RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True?

RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

John 3rd -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 5:49:34 AM)
Nicely said as well. I miss Shelby Foote! I can clearly hear his drawl just by closing my eyes and thinking of the Ken Burn's Civil War Series. He was wonderful. His books are a nice, pleasant read.

bradfordkay -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 6:56:12 AM)
Wasn't the big argument about whether slavery could be extended into new territories? BTW: Dan... did you get to take Emory Thomas' Civil War course at UGA? I was always registering too late to get in, but he let me sit in when I wanted to. I just didn't have the time to do it often enough.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 7:59:18 AM)
quote: Civil War scholars generally agree that that the Union fight to "free the slaves" is pretty inaccurate. There seemed to be many reasons why they fought. Maintain the union was certainly the main reason I would have to agree with with the scholars... if the whole point of the North was to free the slaves, Lincoln would have issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1861... not 1863. Chez

Mynok -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 8:23:27 AM)
And if he were honest about his intentions, he would have freed all of them, not just the ones in the Confederacy. Political BS that accomplished part of a good thing is pretty much my assessment.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 8:57:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo Had to do a paper once (details hazy now) for a professor with pronounced political leanings...bottomline, what he was looking for was that the colonists were largely apolitical and a few individuals pushed/incited revolution for personal gain. A minority in favor, most apathetic, used more or less staged/fabricated/embellished events to drive their agenda and whip up the masses. British over-reacted, harsh measures pushed more into the revolution camp, snowballed from there. Tax issue was a red herring, the nacent exploiters (aka "Founding Fathers") real issue was the British trade laws reducing their ability to make the big bucks via manufacturing and carrying the resulting trade on the own (colonial) ships. British policy and law envisioned the colonies as sources of raw materials and captive markets for their own British produced finished products and prohibited/stifled local manufacturing and trade through a combination of taxes, tariffs, and the Navigation Acts that ensured the big bucks all funneled through British hands...colonials got the table scraps. Some truth to it, some typical leftist twaddle. Truth somewhere in the middle. There is a great deal of merit to part of that argument. And America was founded on the ideal of personal profit and liberty. One need but look at the various founding fathers though to see that their motivations were as diverse as they. However, the whole let's start a war to make profit theory is bunk.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 9:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: mark24 The Americas in the 1700's were heavily taxed, ultimately leading to the declaration of independence: False, the tax burden in the British Isles was higher. It was about the perception of high taxes. Tax levels are relative. It was even more about being treated as a colony and not an equal. I'm not sure the taxes were as high as they were pervasive: taxes on tea, glass, paper, etc., w/o any representation in England. Then again, someone had to pay the tab for the French and Indian Wars; I think there were five of them worldwide. I would not disagree with your statement. It could easily be argued that England spent more on the colonies then they collected in taxes. However, like any rationale citizen, the Colonials didn't want to pay more tax than was required. Many of the new taxes, though relatively small, were numerous, giving the perception to the Colonials that the English aristocracy was getting greedy.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 9:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Truth: The Mexican War was started by Mexico in an effort to militarily obtain as fait accompli a favorable outcome in a border dispute entrained by ambiguous language in a treaty establishing the border between the two nations ... If I'm not mistaken, the Rio Grande was the agreed border, but the ambuguity lay on who had what side of the river. IMHO the real issue was Mexico still didn't really want to recognize Texas as independent

Mike Scholl -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 3:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I would not disagree with your statement. It could easily be argued that England spent more on the colonies then they collected in taxes. However, like any rationale citizen, the Colonials didn't want to pay more tax than was required. Many of the new taxes, though relatively small, were numerous, giving the perception to the Colonials that the English aristocracy was getting greedy. Problem was that for most of their existance the Colonies had paid no direct taxes. Their value to England was in supplying the goods and services the Colonist could not, or weren't allowed to supply themselves. Any tax, even a small one, looks large to those who've never paid one before, I've often wondered what would have happened if George III had been smart enough to call the Colonist's bluff? Give them representation in Parlement, then out-vote them, and give them the taxes as well. Franklin certainly feared such a policy.

