Why did we kill off our own people....

[Badfish]

in the Civil War ?

Discuss:

[patrice]

1. Social Justice motivated by Economic Interests. nt

[MineralMan]

2. Now, there's a general topic, if I ever saw one.

:popcorn:

Civil War history is pretty well-known by DUers. Did you have a specific question about it?

[Badfish]

4. Yes.

Why did we kill them ?

[MineralMan]

7. Why did we kill which ones? I won't take your bait. Sorry.

People died on both sides of the war. Who are "we?" in your question? Who are "they?"

You see, you're not defining your question in a way that makes sensible discourse possible.

The Civil War had a number of issues that got it started. People in different parts of the country felt strongly about one side or another in all of those issues. One side attempted to separate from our Constitutional Republic. There was a war. One side won. One side lost.

Beyond that, you're going to have to clarify your question before I will respond any further. You could begin by defining "we" and "they." That would be a start.

[Badfish]

10. Jeeesh.

When I say "we" ...I mean Americans

It was all Americans , pick a side , they were both killing each other.

The question is why ?

[MineralMan]

15. Why? Because one side wanted to continue with the practices

they had followed, against the wishes of the other side. When it became apparent that things were going to change, one site tried to end their participation in our national Constitutional Republic. A war was fought. In wars, people die. Many people died. It was a horrible war, based in large part on one side believing they should be able to own human beings. There were other issues, but that was the primary one.

You don't get to just say "Jeeesh," and think that's the end of it. If you want a discussion, you'll have to participate materially in that discussion. One word or one sentence responses will not do.

[Badfish]

25. See post #23

Americans will call for people to be charged and jailed for certain war crimes.

But when their own family supports these same crimes they see fit to ignore it and treat them as equals.

It can't be both ways , these people are hypocrites.

[MineralMan]

26. Introduce your actual issue in your original post, if that's what.

you want to discuss. That's my recommendation to you. You're talking about a completely different issue now.

[Badfish]

27. Not true.

If it was OK to kill other Americans in the civil war.

Then why can't we find Americans that are willing call out their own family members for supporting the same actions they call Bush a monster for ?

These people unwilling to even call out a family member would be AGAINST the civil war where very principled people fought each other , sometimes brother agaisnt brother.

My point is hypocrisy.

[JuniperLea]

16. Both sides were Americans...

I can understand the confusion and the questions. Why not just spit it out? Why the dance?

[MineralMan]

21. Well, one side wanted to stop being Americans.

They didn't like what was about to happen, so they tried to separate into another country. It didn't work. They lost. In the process, we fought a terrible, bloody war. And all over whether or not a person could own another person. Ugly.

[Badfish]

23. Well , Most Americans would ...

never stand up for their nation today.

I was wondering if the Americans today would agree with what was done to our own people just because they wanted to harm our nation ?

Most Democrats call Bush a monster for waging wars and torturing , but would never call their own family members a monster , even though they support the very same actions as Bush. Instead they treat them with respect.

I am just sick of the hypocrisy in this nation.

[JuniperLea]

30. Hypocrisy?

When did we get lied into a war? When were illegal war funds put on a separate budget to blur the rising national debt? Who on the left isn't screaming out against war? Where do you get your information re: "Well, most Americans would never stand up for their nation today" meme? Have you been under a rock for a while? Did you not see a hundred thousand people in Wisconsin stand up for their rights?

I'm quite confused by your line of questioning... but your concern is duly noted.

[WinkyDink]

18. It's called "11th-grade history."

[patrice]

37. ??? None of us were alive then. For many of us, had we been alive, we would have opposed that war as

much or more than any we oppose now.

War was/is not the answer.

[UnDued11]

17. Wars are just like that, y'know..

Winners are the ones who end up killing enough of the other side, so that it gives up.

Civil wars are anything BUT civil...but they do exist. The US is not immune to them (obviously)

Ideology can be toxic, and can lead to wars inside a country or outside it.

[closeupready]

3. For the same reason we destroyed Nazi-run Germany: cultural suicide.

nt

[Motown_Johnny]

5. because a house divided against itself cannot stand

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm


^snip^



I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

[Badfish]

6. So..

For the sake of keeping the nation united , we killed our own people ?

Do DUers agree with this ?

[MineralMan]

11. Again, who is the "we" in your question?

Who killed their own people, in your opinion? Who were "they?"

Until you define your questions a little better, your original post looks a lot like flamebait.

[Badfish]

13. "they" are Americans.

The civil war was Americans. "They" include both sides since they are all Americans.

Don't act as if there was an outside invader

[JustAnotherGen]

31. Disagree

No goal. "They" were not Americans. The minute they took up arms for President Davis - they were defending HIS country.

