Civil war Books From the Southern Perspective

No, for many reasons.

For one, I have looked at that site before. The traffic in other than the "Should people be forced to use pronouns the recipient wants to have" is pretty dismal. There is no military section, and the history section generally has almost no responses. Why, some of the questions posts have been there for 2 years, and had an entire 14 responses.

But the really "high traffic" ones are generally highly slanted political or attack threads, which I have absolutely no interest in. One that starts out "Consumerism is evil, but...". Yea, that can be immediately flushed as entirely biased. "Is coming out as a pre-teen the best?" Uhhh, yea. OK. "Child porn should be legal". Yea, only if we are then allowed to hunt down those who make it. "Stop complaining about rape".

And you are really suggesting that I should go to a cesspool like that and enter into a debate? I have looked at that site before, and I see it is even worse than it was the last time I looked there. Nothing but passive-aggressive snowflakes, flamers (as in flame wars), trolls, and the like. Most debates are at the level at best of what is found in the Conspiracy Theory section of forums like this.

Nope, not gonna go there again. And somebody even suggesting it is simply beyond comprehension to me.

 

That is not possible I have realized. And the creation of at least 2 more threads all basically saying the same thing has made me simply toss up my hands and hit them with my iggy grenade.

 

He is apparently a high functioning autistic, and that is cool. He likes the Lost Cause romantic mythology. Now that we know where he is bunkered and what his approach is, we can wish him well and go on our own way.

 

No, and shocked you support any republican much less a president that bears the full responsibility for the cost of over 630,000 lives of Americans in a short period of 4 years. And less fighting took place in poor weather than in decent weather.

Lee was brilliant. Grant used brute force. (not a lousy idea at all since he had brute force troops at the last year of the war. )

 

Were I to say the same words Abe Lincoln said in public, I would get called a black hearted racist. If I engaged in a war, saying I wanted all states to stay bundled up even when their state citizens did not want it, I would be called a tyrant.

Abe proclaimed negros are not equal to whites and it is not possible that they can be. But Democrats love Abe Lincoln. That I can't figure out.

 

Grant was better than Lee, period. Chased Pemberton into Vicksburg and forced him to surrender. Keep turning Lee's right flank, made him run, trapped him, clubbed his army in the head, killed the Confederacy.

 

Modern day Democrats fight furiously to make it about slavery. Tell them the Souths troops were not slave owners and they don't care. Tell them had Abe never invaded VA or other states, the South never would have invaded Maryland and PA and they don't care. Tell them the public who did not own slaves in the South voted to depart the union and they don't care.

They must make it about slaves to justify that war.

Killing 630,000 Americans can't be justified. Even over slavery.

 

Lee did not fight at Vicksburg. And Pemberton was vastly outnumbered. Hell i would have won with Grants advantage. As to the ending years of the war since Vicksburg came early on, Grant lost considerably more men than Lee did and Lee kept Grant tied up in knots until Lee ran out of food and other resources.

 

There are a number of metrics that are used over the Civil War in 1861-65.
1. Slavery. That was why the South declared it's independence. Abe had he shunned war would say goodbye and good luck and run his part of the country.
2, The Commanders of the North and South would not stack up to today's elite commanders.
3. Lee waged a defensive war mostly. Where he waged an offensive war, he suffered huge losses and also lost battles. Grant was given a steady pipeline of troops that masked his failures in war.
4, Lincoln had to be a great guy since he caused the deaths of 630,000 humans in combat. Sorry but I do not see him as great.

 

There likely are southern points of view that have not been given a fair hearing
But in all that, there are a few truths that are inescapable
The PRIMARY motivating factor for secession was the issue of the southern states rights to decide for themselves on the issue of slavery.... and the southern states recognized that as new nonslave states entered the union, they would lose political parity, and therefore ultimately lose the ability to control their own destiny on this issue. At this point, secession became their only political option... and the north objected (rightly Or wrongly)

Btw, i agree that individual soldiers did not by in large fight for slavery (on either side). But that does not change the fact that the political driving force of secession was preservation of states rights about slavery... an issue that was sufficiently important that it was explicitly incorporated in all secessionist state constitutions

 

^^^ That is a loopy comment generally, Robert, other than, yes, the loss of American lives because of southern recalcitrance cannot, never be forgiven.

 

Robert's comment shows he does not understand the river and portage problems on the river, nor does he understand the campaign in the state, where Grant drove and beat Johnson in the Jackson area battles, then pivoted and drove Pemberton into Vicksburg. Lee, a better general than Pemberton, would have abandoned the city to join Johnston, then turn on Grant. Please study more.

 

The thing is, that other than restricting slavery, there is nothing that could have been done to stop the institution.

Slavery was part of the Constitution, and the only way to effectively end it was with a Constitutional Amendment. And even if every state that was admitted was a free state, there still would not have been enough states to ratify a n amendment that would have abolished it.

What the war was about was the fear that this might happen, someday. That is why they tried to leave the union, and why they attacked Union forces in South Carolina and started the war.

 

As I see it, the traitors were responsible and they were damn lucky their necks weren't stretched.

Forget Grant. Lee was good on the defense, but Sherman mastered the indirect attack, mobility, multiple objectives, and the strategic destruction of Confederate property.

 

They had no right to secede.

Sherman developed into a modern general.

Blame the traitors.

 

Per you, once you sign up to be a state, you forfeit the rest of your rights. Sweet.
The South more than likely resents Sherman more than they do Grant.
Traitors do not hold elections, vote for staying or leaving and follow the voters will. The south did that.

Do you see the difference in how Washington went about things? I wager you do not see Washington and his men as traitors.

 

I am not really completely up on Vicksburg but Grant had overwhelming numbers of troops. I believe he had far more to win that battle than Pemberton had at his disposal. Kind of like a huge man whips a tiny man if you ask me.

I too believe Lee was the superior general and had it been him as opposed to Pemberton, the outcome could have been Lee winning. Lee was an artist with lesser troops under his command.

 

And you believe that since you believe in the rule that might makes things right. The issue for Lee was much more correct. I remind you who invaded Va at Manassas or Bull Run. it was not the South that marched into Maryland to capture DC.

It can be said that General Washington fought England to preserve slavery too. Bet you do not agree.

Think though, he and Jefferson were very large slave owners and England abolished slavery.

 

Yet nobody can cite any document nor speech by Lincoln making his opening invasion of VA about defeating slavery.

I have not yet seen Ft. Sumter yet I have studied the cannon of that era, the safety of Ft. Sumter for troops, the purpose of Sumter and the great distance from the Souths shore batteries trying to reach Ft. Sumter with cannon fire.

I frankly see no reason why Abe invaded VA. Had he invaded S. Carolina, that would have made more sense he did it to recover states. But states were quite unique and individualists. Those leaving had voted to leave. They did not simply bail out with no notice at all.

Washington had a huge number of slaves yet who says he fought England to preserve slavery though England had abolished slavery too by 1833 I believe. Clearly that was in the works for some time.

 

Can you provide from a speech by Lincoln prior to his invasion of VA where he made that claim?

 

I strongly disagree, as does history.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/

 

Or, we can get our opinions from history and thus the war was about....

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/

 

Legality of secession


https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/

 

Ill Take my Stand Causes of Southern Secession

Upper south secession post 38-41 or

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/

Cotton states post 42-48

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/


Legality of secession post 60-62 or

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/


From confederation to consolidation the political effects of the civil war

49-52

or https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/

 

Which non slave state seceeded?