Canoerebel -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 3:31:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay BTW: Dan... did you get to take Emory Thomas' Civil War course at UGA? I was always registering too late to get in, but he let me sit in when I wanted to. I just didn't have the time to do it often enough. No, I may have been too young, Bradford. [8D] I was from Florida, and knew little about UGA when I arrived in '79. Didn't hear of Emory Thomas until later. But let me tell you about Nancy Jo [Last name omitted so I don't get in trouble one of these days], the coed in my poli-sci and history classes my sophomore year. Everyone, including my history professor, was in love with her, except me, because I was dating another girl. Nancy Jo must have thought I was playing hard to get or something....because she ended up asking ME out. I turned her down [8\|] and she ended up posing in Playboy later that quarter. [X(]

John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 3:34:16 PM)
Slave-owners in the South were a very small minority of the overall population; it is hard to use that as the sole or even the main reason why the ACW was fought, even from the Southern viewpoint. North Carolina, for example, did not secede until Lincoln called for every state to provide troops to put down what he termed a rebellion; Tennessee did so as well. The states in the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, SC, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida) were the ones pushing for secession early and often, and while the right to own slaves was certainly part of the reason, the right to self-determination was paramount in their minds as well. It's said that before the ACW, citizens of this country thought of themselves as members of a state first, and a nation second. After the war, that was reversed.

Canoerebel -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 3:44:09 PM)
John, not even that is accurate, due to the complexity of the social and political situations north and south at the time. Just a few for instances: 1) Georgia, one of the "Deep South" states, was bitterly divided against secession. It was a close thing, but when it became apparent that secession would carry the day, many anti-secession delegates changed their vote to give the appearance of solidarity. Many of Georgia's political leaders - including most notably Alexander Stephens who became Confederate vice-president - opposed secession. This desire to preserve the Union was even greater in states like Virginia and North Carolina, leading to their belated withdrawals as you note. 2) Slavery was very common in the south. It is true that only a small minority of southern soldiers owned slaves, but that is only because they were very young. A majority of their father's owned slaves. Well over half of all southern soldiers had a direct financial interest in the perpetuation of slavery. (I researched this question and wrote a magazine article published five or six years ago - I looked at two companies from northwest Georgia, where there was considerably less slavery than in the middle and southern portions of the state; the findings were quite surprising and disproved the idea that southern soldiers weren't really concerned with slavery). 3) Slavery was the spark that ignited the Civil War. It was the one thing that encapsulated the growing antipathy (social, economic, and political) between north and south. The issue was like waving a red flag in the face of many southerners, and northern abolitionists. The threat to the south's political power, and divisive issues like the Fugitive Slave Act (federal enforcement thereof, and northern resistance - especially in Massachusetts - thereto) fanned the flames. 4) Southerns fought for a variety of reasons - primarily to protect the South and for their "rights." Very few fought specifically to perpetuate slavery. 5) Northerners fought for a variety of reasons - primarily to preserve the Union (especially in the Midwestern states). Abolitionism was strong only in New England.

Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 5:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel 3)� Slavery was the spark that ignited the Civil War ... Lincoln said it was "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but it was probably John Brown's "red flag" raid; a slave revolt was the one thing all Southerners feared regardless if they owned slaves.

bradfordkay -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 6:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay BTW: Dan... did you get to take Emory Thomas' Civil War course at UGA? I was always registering too late to get in, but he let me sit in when I wanted to. I just didn't have the time to do it often enough. No, I may have been too young, Bradford. [8D] I was from Florida, and knew little about UGA when I arrived in '79. Didn't hear of Emory Thomas until later. But let me tell you about Nancy Jo [Last name omitted so I don't get in trouble one of these days], the coed in my poli-sci and history classes my sophomore year. Everyone, including my history professor, was in love with her, except me, because I was dating another girl. Nancy Jo must have thought I was playing hard to get or something....because she ended up asking ME out. I turned her down [8\|] and she ended up posing in Playboy later that quarter. [X(] Nancy Jo was in the "Girls of the SEC" pictorial, right? I remember when that all going down... nice catch! Dr Thomas was definitely there when you were a student. Too bad you missed out on taking any of his classes, he was a fun prof.