They declared war on us.
They murdered Americans in South Carolina without any good reason. Just selfishness and a desire to feel better about themselves by keeping human beings in chains.

So riddle me this -why did THEY rape, beat, mutilate, etc. etc. tear apart families, etc. etc. of black people who were 2/3 of an American.

Discuss.

[WinkyDink]

12. What on earth is your point? Should President Lincoln have allowed states to SECEDE??

"We killed our own people." Yes, because the REBELS wanted to BREAK UP THE NATION. THEY WERE TRAITORS, FGS.

Read a book.

[Badfish]

19. Jeeesh , take a break.

I asked a question.

[WinkyDink]

20. Me take a break? How about you go to school?

[MineralMan]

22. Another "Jeesh" response? It cannot be true that you understand

nothing about the Civil War, so your response indicates that you expected to get into an argument. By refusing to actually enter into a discussion, you make that clear.

I'm out.

[Badfish]

38. If it's still above your head...

check post #35

[MineralMan]

45. What? Had you said what you actually wanted to discuss in

your original post, we wouldn't be talking about this, would we? That has been my point all along. Say what you want to discuss at the beginning and we can discuss it. Make us guess what it is you're trying to say, and we'll go through 35 messages before you get to the point.

[JuniperLea]

14. You asked for an explanation of events in the past...

And why it happened. I don't think it fair to equate present day events with reasons for those in the past. I find it disingenuous at the very least.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. for the sake of ending the injustice of slavery

[WinkyDink]

8. You'll have to ask the---wait for it---REBELS,.

[sufrommich]

9. Because they insisted on owning other people. nt

[GSLevel9]

24. Difficult topic.

In my educated opinion I believe Lincoln miscalculated. He NEVER expected the reaction from the South. He expected a military run "police" mission. By the time he was hip deep in blood, arrogance and pride combined with pig-headedness prevented him from seeking a diplomatic solution.
If Lincoln would have known the cost in 1861 I'm sure he would have proceeded differently.

[rasputin1952]

36. I don't see it that way at all...

"...arrogance and pride combined with pig-headedness..." had nothing to do with it. Lincoln had to try to preserve the Union, it was his Constitutional duty.

There was plenty of "...arrogance and pride combined with pig-headedness..." on both sides. Well after it was established that Confederacy had essentially lost, (basically after the Mississippi was was completely in Northern hands and Gettysburg), the vast majority of said, "...arrogance and pride combined with pig-headedness...", could be attributed to Jefferson Davis and a handful of Southern Generals that continued the war, (by this time it had become a war of attrition).

It was virtually impossible for the South tho win. The South relied on blockade runners, they could not sell their goods to create revenue to purchase the items necessary to continue the war, (there were collections of urine all over the South to get nitrates for gunpowder and the livestock population was virtually non-existent; one can add that the lack of crops ensured a slow starvation for the Confederacy as well). In the meantime, the North had access to unguarded ports, a well established industrial base, a far lager population and a far stronger government.

[Modern_Matthew]

28. It was more about secession than slavery. n/t

[patrice]

44. Agreed. Economics motivated the commitment to Ethics. One wonders what would have happened

if there had been no economic consequences of secession.

[JHB]

29. You could ask them. "We" didn't because none of "us" were alive then.

But causes of the war are well documented both by original source material and later scholarship.

Please patronize your local public library.

[rasputin1952]

32. In a nutshell...

The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. When the Southern States seceded, they committed an act of treason. As soon as the fuse was lit to fire the first shot at Ft. Sumter, there was no turning back.

We can go from there, but that's basically it.

[cali]

33. I'm sorry, but this is a deeply stupid post

[Badfish]

35. OK , as simply as I can put it.

Today we have Americans who are unwilling to simply call out their family members for human rights issues such as War, torture, and rape.

But they support killing other Americans over human rights issues such as war, Torture and rape , like the Civil war actions.

Perhaps some of you have republican family members and can relate.

You can't be unwilling to call out certain Americans for human rights issues , but more than willing to support the killing of other Americans for human rights issues.

my point that almost all missed... You CANNOT hold both views. This makes you a hypocrite.

[patrice]

39. Not necessarily. The question is the degree of integrity with which a given position is taken.

More often than not, it is hypocrisy, because people rarely think out and act upon their principles with full honesty and, hence, integrity, but that does not mean that it is impossible for someone to decide that a certain question IS worth human life and, because they live in honest integrity, that includes first and foremost THEIR OWN life in that struggle. The same can be true of a decision that says a certain question is NOT worth human life if that decision is maintained with integrity, that would not be one's own life NOR a requirement for that of anyone else.

