- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I look forward to participating.That's fine. I will start a new thread later about why the civil war was not about slavery.
Upvote
0
I look forward to participating.That's fine. I will start a new thread later about why the civil war was not about slavery.
I never said there was, but I'm sure there easily could be. My question remains, though. What is your answer?I know of no Civil War statues north of the Mason-Dixon Line that specifically honor “brave northerners.”
GoodI look forward to participating.
Uh, no. I'm sorry for the confusion, I meant I would explain why it was not about slavery. But I will start a new thread on this subject so we won't be talking about this here, per archivist's request.Wouldn't the explanation be because they wanted to keep slavery, and that was the main reason they wanted to secede.
tulc(thinks that's fairly clear)
Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing; he knew the south would take some action to prevent resupply of Fort Sumter which would have allowed Federal troops to remain there for an extended time. Major Anderson, commanding Fort Sumter, informed General Beauregard, commanding Confederate forces, that he had limited supplies and would soon have to abandon the fort. For someone who teaches history to grad students I am surprised at your response. Most historians would dispute your position.Are you saying Lincoln loaded the cannon? Gave the order to fire? I don’t think so. He sent a squadron to deliver supplies and troops to a Union fort. That isn’t manipulating anything.
Provide me with an example. I know of a statue of a brave southerner in DC, General Scott , but he fought for the north. There is a statue of another brave statue in NYC, Admiral Farragut, but he also fought for the north. Only northerner I know of who fought for the south was General Pemberton but he lost big time to Grant at Vicksburg so why would the both want to put up his statue?I never said there was, but I'm sure there easily could be. My question remains, though. What is your answer?
As I pointed out about the reason Benedict Arnold is not honored in the US....even though he was twice wounded in service to the colonies.I want to discuss the OP. Why were brave southerners who fought for the Union not honored at Richmond, statues that were to honor brave southerners?
If you have read the thread you know that Soldier of the Cross is going to start a tread on this. Stay on topic here.Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing; he knew the south would take some action to prevent resupply of Fort Sumter which would have allowed Federal troops to remain there for an extended time. Major Anderson, commanding Fort Sumter, informed General Beauregard, commanding Confederate forces, that he had limited supplies and would soon have to abandon the fort. For someone who teaches history to grad students I am surprised at your response. Most historians would dispute your position.
As I pointed out about the reason Benedict Arnold is not honored in the US....even though he was twice wounded in service to the colonies.
Quit dancing around the point and just answer the question. I am not saying this is the case, my question is merely hypothetical.Provide me with an example. I know of a statue of a brave southerner in DC, General Scott , but he fought for the north. There is a statue of another brave statue in NYC, Admiral Farragut, but he also fought for the north. Only northerner I know of who fought for the south was General Pemberton but he lost big time to Grant at Vicksburg so why would the both want to put up his statue?
Well, on national battlefields where most of the statues are located, there exists a rule of not honoring individual soldiers but rather the units they fought in. Now in Columbus Ohio on the statehouse lawn there are statues honoring Garfield, Grant, and others so I don't see how your statement holds water....do you?I know of no Civil War statues north of the Mason-Dixon Line that specifically honor “brave northerners.”
Link me into it please.....love CW debates.....That's fine. I will start a new thread later about why the civil war was not about slavery.
I can’t answer the question without an example. I need something to base my answer on. I’m not “dancing around the point.”Quit dancing around the point and just answer the question. I am not saying this is the case, my question is merely hypothetical.
Actually no. Lincoln himself stated he had no authority to interfere in slavery where it existed. His desire was to prevent its spread in the recently acquired territories of the southwest....that is what the south objected to.....Wouldn't the explanation be because they wanted to keep slavery, and that was the main reason they wanted to secede.
tulc(thinks that's fairly clear)
Unlike Richmond I don’t know that Ohio said that they were putting up statues of brave northerners.Well, on national battlefields where most of the statues are located, there exists a rule of not honoring individual soldiers but rather the units they fought in. Now in Columbus Ohio on the statehouse lawn there are statues honoring Garfield, Grant, and others so I don't see how your statement holds water....do you?
Well, I don't know about how brave they were but since they are not on national battlefields the locality has the option of honoring whomever they want. Drive through the many small county seats in Ohio and surrounding the courthouses will almost always be statues honoring CW outfits and (usually) senior officers.Except the claim was made that the statues at Richmond honored brave southerners.
Ah, so they must have been putting up statues of cowardly northerners? Your illogical statements are making serious responses difficult.Unlike Richmond I don’t know that Ohio said that they were putting up statues of brave northerners.