« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Fort Sumter Bombarded. April 12, 1861

An Open Thread

By: streiff (Diary)  |  April 12th, 2011 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mississippian

    As a Civil War researcher and overall politics buff, I guess this is as good a thread as any to make my first post on RS.

    This is one of those days that leaves me very conflicted. I’m a southerner by heritage but that heritage covers a wide spectrum, from wealthy South Carolina slave-holding planters, to poor mountaineer farmers from western North Carolina who stayed loyal to the Union. I’m proud of all my ancestors who fought, both for the South, and for the Union. For all the talk about what the Civil War means and it causes, I have but one feeling deep down in my bones:

    It was God’s will. Crazy old John Brown was right, the country had to pay for it’s sins with blood.

    The United States of America had to survive.

    In order to overcome the conflicts that lay ahead in the 20th Century: Imperialism, Fascism, and Communism, the country needed the high moral ground that all that blood claimed. It needed a glorious military heritage to unite the country around. (See the history of the “Blue-Gray” 29th Division on Omaha Beach on D-Day for what I’m talking about.) The Civil War gave us those things.

    In the end, perhaps the 600,000 dead were simply a down payment on our glorious future. Here’s hoping we can keep up with the payments.

    W.M.

    • jeffreywturner

      On all accounts.

    • Doc Holliday
  • jeffreywturner

    1. Although it was known by some as the war of “Northern Aggression”, it was actually secessionist forces who “started” the war 150 years ago by bombarding a US military installation, and stealing US Government property. Castro claims our lease at GITMO is invalid and we no longer have a right to be in his country, but if he attacked our base and stole our supplies, I am sure we’d still say that he was the aggressor.

    2. Slavery was indeed the catalyst for the war, the only argument is whether it was directly or indirectly the cause. However, those who like to use that to imply that the people of the South were morally inferior to those of the North are WAY off base. Simply put, EVERYONE knew that slavery was morally wrong. The only difference between the folks in the North and those in the South was that ending slavery was going to DEVASTATE the economy of one, and have only moderate impact on the other. It is easy to exercise high moral principles when it isn’t going to cost you anything. Had it been the Northern soil and climate that was conducive to growing cotton, the roles in the war would have been reversed. It had absolutely nothing to do with the moral standing of the inhabitants of the region.

    • Diogenes314

      Just like their ancestors did in 1775.

      And for similar reasons.

      • jeffreywturner

        If by “their ancestors” you are referring to the British Loyalists in America at the time of the Revolution, then yes you are correct.

        It was indeed the Brits who started the Revolution. They were the first to send in troops. They were the first to open fire. They drew first blood. ;)

        • Diogenes314

          The Brits shot some rioters. The Union hung a domestic terrorist. Which has nothing to do with the fact that neither recognized the right of their vassal states to secede-and both went to war to prevent it.

          The only difference between George and Abe is that the winners write the history books. And the fact that the Confederacy at least had precedent on their side.

          • donnybrooke

            As a historical note, it was the State of Virginia that tried and hanged John Brown, not the “Union” (Federal Government), although the attack was against Federal property.

          • jeffreywturner

            I was only making a simple point, which has been made and not refuted.

            If you want to try and justify secession or re-fight the war, I am not really interested.

          • Doc Holliday

            but most of the comments regarding the Boston Massacre, John Brown, etc are a historical. I think some of them were said just to make a point. I could wade into this thing to, I have had this debates all my life, but I am not interested in doing so now.

            I will say this, it doesn’t matter who “started” the war, the war was going to happen. And saying the attack on Ft. Sumpter “started” the war does explain much. Why did they attack Ft. Sumpter? It was not a surprise attack you know. The Confederates considered the failure to leave the fort an act of war. They really considered the attempt to supply the fort by sea an act of aggression.

            But in the end arguing about who started it is kind of pointless from a military history point of view. From a cultural history point of view, the argument can be made the South would have prolonged their way of life if they had not taken such drastic measures. But it was not like they were stupid, they saw the writing on the wall. A war was coming and slavery was going to end in America.

          • aesthete

            the South is much better off (morally and otherwise) without slavery and that system weighing it down. I don’t think the evil of the South (and justification of secession) is really that important when it comes right down to it. I imagine that an independent CSA would probably have looked something like apartheid-era South Africa. I also imagine that it would look even better than it does today had the South had never fought the US and peacefully gotten rid of slavery 20-40 years later.

