As far as I know, Gautam's and Dan's discussions of the US Civil War
are correct:
* The Fugitive Slave Act was an imposition on states' rights. It
meant a change from the previous, more or less `live and let live'
tolerance policy to a Federally imposed `you will help us kidnap
Gautam Mukunda asks
... was Southern defeat inevitable? I would actually say, in
retrospect, that it's actually fairly improbable.
This is a nice question. The early 1860s were the first period in
which the North had the economic power to fund a civil war and win.
But it just barely
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:10:04AM -0500, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Does anyone know of long run British figures brought up to date and
more likely to be accurate? Is my thesis reasonable? As for an
explanation: Britain did not grow faster because people first had to
invent the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, my understanding is that in the early days of the
First World
War, American sympathies were largely with the Germans. Likewise,
the
Irish also generally sympathized with the Germans in the World Wars
in
large
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julia wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an
issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is
likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery
or
states rights, they'd have said states rights.
Of course, the particular states right they were so concerned
about losing was slavery.
- jmh
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a
differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average
foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in the retoric of
the time?
No, it was fought over the states rights
Horn, John wrote:
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery
or
states rights, they'd have said states rights.
Of course, the particular states right they were so concerned
about losing was slavery.
Which was the
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which was the primary concern of the politicians and
the people in
power, but *not* of most of the infantry.
The leaders meant X, said Y, the rank-and-file
believed Y.
Julia
You know you're both stepping into a bit of a
historical
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a
differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average
foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in
It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the
Civil War that perhaps the single most important
reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham
Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic
North, where a dirt-poor farm boy had the chance to
rise to the Presidency, something
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to bring back the discussions of the
American generals; just a
simple question. I'm assuming you are not saying
Lincoln was a genius war
president. I've only read Gods and Generals,
otherwise I know little about
the war. It seemed that
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How could the South have won? How about no major
offensive operations, force the North into a grinding
war of attrition and denying it any major victories
while either getting European intervention (which
almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864
I
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had thought that most European sympathies lay with
the
North, given European distaste for slavery, and that
the
North did actually get some European aid? What
nation(s)
considered intervening on the South's side?
The sympathies of European
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable
view.
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which was the primary
Bryon Daly wrote:
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How could the South have won? How about no major
offensive operations, force the North into a grinding
war of attrition and denying it any major victories
while either getting European intervention (which
almost happened) or a
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sre! G
But could a dirt poor workhouse boy ever become
president?
The Advantages Of A Frontier Maru
rob
Thank you, Frederick Jackson Turner :-)
In all seriousness...Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan?
Clinton grew up lower middle class at best,
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable
view.
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sre! G
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I didn't see in his response -- the South
did a lot of trade
with Britain, so the Confederacy would have had
economic ties with
Britain.
Julia
Good point, Julia. I should have mentioned that. In
fact, the South really expected
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh Crap!!!
I thought you were talking 19th century.
(hence the workhouse reference)
xponent
Been Dirt Poor Myself Maru
rob
Ahh...now I understand. Hmm, that's an interesting
question. Who was the first _urban_ President from a
poor family?
At 04:48 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Not at all. But it is impossible for us, in the
modern context, to imagine a war like the American
Civil War. No Western power had fought a conflict
that devastating since 1815, and the United States has
never come close, before or since.
At 07:17 PM 3/1/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the
North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the
North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s)
considered intervening on the South's side?
You forget the role rivalries in
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I believe that Antietam remains the most
deadly day in US history,
and that Shiloh remains the most deadly battle.
Given how close this conflict was to home, and for
how long it dragged on,
it is remarkable that the North did not
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the
Civil War was fought over states rights.
The Civil
Julia wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that
the
Civil War was fought over states rights.
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Julia wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that
the
Civil
26 matches
Mail list logo