Bearcat2 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 7:14:59 PM)
I still have some of the letters[copies now] from a ancestor who was a North Carolina "Regulator" before the revolutionary war. As an example of a "grievance", Paraphrasing the letter; he objected that in order to record a deed in the county register; one would typically require a farmer to work 2 days in the employ of the official recording the deed, he was incensed to say the least, that the simple recording of a sentence cost so much, this this was not a govt fee, but one imposed by the officials doing the recording. There are other examples, with the common thread of the disparity of payment required, to the actual work done. The other main arguements were the "arbitrary rulings" made without input from the colonies, an example of that would be no migration allowed across the mountains to Tenn, Ky, Oh etc. The 1/3 "loyalist leaning Americans", is not supported by the militias raised; which is rather odd, when you realize that incentives to stay with the crown were better for you financially than revolting. My ancestor was condemned to death and lost his land and possessions to the British before the revolutionary war; he fled to Pa, where he found refuge.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 7:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel 4)� Southerns fought for a variety of reasons - primarily to protect the South and for their "rights."� Very few fought specifically to perpetuate slavery. On the nose! Slave-holding was among those "rights"..., but it was really the fear and aggrivation of having a bunch of Northerners telling you "how to live" that brought in the recruits.

Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 7:39:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 ... My ancestor was condemned to death and lost his land and possessions to the British before the revolutionary war; he fled to Pa, where he found refuge.� Was he a Quaker?

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: How about the lie that I fight within my college classrooms that in the beginning, the North fought the war to end slavery? In New England, it's taught (correctly) that the secessionist states attempted to secede in order to promote slavery and that the loyal states fought to prevent secession. This is accurate, to a point. The North as a whole fought to stop secession. However, the Republican party was avidly abolitionist. Of course, many of the abolitionists also had pacifist leanings, so they were not advocates of direct military action. The theory at the time though was to stop the expansion of slavery and allow the South to end slavery of its own accord, due to economic pressure. However, to say that the North fought to end slavery was not a completely incorrect. Had the North not cared about slavery they could have capitulated (prior to secession) to the South's desire for more slave states. The North believed enough in the idea of halting slavery to go to war over it.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:03:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Civil War scholars generally agree that that the Union fight to "free the slaves" is pretty inaccurate. There seemed to be many reasons why they fought. Maintain the union was certainly the main reason I would have to agree with with the scholars... if the whole point of the North was to free the slaves, Lincoln would have issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1861... not 1863. Chez Lincoln was an abolitionist, but nobody wanted to rush to war. He knew that forcing the South to do anything at gunpoint was the least desirable way to bring about change.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I would not disagree with your statement. It could easily be argued that England spent more on the colonies then they collected in taxes. However, like any rationale citizen, the Colonials didn't want to pay more tax than was required. Many of the new taxes, though relatively small, were numerous, giving the perception to the Colonials that the English aristocracy was getting greedy. Problem was that for most of their existance the Colonies had paid no direct taxes. Their value to England was in supplying the goods and services the Colonist could not, or weren't allowed to supply themselves. Any tax, even a small one, looks large to those who've never paid one before, I've often wondered what would have happened if George III had been smart enough to call the Colonist's bluff? Give them representation in Parlement, then out-vote them, and give them the taxes as well. Franklin certainly feared such a policy. I'm not sure it was a bluff, as much as it was misperception on the part of colonists. Many of the American elite really wanted nothing more than to be a part of the English power structure. Of course that was never an option, representation in Parliament or not.

herwin -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:44:02 PM)
Slavery was not in the economic interests of Northern small farmers and mechanics--it sucked their standard of living down. It decreased the GDP, since it created a large class of people who were--by definition--not consumers, and it impoverished the free people who competed against them in the economy. So elimination of slavery was in their economic self interest.

herwin -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:47:41 PM)
The Civil War was a relatively cheap way to abolish slavery. The Russian Empire issued bonds to pay off the slaveholders, and it ended up being very expensive and a serious drag on the economy.

herwin -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/5/2008 11:52:34 PM)
Many of the American elite had been elite in England, but had also been on the losing side of the various English civil wars between 1453 and 1660. One thing noticeable in my genealogy is that while the social standing of families was much the same in England and later in America, the American ancestors tended to live a lot longer and have many more children--the English ancestors tended to be executed for treason.

Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 1:45:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin ... the American ancestors tended to live a lot longer and have many more children--the English ancestors tended to be executed for treason. In other words, your ancestors' longevity was directly proportional to their distance from the Tower of London.