            BTW Doc, thanks for your gun advice: I decided to get a .22 Ruger. Good gun, fun to shoot, cheap ammo, and it’s a non-intimidating gun just in case I want to invite a person along who’s scared of guns (i.e., the college-age ladyfolk).

          • Doc Holliday

            a smart choice, I wish I had one, be nice to actually not have to gag every time I buy ammo.

          • aesthete

            Slavery =/= freedom

            CSA, 1860 =/= USA, 1775

          • Diogenes314

            Just a bunch of colonies rebelling against the Crown. As far as the ‘massacre’, if you throw rocks at guys with guns, it usually ends badly. Ask the Kent State nitwits.

          • aesthete

            I think that the guys who use and carry as a part of their jobs should exercise a little more restraint than your standard frat guy. I own a gun, and the first rule is that you don’t point your gun at something you’re not willing to destroy. I have a problem with people destroying youth for the high crime of being boorish, as is the tendency among young people.

            Also, it’s not necessarily wrong to refer to the rebelling colonies as “united states of America”, as they were all states in America that were united :)

          • Diogenes314

            Only four kills? The National Guard at the time obviously needed more target practice.

            If you throw rocks at guys with guns, all you deserve is a bullet.

          • aesthete

            you don’t own a firearm, and that you wouldn’t fire it off for such a reason. Having a firearm puts the onus on you to use it responsibly — killing a dumb kid throwing rocks at you is in no way responsible or proportionate.

          • Doc Holliday

            Heck, that is why they called it a massacre, it was for propaganda purposes. I think if anyone is really interested in studying the event, there are books out there with the information. A hint that it was not a massacre is that John Adams defended the British commander, and the jury said he was not guilty; certainly that is a hint to the truth. But I tell people that are interested, stop arguing and read, there is very detailed info for one to peruse.

            Now, the propaganda of the “Boston Massacre” did help get other colonists interested in what was going on in Massachusetts. The Boston Massacre is still known, not as a massacre, but as an event that helped spark the revolution.

    • dajeeps

      Lets suppose that in some stretch of the imagination that the chasm of ideology between left and right in this country became so great that there was no longer any middle ground upon which to unite, nor desire to do so. Both ends pull the middle away and it disappears. If that had happened a year or so ago when political tention over health care, among other kinds of political arrogance, was at its peak, whould anyone say the resulting fisticuffs was about health care? I would say not so much.

      To say so makes almost as much sense to me as saying the Civil War was about slavery, or to free slaves, or even states rights. I see very little difference between those two issues and how they were handled by our political system then and now. And of course, the health care battle is not yet resolved, but I’m not sure how well the concept of eugenics can be shoved down our throats regardless of what SCOTUS ultimately decides. We all know they will be back should the decision come down in our favor.

      “A house divided cannot stand… It must become either all one thing or all the other…”

  • donnybrooke

    The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12?13, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

    During the winter months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States of America, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Federals rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.

    The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

    Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln’s immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.

    So the first shots were fired in January of 1861 at the Star of the West, but nothing was done under President Buchanan. It was Lincoln who upped the ante. Lincoln knew that his attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would cause an escalation, resulting in a cause he could use to put down the rebellion. Actually, skillful political maneuvering on his part.

    • jeffreywturner

      n/t

  • charleshouston

    Lincoln should be viewed not as a great president, but as our worst. The south should have been free to secede and follow its will. Forcibly holding the union together was not worth 600,000 lives.

    I would secede today. Even better, I’d kick Massachusetts, New York and California out of the USA and leave them to set their own destiny. We have never been so divided since the War Between the States and the Red State/Blue State divide is unbridgeable.

    Kick out those states and let others join them.. Our new countries can be good allies and down the road, visiting New York may be as exotic as going to Paris.

    I do not write this with tongue in cheek, but with a feeling that, like a divorce, separation is necessary.

    • Aaron Gardner
    • powertothepeople

      I am really at a loss that you or anyone would state Lincoln was our worst president. To make a claim like that with the Joker we have in office now is absurd, much less when you starts taking a look at the presidency of Carter, Hoover, Grant, Tyler, Harding, Buchanan, etc.

