Why is there no middle ground with a successful Confederacy?

HECK NO, I'm saying the war was justified because it stopped slavery. No humans should ever be owned, the practice was despicable. The argument about government seizure of other property is still disturbing as per Kelo V New London, though.

I misunderstood you then.
 
No, the Confederates were trying to stop their property from being seized without compensation. Their property was human, however, and because of that I think that liberating the slaves justified the war.



Really? Attitudes like that ignore the fact that several areas tried to counter-secede and that many did not own slaves. One of my own ancestors was shot by Union troops who raided his house looking for honey, why did they need nine shots between four soldiers?



:rolleyes: Thanks, you'll forgive me for deciding that your opinion is both ignorant and baseless. Attitude like this prevent me from seriously thinking about moving out of the old South and border states, and unfortunately even in the professional world this type of ignorance can be pervasive.

I misunderstood you then.

I'll be more careful to clarify in the future, thanks for the heads-up...
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
When I see the condition of the US today my only regret is that the Civil War did not last longer and kill more of them. :)

Back on the board, hm? Why am I not surprised that you're posting flamebait pretty much right away. Fine then, kicked for a week.
 
Your average poor white souther farmer didn't give a damn about the niggers on the big plantation a county over, but when told that the evil Yankees were coming to steal his farm, kill him and his sons, and rape his wife and daughters, you can be damned sure he wanted to do something about it. That this was a bunch of bollocks made up by the guy who owned the plantation a few miles up the way didn't matter at all (at least until Sherman went and proved the fuckers right).

Agree with most of your points, but have you got any examples of troops on Sherman's march killing or raping civilians?
 
Agree with most of your points, but have you got any examples of troops on Sherman's march killing or raping civilians?


I'm sorry if you mis-understood me.

That post was written with a smattering of purposely PoV statements to attempt to prove my own point. Whether or not Sherman's troops did anything beyond burning crops is irrelevant because the average Southron had no experience with Sherman's March. All he or she knew was that it happened, the 'factual' content they got contained every embellishment and bit of slander that whisper-down-the-lane usually gives to things.
 
I'm sorry if you mis-understood me.

That post was written with a smattering of purposely PoV statements to attempt to prove my own point. Whether or not Sherman's troops did anything beyond burning crops is irrelevant because the average Southron had no experience with Sherman's March. All he or she knew was that it happened, the 'factual' content they got contained every embellishment and bit of slander that whisper-down-the-lane usually gives to things.

Even the governer of Georgia who spread the stories during the war said the stories of rapes was exagerated. The penalty for rape was death both in the Union and Confederate armies and so rape was very rare for both of them. Even in Missouri where you had a continuation of "Bleeding Kansas" happening in Missouri there were few rapes.
 
Only the hardcore pro-slavery southerner turned on him after his proposal. For the majority of the Southern forces and Southern People Patrick Cleburne was still one of the most popular Generals in the Western Theatre and his death was felt just as strongly as Stonewall Jackson's death if not more so because of the dire situation the CSA was in when Cleburne died.

His proposal wasn't known outside a very small circle. People can't be influenced by a proposal THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
 
Top