True, I do have more time and it pays better, so I am finally working on my Masters in Elementary & Special education.

 

No and No.

 

I was also taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery. That is not the entire story and I don't think that this country would have gone to war to abolish slavery at the time. Lincoln was concerned about keeping the union together more than about slavery. I will need to see if I can find a bit of research for Hobo if I can find the time later. One thing to keep in mind with any research is that the victors determine how history is recorded.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union. Lincoln sent federal troops to Charleston, SC. Actually, it was to nearby Fort Sumter. No one knows who fired the first shot, but it was union forces who first took up arms against southern citizens. Southern patriots were there to defend themselves from an invading union army. Had Lincoln not sent federal troops to South Carolina the war might not have happened. My guess is that Lincoln sent in troops in an effort to thwart any rebellion by demonstrating a show of force and if he could stop South Carolina, then he could bring the rest of the Confederate states into line. Rather than quashing the rebellion, it actually had the opposite effect and provided a unifying effect on the southern states. I believe that Lincoln's actions pushed states that were teetering on seceding into leaving the union.

As far as who started the war, I suppose it would depend on which side you were on. Those on the union side would state that it was the south who started the war by seceding from the union. Southern states would contend that it was the federalists who started the war by sending in troops to South Carolina. By the way, it was the first time that federal troops were used against American citizens.

There were many southern sympathizers in the union. It would not have been very difficult for Confederate states to be kept up to date on the goings on in Washington. Southern generals were also experienced in union tactics. Many of the Confederate generals were graduates of West Point and were acquainted with their northern counterparts. In fact, most of them served in the U.S. Army before resigning their commission to join the Confederacy. Keep in mind that Washington DC is partly in Virginia, which is still considered a southern state.

I don't believe that secession was an easy decision for southern states. Nor do I believe that it was an easy decision for generals such as Robert E. Lee and others to resign their commissions in the union army. These people risked everything, property and life, to join the Confederacy. It was a very dark time in our history.

 

Little known fact.....the United States technically only has 49 states, though, we obviously recognize 50 of them. The state I am referring to is Alabama. Alabama is the only state that didn't rejoin the union after the war was over and no official from the state ever signed the peace treaty making Alabama technically still a Confederate State of America. Just thought I would add that in there.

 

That is correct, in my studies at GMU I ran into several different versions of the Civil War. In fact, 1 professor was discussing Chancellorsville and I knew the info she was giving was wrong, heck I live 7 miles from it and have toured it many times, I know it's history. She didn't believe what I was saying, I brought in the book that I was citing, she then said the author was ignorant and racist.

That is also correct no matter what History book you read, both blamed the other for what took place at Sumter. Some have said that everything was ok and an uneasy truce was going to happen until the Union started pounding Fort Sumter with artillery. Some say that once the CSA took control of a Union military post by force the war had started, so it was the CSA who started it.

Not true. For starters, DC is DC, neither VA or Maryland claim it. Both gave up pieces of land to establish the city originally. So while you may claim it's in VA so it's a Southern state you can also make the same claim that it's in MD so it's a Northern state. In 1846 it became completely within Maryland territory. The VA land was given back to VA and Alexandria. What many don't know is that Maryland was forced to be a Northern state by Lincoln. He held them hostage to ensure that DC was not surrounded by Southern states. He had many MD politicians arrested and locked away at Fort McHenry if they were a southern supporter. He also had artillery placed on Federal Hill overlooking the City of Baltimore as a show of force.

It was not easy at all, many families were left split because a son fought on one side while another son fought for the other or a son and father fought on different sides.

 

Maryland was holding elections to decide whether they would secede and join the Confederacy or stay in the union. It was thought that Maryland would vote to secede which would have left Washington DC completely surrounded by the CSA. Lincoln sent in troops to stop the election so that elections could not be held.

Although Washington DC is essentially split between Virginia and Maryland, you are correct in that DC is an entity of it's own.

I had family that fought on both sides. Although the South was destroyed during the war, I don't think that either side really gained much other than keeping the union together. I have mixed feelings as to whether that is a good thing or not. The Confederacy could have survived without northern industry, but I am not as sure that the north could have survived without southern agriculture. After the war, the federal government began to expand and take over more and more control over this country. We lost a lot with this war.

 

Twilight Flyer said:

Hmm.... some interesting points to debate (without having to do more research...lol!)

"I" made no such assumption. I referred to a civilian uprising that, for purpose of argument, was intent on overthrowing the government.... and thus declaring war on IT! I implied that the U.S. Military would do IT'S JOB... and defend our nation, union and government "against ALL enemies, foreign OR DOMESTIC" as it says in their OATH.

* However.... Lincoln did exactly THAT.

Again, you are partially correct. They ALSO have standing orders to NOT follow any "illegal" order. But, even under such an order.... what YOU say.... to attack the civilian population (without provocation,) you wouldn't have a military COUP (necessarily.) You'd have a military "rebellion" or "stand-down." [And chaos.]

Usually... and in general.... a military coup is not a "bottom up" rebellion by troops given an order they don't like. It is a "top down" (and very secretive) PLAN to secure the support of the troops under the command of some very HIGHLY PLACED Generals to overthrow a government and especially aimed at it's leader.

An argument for another time perhaps, is whether or not such a LARGE military, with so many different Commanders and "levels of command," could even pull OFF such a "coup" without anyone seeing it coming. :hellno:

Well.... I believe you are misguided in your historical knowledge. Several posters here agree with me that, during the Civil War, MANY families were split either by "lines of demarcation" or by philisophical beliefs. I don't know of any ACTUAL cases of "brother against brother," but I'm SURE there were soldiers that had to wage war on cities, towns or areas that they had "attachments" to! There are MANY stories of opposing soldiers meeting during a "cease fire" and talking about the SAME "home" and memories.

