppose from your side of the argument, you can take that passage as you did......however from my side of the argument, it wasnt necessary for the author to include whatsoever to make the points he made in the article......it did nothing but attempt to justify slavery for the era because it was in the bible.......when he concludes that paragraph with the "the new testament said nothing about slavery"......sorry, i just dont see where thats necessary........you can call it a strawman argument all you want

what was constitutional about secession? and if amending the constitution was available for the north, was it not available for the south?

my substantive rebuttal was in the questions i asked you, before i quoted that.....i didnt make any personal attacks against you, so please dont play the victim

[jk the sooner fan]

and as for your substantive rebuttals, i notice you completely ignored my first response......where i linked and quoted the statements of secession by the confederate states where the issue of slavery was so prominently quoted

you said it wasnt about slavery.......or is me quoting the very documents of secession another strawman argument?

[TexasLidig8r]

So, you Civil War and history buffs.. how accurate was the movie "Gettysburg" to the actual events?

[Petro-Sooner]

Lid that was actual footage.



I got nothing.

[SicEmBaylor]

So, you Civil War and history buffs.. how accurate was the movie "Gettysburg" to the actual events?
My dad was in it. The movie not the actual battle. :D

[TexasLidig8r]

Lid that was actual footage.



I got nothing.

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://findonvillage.com/p1351_edward_i_0348.jpg&usg=AFQjCNG47iyFp22RhANrFOOjxCKaDJQsuA

sigh.. hillbillies.. sigh...

[FaninAma]

jk,

My next to last post was overly defensive. I apologize.

However, questioning the conventional wisdom that Lincoln's motives were pure or that his way of preserving the Union was the only way to preserve the Union does not mean you support slavery.

And supporting some of the goals of the Confederacy such as a decentralized, less intrusive governement does not mean one is a racist.

[jk the sooner fan]

i never said you supported slavery, nor did i infer or imply you were a racists

you said the civil war wasnt about slavery

so i simply gave you a link to some facts where at the very least, secession was VERY much about slavery

then i asked for your opinion

[jk the sooner fan]

the movie gettysburg was very accurate as far as tactics and the flow of battle was concerned

the author of Killer Angels, on which the movie is based, conducted a ton of on the field research to write his book - he passed that passion on to his son who one upped his dad (imo) with the book "Gods and Generals" (one of the best civil war books ever written)

[SicEmBaylor]

the movie gettysburg was very accurate as far as tactics and the flow of battle was concerned

the author of Killer Angels, on which the movie is based, conducted a ton of on the field research to write his book - he passed that passion on to his son who one upped his dad (imo) with the book "Gods and Generals" (one of the best civil war books ever written)

The movie Gods and Generals, however, left something to be desired.

[ric311]

The only difference I see is that Great Britain did not prosecute the Revolutionary war as brutally as Lincoln did the Civil War and eventually allowed the US to govern itself. Both wars were fought over largely economic issues. And you cannot claim that if Great Britain had turned their full military might against the US that the colonial rebels would have prevailed. Especially if Great Britain had persecuted the civil population of the US like Sherman and the North did in the South.

Great Britain didn't have the ability to prosecute the revolutionary war in the same fashion as the North had in the Civil War. England was separated by 3,000 miles of ocean and was also dealing with trying to fight the French at various points around the globe. There was also a great amount of disagreement in England over whether they should be fighting the war in the first place. The end of the Revolution didn't happen at Yorktown, as is widely believed. No, it happened when the elections in England displaced the sitting Prime Minister, who had supported the war, in favor of a Prime Minister who was against it. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Also interesting to note that even with the tactical advantage that Washington had at Yorktown, Cornwallis would have been able to escape had the French Navy not defeated the smaller British force, effectively trapping the English.

As to the discussion of Lincoln's unconstitutional actions - he had no choice. It was either do what he did or see the entire country disintegrate. And make no mistake, it wouldn't have simply been the South seceding from the North, it would have eventually split into five or six different countries. History, as we know it, would have been dramatically changed had Lincoln not acted the way he did. Sometimes, particularly in the heat of crisis, great men are forced to make difficult decisions.

[SoonerStormchaser]

They ever gonna make "The Last Full Measure?"

[jk the sooner fan]

They ever gonna make "The Last Full Measure?"

i actually talked to Shaara at a book signing, he didnt think so because Gods and Generals was so costly and a box office disappointment


i'd rather see him make "To the Last Man" - his WW1 novel

[SicEmBaylor]

i actually talked to Shaara at a book signing, he didnt think so because Gods and Generals was so costly and a box office disappointment


i'd rather see him make "To the Last Man" - his WW1 novel

There aren't too many WWI movies.
Flyboys was pretty recent but other than that I can only think of a few.

[jk the sooner fan]

if you're a true fan of the civil war, then gods and generals (the movie) was great.......the character development of Stonewall Jackson was greatness

[SicEmBaylor]

if you're a true fan of the civil war, then gods and generals (the movie) was great.......the character development of Stonewall Jackson was greatness
The dialogue was annoying though and that's what turned me off from it. I don't hate the movie, but it was no-where near as good as Gettysburg and it had the potential for being much much better if it weren't for that horrible writing.

I mean, really it was a series of prophetic speeches more than real dialogue. It just annoyed me because the rest of the movie could have been really great.