      It is amazing you feel Lincoln was wrong in preserving the union or ending slavery. Not too mention the belief that had the succession been allowed to stand, the lower states would be in a South America type economy and standard of living.

      As to the rest of your nonsense, get a life. What you posted would be the kind of thing some pimple faced, pot smoking, Columbine type teenager would state as his “enlightened Philosophy” while completely high to his his fellow wasted buddies who would then reply with “dude, that is some deep sh*t mannnnnn.”

      You def do not write tongue in cheek, you simply write nonsense and try to pass it off as legitimate thought.

    • aesthete

      Full stop. Maybe I’d be sympathetic to Southern revisionists if it wasn’t so obvious that the South was raring for a fight. (I’d also be more sympathetic to the claims of standing up for states’ rights, if the Southern Presidents and judiciary hadn’t spent the years before and after the Mex-Am war trampling all over the Northern states for holding “slaves” that were only such in the South.)

      • Diogenes314

        The fugitive slave act was the law of the land at that time-it was the Northern states claiming a ‘state’s rights’ rationale for violating it with impunity.

        And BTW, Worst President Ever-Tommy Wilson hands down.

        As far as ‘preserving the union’-that was pretty much what George III was all about as well.

        • aesthete

          who, exactly, do you think pushed to make the Fugitive Slave Act Federal law? And which states do you think had to put up with that abrogation of states’ rights?

          I said nothing about the merits or demerits of preserving the union. Personally, I’m ambivalent about the whole thing (though seceding to escape tyranny is a bit better than seceding to impose it, in my book). I do, however, take issue with a belligerent attacking a US fort while still in negotiations about what to do with it. Attacking Fort Sumter was, if one considers the CSA a sovereign power, an act of war. If one does not consider the CSA a sovereign power, it was the act of an insurrection that should be quelled. It’s arguable whether the rather brutal subjugation of the South was necessary, whether invasion and re-unification was an appropriate response, and to what extent other factors besides slavery were at play. There were also plenty of brave people on both sides of the conflict, and it’s just stupid to hold the common soldier, or a modern Southerner, at fault for his region’s past sins. With that said, there’s no question that the South both seceded to preserve the “peculiar institution”, and that it was plenty hypocritical when it came to things like states’ rights (read up on the CSA and its not-so-cozy relationship with its states for its brief history).

          • Diogenes314

            who, exactly, do you think pushed to make the Fugitive Slave Act Federal law?

            The original FSA was passed in the 1790s to ensure the Constitution was adhered to. The second was part of the Compromise of 1850 passed after Northern states deliberately violated the original.

            As far as attacking the Fort, it was foolhardy at best (as was secession itself). The basic points I am making here is

            1) The actual history of the war is way more complex than Lincoln Good, Confederacy Bad.

            2) I have yet to hear an honest rationale why if secession was wrong in the 1860s it was noble in the 1770s. Especially since the Confederates had the Founders as precedent, and the Union went out of their way to keep the issue out of the Courts after they won,

            3) Historical revisionism is no less idiotic if it is based on “our side won’.

            4) 600,000 needlessly dead is a tragedy, not something to celebrate and justify.

          • aesthete

            The second FSA was blatantly un-Constitutional: it required state law enforcement to apprehend slaves against the wishes of the state legislature and its citizens (violation of the 10th), deprived the suspected slave of the right to a jury trial (violation of the 4th), and criminalized aiding and abetting slaves — even if it was just by providing a meal (violation of the 9th, 10th). (BTW, not a few free black citizens of the non-slaveholding states were “repatriated” to the South as a result of the FSA.) It changed federal government from being a neutral arbiter in the process to being blatantly *for* slavery by requiring non-willing states to enforce its mandates. How’s that for “states’ rights”?

            As for your points:

            1) Good thing I didn’t say anything close to that, then. Small solace, though, as it can be said about any conflict and any pairing of belligerents.

            2) It wasn’t wrong or noble either time — the mere act of secession is value neutral. The motivations for secession and subsequent actions were radically different, though — every declaration of secession by the CSA states mentions slavery as the reason for leaving the union, and most of the documents deal exclusively with slavery (for example, SC’s). Find me anything as objectionable in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution as one can find upon perusal of the CSA’s founding documents, and we’ll talk.

