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

[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.

[TexasLidig8r]

Lid that was actual footage.



I got nothing.

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.