-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Because the fact a Kraut has such strong feelings about an American President from the 1860s is kinda surprising.
I have strong feelings about Lincoln?
Very few of the slaves lived in Appalacia. Given the number of whites who didn't support secession and the number of slaves it's pretty clear that a majority of the South wasn't a fan of the cause.
Well, he was terrible. A tyrant responsible for the death of many a good man.
Well yes but I really wont compare them, not even remotely.Just like our dear little moustache man.
Not their deeds, but the interest in their "fascinating story and personality".
For those of us who are decadent Europeans seeking an insight into the Confederacy and its day to day running, I would highly recommend Colonel Arthur Fremantle's account 'Three Months in the Southern States' (From April up to the Battle of Gettysburg in July)
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/fremantle/fremantle.html
Be forewarned, Fremantle is quite sympathetic to the South although quite opposed to slavery (allegedly). I find it a quite amusing account though, at one point the Colonel and several sons of the South are crossing the river in a boat piloted by a slave, and to spur the poor fellow on, talk to each other at length about how expensive he must be and how they would all like to own him :blink:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/fremantle/fremantle.html
Be forewarned, Fremantle is quite sympathetic to the South although quite opposed to slavery (allegedly). I find it a quite amusing account though, at one point the Colonel and several sons of the South are crossing the river in a boat piloted by a slave, and to spur the poor fellow on, talk to each other at length about how expensive he must be and how they would all like to own him :blink:
The bolded part.
I remember reading in several sources about underlying issues since the 1840s about some interest groups in northern states trying to prevent the south from industrialising and consequently potential competition
and that the potential of forced abolition of slavery would have further undermined that task and was just the icing of the cake, though the main issue at the time.
Sadly i forgot the details, as i interpreted it differently at the time.
Now i remember that i came to the conclusion that this might have been the case somewhat, but that this was overblown in the literature and simply some way of revisionist history.
Are there any reliable sources and if so is and was that overblown to distract from the slavery issue or was there indeed rather a struggle between economical spheres/interests beforehand ?
I know there were a million threads about it, but please update the hun.
KEN BURNS mad a fantastic series. But, it was overly sympathetic to the southern cause, which had no redeeming features. Great series though.
Lincoln deserves all the praise he receives and more. He was one of three true geniuses who've occupied the White House, and was perhaps the greatest leader any democratic society has ever had.
no. the Southern "cause" was horrible. There was nothing redeeming to it at all. It was designed to enrich the 8,000 families who owned 90% of the slaves and ruin everyone else. it was awful, evil, and inexcusable.
umm... the same mechanism by which Washington declared the war in the first place. long constitutional argument, but secession without the accession of the Congress is unconstitutional.
There are so many different issues that you can find a source that says just about anything. I'll admit to my bias: before the Civil War, slaver owners from Missouri attempted to interfere with my state's peaceful desire to join the United States as a free state. They pillaged, killed and burned towns down. (Yes, we did get some revenge for that.) So, I don't really buy that the South was a peaceful victim of Northern aggression standing up for states' rights. They were dependent on the plantation economy, scared about what Lincoln's election would bring for the balance of power between free and slave states, and afraid that they would eventually lose their human property.
You can undoubtedly find some individual confederates who did want to industrialize and who were just fighting for states' rights, but to believe that was what the war was about is a little like believing Putin is just interested in protecting ethnic Russians from discrimation.
It's a piece of utmost hypocrisy. I wouldn't bother too much about what it says on rights of secession. The US was created by secession from another state after all.