            3) Historical revisionism is rampant among both the victors and the vanquished — there is a cottage industry of Southern apologists who try to mask just how bad slavery was, just how capricious the South was in its dealings with the North when it owned the machinery of the Federal government, and just how downright rotten and over-centralized the CSA was. Any excesses on the pro-union side are more than matched by Southern revisionists.

            4) Let me know next time I celebrate those deaths. Appreciating the effective end of slavery in America brought about by the conclusion of the war in the Union’s favor is in no way a celebration of those losses.

          • streiff

            Article IV Section 2, at the time of ratification, included this clause

            No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

            All the FSAs did was seek to have the constitution enforced. The full faith and credit clause also supports this.

            At no time did anyone try to make free states legalize slavery so I’m not sure what your 10th Amendment argument is.

          • aesthete

            The *second* FSA went far beyond that — un-Constitutionally so. Depriving a *suspected* slave of a jury was enormously un-Constitutional — just as it would be for Congress to violate the 3rd in the carrying out of peacetime military functions. Requiring the states to use their legal machinery to enforce the laws of other states was another violation of the Constitution (10th Am). The second FSA was a radical, and un-Constitutional, expansion of Federal power tipping the scales in favor of the slaveholding states.

          • streiff

            we still require other states to enforce the laws of other states. That is in the constitution.

            Even today if you are “suspected” of murder you don’t get a jury trial in the state where you are apprehended. You get extradited. All that is required is a warrant.

            If you are sued in another state the judgment will be honored without you having the right to contest it.

            I don’t see the how the FSA did anything nefarious beyond the obvious… underpinning an odious institution.

          • aesthete

            Not even a sham one in the Southern state where the suspected slave ostensibly hailed from. That’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. Moreover, if the suspected former slave was gone long enough to have been made a resident of a non-slaveholding state, or if he’d had children in a free state, then those persons should have been tried in the state in question, not the Southern state from which they ostensibly were being re-patriated. Indeed, some free blacks were forced into slavery as a result of this monstrous legislation.

            And local law enforcement was not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce the laws of other states in the early days of the Republic: state law enforcement was required to cooperate with federal marshals, but was under no compunction to enforce federal laws, or the laws of other states, at the risk of a fine (which changed with the FSA of 1850). The non-slaveholding states were already complying with the Full Faith and Credit Clause — they held trials to determine whether or not the law was broken by suspected slaves. Jury nullification — a practice enshrined in common law — was rampant, but that is hardly the fault of the non-slaveholding state. Considering that states even to this day do not have to recognize the legal status of, say, a gay marriage performed in another state, it’s pretty tendentious to think that the non-slaveholding states were required to do much more than what they already did under the 1790 FSA.

            The 1850 FSA was a game-changer, and the broader point that it illustrates is that Southern states didn’t give a d*mn about states’ rights, they just wanted what was “theirs”. Nothing uniquely wrong about that from a historical perspective, but it’s not even close to being the principled position that Southern apologists like to pretend that it was.

          • streiff

            slaves were property and had no more access to the courts, outside capital offences, than any other property.

            Is an allegedly stolen car given a jury trial? No. The owner presents a title and can use the courts to recover it. Under Dred Scott, which was by no means a judicial anomaly or outside the mainstream of public opinion, it was made clear that a slave could not escape his status as a slave… just like the Constitution said.

            I’m not defending th institution but I think you are applying a very anti-historical perspective here and simply ignoring the pre-13th Amendment constitution and federal law of the time.

          • aesthete

            considered a citizen in any state, as far as I know. The facts are as follows:

            1) Both the free and slaveholding states had free black citizens (less in the slaveholding states than in the free states, but I digress).

            2) These were citizens for whom both the federal Constitution, and their state constitutions and laws, applied.

            3) Given that the FSA was a *federal* law, the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ams require the accused be given a speedy and public trial with a jury in cases of deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

            4) In this case, the accused is a black man who may or may not be a slave, and whose liberty is being deprived if he goes from being free to being unfree. Therefore, a trial must be conducted to ascertain the validity of the claim in question. Otherwise, you are depriving a black citizen of the right to trial simply because he has been accused of having been a black slave by a slaver (and this did happen under the 1850 FSA).