I believe that it was ONLY by "demonizing" the other side as the "ENEMY" (as you say,) that Americans were able to take up arms against OTHER Americans. And at times.... that most certainly DID include family members and friends.

Well, we agree on this. Unfortunately, I fear that there is such a movement afoot that MAY not be so "small scale." But, my contention stands that, if SOME Americans take up arms against our government, for anything OTHER than "self protection" against what YOU call the government declaring WAR on the citizens... or perhaps an "all out ban" on guns in the country (which will NEVER happen,) .... The U.S. Military will do it's JOB and put such a revolt DOWN! It may be ugly. But, it will NOT be much of a contest. :hellno:

Again... I have said nothing about such a "full scale" uprising. I've mentioned that the TEA Party wears guns and talks TALL about "Second Amendment remedies"... and they STIR THE POT!

I have said NOTHING (and neither has Obama) about an armed attempt to disarm American citizens! I disagree with you that an all-out uprising is not a FAR-fetched scenario! I continue to believe that the remedy in America... is the VOTE! And MOST Americans, regardless of how angry they might be, are NOT advocates of militarist insurrection against our government.

Sorry, I don't understand this reference.

Well... this is an interesting delusion. I hadn't THOUGHT about U.N. forces protecting our government against it's OWN military (let alone the people.) But, now that you force me to think about it? I doubt it would happen. The U.N. Forces KNOW that they cannot win in such a situation. I'm quite sure they would "sit it out" and deal with whoever WINS! :lol:

I think you've been playing too many video games, Twilight! And watching TOO much FauxNews!

I realize that YOU are "chilled" by your delusional scenario... but, I don't believe MOST Americans are. In general, you are "fearing" that things have gotten so bad that there MUST or WILL or MIGHT be an American ARMED uprising against some supposedly "tyrannical" government (that WE elected) sometime soon. :hellno: Furthermore.... you suspect it will be over GUN RIGHTS which MIGHT pit the military (or some PART of them) against it's own government (for the protection of their families.)

I contend that the current "militaristic" attitude is more about policy... and interestingly enough.... perhaps about States' Rights! But, the number of people who count themselves as "Tea Partiers," OR those who would support armed insurrection against our government (and not ALL gun owners would DO so...) are like a gnat on the government's AZZ!! :hellno:
They will get "noticed," but they can be squashed anytime we get tired of them.

For the record... I think they have done us a service in waking us up to government excesses! I hope something GOOD comes of it. But, anyone who thinks it will lead to revolution is DELUSIONAL!

And I appreciate that you didn't say, as so many do... that this is ONLY about Obama!

Okay... you've made your point. But....

1) The U.S. Military has DONE so before... against the citizens of the South.

2) NO president would EVER attempt an "all out ban" on GUNS in America!

3) There will never BE an "all out" revolution of the people of America against it's government. The number of people who even THINK about doing such.... LOUD AS THEY MAY BE..... are less than 5% of the population!

4) Under the WORST of secenarios.... I still believe that the MAJORITY of our armed forces will live UP to their oath, and support the government! Obviously, it would be chaos! But, history tells us that "forces" are involved that we don't see on the surface.... such as the "hostage taking" of Baltimore mentioned earlier.

5) In general, I believe this ENTIRE argument to be bogus and not worth the time to discuss! Really! There are more important matters in America today. And the answers lie in a "representative" form of government.... NOT in armed revolution! :ranting:

 

I agree with Hobo in that I am not sure that the military would side with a rebellion in this country, should one occur. There may be some who would violate their oath and side on the side of right, but I think that for the most part the military would stay pat and follow orders. And by the way, the military was used at Waco under Bill Clinton. Although it violated the Constitution, they followed orders and used tanks and guns against innocents at Waco. Judging from video footage, they are the ones responsible for the fire that killed many innocent civilians who wanted nothing but to be left alone. The authorities supposedly wanted David Koresh, but rather than doing what police would normally do decided to invade their property with tanks, guns and military.

The military was used on the south and it was used in Waco. Using history as a barometer we can assume that since the military was used on civilians in the past that they could and would be used in some future event.

Prior to the Civil War we saw a division among the military. I am not sure that the war would have continued for so many years without some exodus or separation of the military. Generals such as Lee, McClellan and Longstreet were top generals in the union army. They attended the same military academy as their counterparts in the union army. All had promising careers in the union army, but chose to leave and join the Confederacy. It would likely take such an exodus for a real revolution to take place.

On the other hand, a lot of the success of the Confederacy involved guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla wars can go on for decades against a superior military. Just look at how we got bogged down in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

I hope that we NEVER have another revolution in this country. I do believe that unless this administration and congress change direction back to a position of honor and stop their march toward communism or socialism that we could see a real armed conflict in this country. Like during the Civil War, there would be assistance from forces outside this country that would like to see a prolonged conflict within the boundaries of this nation.

 

I am not sure that most American think that they would ever be in an armed conflict with our government. However, I am talking to more and more people who think that the government could use the military to completely take over this country. And should that happen I can see a time when average Americans would take up arms and fight. The way things are heading they won't need to use the military. We are allowing the government to take over as we sit and watch.

 

You have a link to back this up. I googled it and cant find any info. I did find that they did join the union on Dec. 14, 1819.