Though I may, and probably do, disagree with one or the other of this kind of decisions relative to a given issue, I do not deny that it is possible for others to maintain these kinds of positions, as long as they do so honestly and, hence, with integrity, so my objections would probably primarily have to do with those traits rather than with the decisions themselves.

[cali]

40. what a silly, garbled, simplistic mess.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you suggesting that if we have republican family members, we upbraid and excoriate them on every possible occasion? To what end?

And by the way, the ability to entertain paradox is not the same as hypocrisy, but even if it were, hypocrisy is something that only hypocrites can't forgive. (EM Forster)

[patrice]

41. Thank you! The ability to "entertain (at least some possibility of) paradox" is necessitated by the

nature of proof.

[cali]

42. complexity and paradox are clearly not notions the OP entertains.

:hi:

[patrice]

43. Lots of people still regard situational ethics as a weaknes, when, in fact, it FREQUENTLY requires

strength and courage that are rarely required of absolutist ethics.

[Badfish]

47. Looks like you just rationalized yourself out of your hypocrisy.

tell yourself what you have to.

If Bush is a monster for these actions , then so are the people who support Bush and his actions.

Amazing someone could get confused about such a simple issue.

[cali]

52. first of all, I don't traffic in fairy tales and ogres and monsters

What bush did springs from human failings. And no, what's amazing is that anyone could be so simplistic and ridiculous.

[cali]

53. oh, and grab a clue or two, fishy

your post has zero recs. DUers are smart enough not to buy into your idiot shite.

[Badfish]

46. LOL.

Nice try.

Still confused ? ..then listen up.

If Bush is a monster for his positions , then it makes sense that your republican family members are also monsters for supporting the very same positions.

I am asking that Americans be consistent in their views.

But apparently that is asking to much , just like you posted.

[cali]

49. As a matter of fact, I don't have any republican family members

but that's hardly the point. No, people who supported Bush are not all monsters. that's just, well, idiocy. buy hey, that's what you're engaging in throughout this thread.

[JVS]

50. +1

WTF?

[FormerDittoHead]

51. +1

[Morning Dew]

48. It was the 1860s

there really wasn't much else to do in those days.

No tv, radio, internet. That alone was enough to make people want to kill themselves. Or others.

Killing others seems to be the popular choice for our forefathers - they actually split into two teams.

One side wore blue, the other gray.

The advent of widespread telegraphy and its attendant entertainment value caused the cessation of hostilities.

[patrice]

58. 1+ All of that & a certain STRONG kneejerk tendency to follow your "betters" right off the cliff. nt

[Adsos Letter]

54. Well...

"Strictly speaking a civil war takes place within the same political community and represents a struggle for power between competing factions that is decided through violence."

"The American civil war fits the category as it was about one part of the country's attempt to break away from the rest and it involved a clash between organised armies."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4902708.stm

[Fearless]

55. There were two issues at play.

1. States were clamoring for political power and representation in Congress. This wedge issue was the powder keg which resembles the scramble for power in Congress. It's commonly seen as "States Rights" but that's just propaganda used to get the masses on board.

2. Slavery. A non-issue we commonly attribute to causing it. Abolition rather. However, most in the NORTH never mind the South, were completely happy with slavery continuing. Either because they were racist or simply didn't care.


Point 1 is the reason. Point 2 is the middle school answer.

[Jmaxfie1]

61. Great explanation! n/t

[TheKentuckian]

56. Because saying "Pretty please" didn't do the job.

Nor did strongly worded letters, compromise after compromise, or guilt trips and calls to decency.

War may never be the answer but sometimes it is the only valid response.

[oldhippie]

57. Because they needed killin'?

nt

[Jmaxfie1]

59. Why did the Civil War happen, you mean?

Well the South was afraid that Lincoln would tamper with slavery, they were also mad because of high tariffs on foreign goods which was hurting their trade status with Britain in particular. The also were mad that much of the money the Federal government was taking in was being used for internal improvements in the North. (Railroads, etc.)

The North fought the Civil War to preserve the Union. I've never bought the propagandistic claim that the Union fought the War to Free the Slaves. I think Abraham Lincoln best summed up the Union position in his letter to Horace Greeley: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

Basically it would be nice to get rid of slavery, but we are willing to bargain with the slaves freedom. Being that this is the 1860's we are talking about no one should really be surprised that maybe our real intentions weren't as noble as they appeared.

[steve2470]

60. They might need your help here editing this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[Rebubula]

62. Well...

...I am just speechless (both by the lame OP and his responses) on this particular OP.

So...do you think that (assuming we support the Civil War) we should kill our families if they voted for Bush et al? That is what I am getting from your post.

I am going to assume that you are very young...at least I will hope that.