            5) Common law being the requisite legal underpinning for a trial by jury (according to the 7th Am), jury nullification was a perfectly valid outcome of a trial, given that it was a historical feature of common law jury trials.

            6) Given that the federal “crime” in question occurred upon crossing over into a free state, the jury should be from that state (per the 6th Am).

            1-6 was basically the status quo with the 1790 FSA, and was changed by the 1850 FSA to “frak it, if a slaver says the black guy’s a slave, then he’s a slave. Oh yeah, and the free states have to use their tax dollars and law enforcement to enforce laws that us slaveholding states were too incompetent to enforce on our own.” That is the problem with the 1850 FSA, and it makes a complete mockery out of the CSA apologists’ claim to stand for states’ rights.

          • Hooah_Mac

            If you want to make a comparison, you made the wrong one.

            A. The “secession” in the 1770′s was about taxation without representation, although not as narrow as that sounds. The colonists were not only denied freedom, but they did not have a seat at the table. The south in the 1860s had a seat at the table, quite a sizable one. Which brings me to my next point:

            B. The South didn’t get their way despite their representation so they took their ball and went home. A better comparison would be comparing the South to the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin who didn’t like the fact that they lost at the ballot box and their representation wasn’t enough to get their way so they took their ball and went to Illinois.

            I have always believed that the country would be much better off if the Civil War had not happened; that is, if the already inevitable shift away from slavery had managed to happen in a more controlled and less bloody way. The Civil War was not necessary to end slavery, the writing was already on the wall, and that “peculiar institution’s” days were clearly numbered. Unfortunately, not only did we lose 600,000 brave Soldiers from both sides, but the resentment of the outcome built upon itself, bringing about everything from the KKK to Jim Crow to the misnamed modern “Civil Rights Movement”.

            It doesn’t really matter what could or should have been, because passions on both sides elevated to the level that conflict became unavoidable. Hopefully we can learn from history in this, but it always seems human beings fail to learn the obvious lessons the easy way.

          • Diogenes314

            Was precisely the GOP agenda. The Northern industrialists were at the time highly protectionist with various policies including a punitive tariff that were detrimental to the agrarian Southern economy. They were in no way abolitionist as a whole, however they insisted on preventing any expansion of the slave states-which would have eventually crippled the South’s ability to resist their policies in Congress.

            The irony, of course was that there was nothing they could do to enforce their agenda of maintaining tariffs, preventing the expansion of slavery or anything else in 1860. Even with Lincoln squeaking by in a 4 way race, the Democrats had solid control of both houses of Congress. Until half of them decided to take their ball and go home, of course.

            That and the fact that they believed cotton was still king. Slavery as an institution was dying out before the invention of the cotton gin-and except in the deep South it was becoming less profitable all the time. As it turned out, in the generation since the gin Britain and the Netherlands had more than caught up with the South in cotton production-the institution they were trying to maintain was pretty much doomed anyway.

            As far as the colonies-no British colony had ever had Parliamentary representation. The immigrants there and the ancestors of the native born had no expectation of such. And the taxes were to pay for their own defense in the French and Indian war.

            Plus they had zero precedent. The Confederates had theirs.

          • Hooah_Mac

            Your only rebuttal seems to be that injustice against the colonies should have been accepted because they didn’t know any better, and that the South was justified not because they lacked representation but because someone else didn’t want them to have it?

          • Diogenes314

            What I am saying is that condemning the Confederates (aside from being stupid) for seceding on the one hand and praising the Revolutionary generation on the other is either the result of sloppy thinking or hypocrisy.

          • Hooah_Mac

            And even my short and simple explanation of why that is destroys your argument. The Confederates had representation, the colonists did not. The Confederates had all of the freedoms enshrined in our founding principles, the colonists did not. Other than the idea that they both were moving away from the power structure under which they were then aligned, there is no comparisons.

          • aesthete

            are the values that motivated secession, not secession itself. Anyone can secede. Not everyone does so with the intent of creating a country that respects “life, liberty and property”, and which respects the dignity of the individual. The CSA’s states seceded because of slavery — that’s just a fact. Their documents of secession read like love letters to the institution of slavery (read Mississippi’s some time). The CSA constitution enshrines the keeping of slaves as a constitutional right for white men. SC very nearly criminalized criticizing slavery. While there were plenty of brave men who fought for the CSA, and not all was good in the Union, there’s pretty much no equivalence between the CSA’s founding values and Revolutionary values.

