Smokey 1

Members
  • Content count

    31,381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,199,194 Excellent

About Smokey 1

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    Near Naplis
  1. There were over 250 major military engagements in the war, not just18 as you listed. Lincoln wouldn't attack the states as long as they were in the union. Are you suggesting that since Lincoln would find it difficult to abolish slavery by legal means he attacked the southern states and tried to abolish it by force? Why would Lincoln lie to Greeley?
  2. Like I have stated here numerous times, slavery was the cause of secession and secession was the cause of the war. Lincoln could not have possibly sent troops south to free slaves since they were held legally in states that were still in the union. How would he justify that? Do you believe he would attack states that were still a part of the US to free slaves when it was legal to hold them? How do you explain the overwhelming number of victories the south had over the union army particularly prior to 1864? Jackson defeated three armies each larger than his own who were sent to destroy him in the Shenandoah Valley. The south always have had great soldiers. Maybe it was the rural environment where hunting was an every day thing and they were simply better marksmen, or that they were mostly from Scotch-Irish stock who were known for being great fighters, or that the military culture was more respected and admired in the south. I don't know but history speaks for itself in the resultant southern victories. Why do you say it is "dangerous" to believe the south had a better army? Most legit historians agree that the south had the better armies especially in the east. Are you saying that Lincoln lied to the country in his inaugural address? Or that he was lying to Horace Greely in a personal letter in which he stated;
  3. Ok, I am glad you admit you don't know what I believe unlike many here assume what people believe. I will take your points one by one. 1. No, the war was fought because the southern states seceded. They seceded because they thought that slavery was threatened with Lincoln's election even though he stated that he had no intention of abolishing slavery where it already existed. Lincoln did oppose the expansion of slavery to the west territories and the south saw that as a threat to existing slavery and their political power in congress. However, if the states didn't secede, there would not have likely been a war. Lincoln said he had no intention to abolish slavery where it already existed so he would have had no reason to send troops south to free the slaves. He sent troops south to "preserve the union". 2. No, slavery was not a benevolent act and I have always opposed it. 3. This one is true and not a myth. I have primarily studied the military aspects of the war and its clear the south did have a better army with better officers and soldiers. They came very close to winning the war but after the defeat at Gettysburg they couldn't keep their armies properly supplied with men and equipment. I don't know anything about the premise that they lost due to dirty tricks but they did face overwhelming odds from the well supplied union forces. 4. I don't buy into any of that idealized southern culture. I didn't say the speakers from primary sources weren't biased, I said their stories weren't interpreted by someone else. The interpretation of their speech is left to those who read the primary source material.
  4. There is no biased interpretation of what the speaker says with a primary source. What part of the "lost cause" do you think I believe?
  5. Because I am a history buff, not a dreamer. Are you suggesting I find other interests? I use primary sources for information as much as I can which are about as objective as you can get.
  6. I think I know what you are getting at, I always wondered what would have happened if the south instead of seceding went on a general strike cutting off all the money flowing into the federal government coffers.
  7. Amazing how many Civil War "experts" we have here that clearly have never even read a legitimate/unbiased history book about the subject.
  8. Just being picky, sorry.
  9. Elton John only wrote the music, not the lyrics.
  10. What do you consider old? You sound like an ageist. I am not that old but since you feel that way I hope you never get as old as I am. We wouldn't want you to have to endure being "old". I only used that term so I wouldn't get the first post deleted for using a term that more accurately describes them and you.
  11. What about Dallas? That isn't about one brat, but a district school system wanting to ban the name James Madison from a school.
  12. The pathetic anti-freedom SJW's are now going after James Madison and other founders petitioning to have their names removed from schools and other places. http://thepoliticalinsider.com/james-madison-memorial-high-school-name-change/ https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/09/17/father-of-the-constitution-blacklisted-in-dallas-on-eve-of-constitution-day/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/dallas-school-district-weighing-renaming-schools-named-after-franklin-jefferson-and-madison/ar-AAs5GPt Where is this going to lead us? The SPLC is claiming that there will be violence if statues to the Confederacy are not removed. So there it is, take down any statues or names they don't like or there will be bloodshed. How nice.