John 3rd -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 5:06:57 AM)
I have taught the Civil War in my classrooms to be made up of several factors: 1. The 3 Ts: Taxes, Tariffs, and Transportation were issues that served to divide North from South. A large portion of the tax burden was being borne by the South--with the Cotton explosion going on--while Tariffs were in place to protect Northern fledgling industries that punnished Southern trade with England and France. Add to this problem that a lot of the tax and tariff money was then being spent on NORTHERN Railroad construction and you have an economic sense of perscution... 2. Growing Cultural Divide--the stereotype is that the South changed and there was a cultural disconnect. Not true. The South--in all reality--stayed very close to its Colonial roots--at the risk of tying in the portion of this thread--while it was the NORTH that transformed into something new. The growth of cities, new transportation, massive immigration, and industrialization took that section into an entirely new direction; whereas, the South remained true to its Cash Crops/Slave based economy. 3. Loss of the Middle--as long as there remained a sizeable number of people who hadn't picked a side within the conflict then compromise was possible. Figure 1/3 for slavery, 1/3 against, and 1/3 not really sure. You were able to compromise in 1820, fight the Mexican-American War, achieve compromise in 1850, but then it headed down hill. The litany of events: Bleeding Kansas, Sumner-Brooks Caning, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dred Scott, and John Brown's Raid fixed it so that there could be NO compromise. Each event led to people choosing sides and then that was it. Lincoln's Election was simply the spark needed to bring about the inferno. Does all that make sense? I was typing so fast, I am not sure if it does. This was my standard 60 minute lecture prior to Fort Sumter abbreviated into 3 paragraphs...

herwin -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 8:53:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: herwin ... the American ancestors tended to live a lot longer and have many more children--the English ancestors tended to be executed for treason. In other words, your ancestors' longevity was directly proportional to their distance from the Tower of London. More or less!

herwin -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 8:59:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I have taught the Civil War in my classrooms to be made up of several factors: ... Does all that make sense?� I was typing so fast, I am not sure if it does.� This was my standard 60 minute lecture prior to Fort Sumter abbreviated into 3 paragraphs... That's consistent with Trout Rader's analysis of slave economies. They impoverish all but the slave-holding elites in the long run, but if the non-slaveholding sector sees it in time, you get a civil war.

Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 1:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd ...� Bleeding Kansas, Sumner-Brooks Caning,� Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dred Scott, and John Brown's Raid fixed it so that there could be NO compromise.� Each event led to people choosing sides and then that was it.� Lincoln's Election was simply the spark needed to bring about the inferno. I can't recall if it was Lincoln -- or Raymond Massey -- who alluded to the OT verse re a house divided against itself not standing; the North was moving into the industrial age, but the agrarian South -- w/its "peculiar institution" -- wasn't willing to go along w/it. New wine into old wine skins: something had to give, and the tear basically ran along the Masin-Dixon divide.

Apollo11 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 1:56:50 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I have taught the Civil War in my classrooms to be made up of several factors: 1.� The 3 Ts:� Taxes, Tariffs, and Transportation were issues that served to divide North from South.��A large portion�of the tax burden was being borne by the South--with the Cotton explosion going on--while Tariffs were in place to protect Northern fledgling industries that punnished Southern trade with England and France.� Add to this problem that a lot of the tax and tariff money was then being spent on NORTHERN Railroad construction and you have an economic sense of perscution... 2.� Growing Cultural Divide--the stereotype is that the South changed and there was a cultural disconnect.� Not true.� The South--in all reality--stayed very close to its Colonial roots--at the risk of tying in the portion of this thread--while it was the NORTH that transformed into something new.� The growth of cities, new transportation, massive immigration, and industrialization took that section into an entirely new direction; whereas, the South remained true to its Cash Crops/Slave based economy. 3.� Loss of the Middle--as long as there remained a sizeable number of people who hadn't picked a side within the conflict then compromise was possible.� Figure 1/3 for slavery, 1/3 against, and 1/3 not really sure.� You were able to compromise in 1820, fight the Mexican-American War, achieve compromise in 1850, but then it headed down hill.� The litany of events:� Bleeding Kansas, Sumner-Brooks Caning,� Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dred Scott, and John Brown's Raid fixed it so that there could be NO compromise.� Each event led to people choosing sides and then that was it.� Lincoln's Election was simply the spark needed to bring about the inferno. Does all that make sense?� I was typing so fast, I am not sure if it does.� This was my standard 60 minute lecture prior to Fort Sumter abbreviated into 3 paragraphs... It makes a lot of sense - thanks! BTW, I did read lot of history books (and novels) about American Civil War - it is a subject that always fascinated me... [:)] Leo "Apollo11"

Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 2:10:45 PM)
Do you own FoF or AACW; I have both.

mogami -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 3:08:35 PM)
Hi, Lincohn once offered to buy all the slaves pointing out the cost was equal to 3 months of war.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.296875