  • Doc Holliday

    I think they lose their passion to blame one side over the other. At least I an say that about myself. I have studied the cultural, political, economic, and military history of that time. I have read of the battles, the leaders, and the soldiers since I was 7 years old, and I was lucky enough to visit their battlefields, burial sites, and monuments.

    I am happy the North won the war, but that might only be because the North DID win the war. I have little doubt I would have fought for the South if I was living during that time and was a Southerner as I am now. To do otherwise would have been extremely rare and it was almost never based on religion or some other morality that made one superior to his friends and family. We modern men give ourselves too much credit for the date we were born, as if that made us any less products of our time; rather than unusually open minded people.

    Looking at American history as a whole, taking into account the American Revolution, the new nation, and its Founder’s, helps me put the Civil War into a better perspective.

    The hopes, dreams, and ideals of the Founders were not going to be achieved overnight. Even they realized they often fell short of their best intentions; how human of them. The Civil War was set into motion the day we signed off on the idea all men are created equal. Those words did not stand alone, there was also a Constitution, a government, a society that did not practice what the Declaration preached. The reason was that men fall short of their ideals, but these men enshrined their ideals, they tried to do better than anyone had ever done before them, and they did.

    In many ways the Civil War was the last battle of the American Revolution. It was a necessary cataclysm between two parts of a nation that had grown so far apart economically and culturally, there was no other way to bring them back together. Some may say one side was in the right, and the other in the wrong, and their is some truth to that. But the war was payment for all our sins, it was an apocalypse for the South and devastating to the young men of the North.

    When I study the war today I don’t root for one side or look for ways to demonize the “enemy”. No, I love to learn the history for the sake of learning. I get to “discover” great men on both sides, incompetents, and just regular guys who were willing to brave hell on earth; usually just because they believed it was their job to do so.

    If anyone was “to blame”, it was humanity itself. The focus should not be on blame, the focus should be on the fact that our great nation did something about it. At one point the North, the Europeans, the Arabs, and the black Africans were all complicit in slavery. The entire economic and cultural make up of the antebellum South was a result of everyone involved in slavery over hundreds of years. The South became a place that could not stand down, it could not just change itself without killing itself.

    I hope everyone takes the new found attention on this war because of a numbered anniversary to learn more about the people who fought it. To me the people are the most interesting thing. This goes back to the beliefs of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, a philosophy that we can improve ourselves by studying great men. This philosophy of historic study is a very Christian and conservative way of thinking, the liberals hate it They prefer to see men as desperate feeble masses tossed around by forces beyond their control.

    Well I am not sure what I just wrote but my point is I think we should stop arguing over who was right, who was bad, and who is neo. The war happened, let’s study it because it is our history, lets aim to learn something new and let’s all remember those who gave all on both sides. And let’s remember men like Grant and Lee who fought like lions, and then were the first ones to try to bring this nation back together.

    • aesthete
  • gd10782

    white people killed white to free black people, yes, I know they were some who did that very thing. (Abolitionists) but for the most part I think it was to
    preserve the Union. I think from the bible I can justify slavery with all it’s evils before I can killing someone to free them. Does anyone think that black people would kill black people for owning yellow people? I just don’t think we are all that different are morally better. I’m pro-life but that doesn’t mean I would blow up an abortion clinic, but I know some would but I don’t much of them.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      Nor does it anywhere support man stealing.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      After all these years! Do you speak to us today?

      I think from the bible I can justify slavery with all it?s evils before I can killing someone to free them. Does anyone think that black people would kill black people for owning yellow people?

    • gd10782

      I could have sworned Paul wrote a letter to Philemon regarding Philemon’s fugitive slave Onesimus sending him back into slavery. It was up to the OWNER to free him or not. I want even go into the old testment whom I assume you do understand never forbids it if not out right supports it, at least for a period of time. Like I said I can defend slavery with all it’s evils more than you can killing people who own them. That’s all I’m saying.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        And also a retread.