|
Eifert Posting posted:I mean, I pulled delaware out of my rear end, but are you seriously going o argue that it was as crucial to their economy as the confederate states? There's a reason they went Union. I think he's just pointing out that Delaware actually was a slave state. Most of the border states went Union because they had stronger ties to the Union. Also because they were bordering the Union, and were likely to have war done on them first. Secession wasn't a boolean, it was a spectrum. Most of the Confederate states dealt with significant internal unrest from southerners who did not want to secede thank you very much. That's where West Virginia came from, east Tennessee came close to un-seceding as well, Kentucky wanted no part of the whole thing, Maryland was held to the Union largely by a massive military presence, and pretty much every southern state had to deal with internal dissent from citizens who thought the whole thing was ridiculous. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jun 26, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I think he's just pointing out that Delaware actually was a slave state. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I think he's just pointing out that Delaware actually was a slave state. Hell, a lot of the Slave States had large groups of militia flee to the North and join up with the Union anyways. Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, Georgia all had units who ended up fighting for the Union.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hell, a lot of the Slave States had large groups of militia flee to the North and join up with the Union anyways. Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, Georgia all had units who ended up fighting for the Union. As I recall, every Confederate state save South Carolina had at least one regiment serving in one of the Union armies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
Yeah, the most famous internal dissent was probably Sam Houston, who rightfully predicted the whole thing and retired to his ranch instead of continuing with either side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I had a History professor who's published a half dozen or so books on the Civil War explain it to us like this (heavily paraphrased) :Dr. Drago posted:People who know nothing about the Civil War think it was about slavery. People who learn about the War realize it was about State's rights. People who study it realize that, yes, it really was about slavery after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I mean, I pulled delaware out of my rear end, but are you seriously going o argue that it was as crucial to their economy as the confederate states? There's a reason they went Union. Delaware actually had a larger free black population than slave population. But yeah, slavery was completely legal there until 1865. You're right though, there were economic reasons as to why it went Unionist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I had a History professor who's published a half dozen or so books on the Civil War explain it to us like this (heavily paraphrased) : I had a particularly cautious professor who said the Civil War wouldn't have happened without slavery and that's about as charitable as it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Starshark posted:I had a particularly cautious professor who said the Civil War wouldn't have happened without slavery and that's about as charitable as it gets. Well, nobody can say that he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I think he's just pointing out that Delaware actually was a slave state. Didn't North Carolina also come very close to electing a pro-peace governor in 1864 or so?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I think he's just pointing out that Delaware actually was a slave state.  ) and he was from Kentucky
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I had a History professor who's published a half dozen or so books on the Civil War explain it to us like this (heavily paraphrased) : The important distinction to make is there is a huge difference for why the civil war happened (slavery), and the individual reasons for which people fought the war (slavery, states rights, pride etc etc etc). After all there were many white southerners who not only lacked slaves, but correctly realized that slavery was horrible for poor whites. Most of them still fought, because the elite was successful at re-framing the whole thing to being about states rights and southern pride and so on. You still see the effects of this today. This is nothing unusual, just look at the Iraq war: the reasons the average soldier fought were probably much different than the reasons for the Bush admin to go to war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
To a degree that's been the case since like, ancient Greece, or whenever we stopped fighting mostly with armies made of self-equipped landowners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To a degree that's been the case since like, ancient Greece, or whenever we stopped fighting mostly with armies made of self-equipped landowners. That'd be when Marius reformed the legions and opened the ranks to all free Romans in 107 BCE, including the proletarii. Though I suppose if you wanted to you can argue Western Europe largely returned to aristocratic warfare in the Middle Ages what with the primacy of Those Who Fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:As a direct descendant of John Brown, I can say I've never been more proud of my uncle than I am now that all these South will rise again, it was about state's rights idiots are crying literal rivers of tears. Well Lincoln's grandmother was my like 6 or 7th great-grandfather's sister. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:01
|
|